From the New Testament

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Also, NAMBLA is a LGBT organization, so why does it not read LGBTP. The LGBT constantly and consistently engages NAMBLA members a keynote speakers. NAMBLA is an association of men promoting homosexual pedophile relations with men and boys.

It was shown that 95% of the Catholic priest molesters were homosexual men engaged in pedohilia in sheep skin clothing as priests.

To Susan Miller: You forgot that as a Christian you need to read God’s Word more and listen to what God says, not what man says. God never wants you to love the sin, you are to love the sin out of the man, which means not accepting it.

Staring with reading the Bible: the Bible does not give many models of marriage, it tells of many men who pursued their own desires opf marriage and sin and God leading them back to the Word and finally to Jesus Christ because they had failed to do it on their own.

God is specific on homosexuality, if you do not agree, then you must be acceptable of pedophilia, incest, and polygamy which have God’s same specifics.

If you wish to read sane thoughts, then here is one to consider. Be careful of the Lukewarm church and Christian that God speaks of in Revelations, many American will be judges as such. It is God’s law and standard that will prevail today and tomorrow and forever.

All normal heterosexual men enjoy the friendship and companionship of other heterosexual men. Whether in a bar on Friday night after work, either boisterously relaxing over a beer, or in earnest conversation or political debate, or whether with a friend over whose loss one would grieve, as did David for his friend Jonathon, they enjoy each others’ company. This is not to suggest that they would enjoy partaking in sexual perversion with each other; the ninety-six-plus percent of the male population who are straight decidedly would not. The other three-odd (operative word?) percent cannot be allowed to pervert friendship into some sexual interest.

Neither can Ms. Miller. It is nothing short of despicable for a person to make such an attempt to pervert the bible for such a base end. Biblical law, and Canonical law form the bedrock of credibility for our system of law and justice, for our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. To attack it in such a perverse manner, therefore, is to attack the fundamental concepts on which our country is based.

She should know better. So should Newsweek.

Comment by Charles Petitt — December 9, 2008 #

GOD BLESS.

I wish she had not written it as an opinion piece, but kept a report’s view. That said, all the citation of particular passages regarding homosexuality says little in response to Jesus’ habit of hanging out with the outsiders, those the pious rejected.

Also, exegesis probably wasn’t covered in journalism school, but I thought it was helpful for her to point out that there are many models of marriage in Scripture (polygamy, levirate, concubines, handmaids, etc) that most of us would not choose to emulate. I’m really glad I’m not in Sarai’s sandals when Pharaoh was in the neighborhood.

I think everyone knows that we do not all agree on how to interpret Scripture, but if I am to love God and you as I love myself — I am going to need to talk less, listen more, learn to love you, even if I disagree with you, and even if you think I’m going to hell. Whew! Following Jesus takes patience and courage and a whole lot of God’s grace.

Lisa Miller Should Know Better
Charles Petitt

Charles Petitt is a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He has taught from scripture extensively, and recently completed a cycle in the tenets of the 33 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

In the December 15 issue of Newsweek magazine, its editors allow one Lisa Miller, abetted by Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood, to publish an abhorrent and totally indefensible article on sexual perversion, and to hold it up as justifiable. Its basis is false, its content patently lies, as I shall demonstrate below. It can hardly be held up as “Opinion,” because of its falsity. It can hardly be held up as “Journalism,” because of its complete lack of honesty. Certainly, it constitutes a basis for an agenda, which is precisely what it is. Herewith, I present an honest analysis of her basis, quoting her directly.

“First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”

NOTE: If the sayings of Jesus are part of the Bible, why does the author try to separate them? Is there an agenda here? I believe there is, and it is ultra-transparent. The author is attempting to separate Jesus from the Word of God, and therefore from God. Jesus is a part of the Godhead, the mystical, triune, three-in-one God! (nee John 1:1-5; John 8:58)

Analysis: Patently and absolutely FALSE, on its face. The Bible explicitly defines marriage as an inviolate covenant between one man and one woman:

Genesis 2:23-24: 23The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she (singular, female) shall be called woman,
for she was taken out of man (singular, male).”

24For this reason a man (singular, male) will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife (singular, female – to assume otherwise is to turn vv. 23 on its ear!), and they will become one flesh.

Nowhere in all of the bible is it recorded that a sanctified marriage took place between two men or two women. Polagamy was introduced when Lamech, the great-great-great-great grandson of Cain (who slew his brother Abel in a jealous rage over God’s acceptance of the latter’s offering, but not that of Cain), who, with Cain, was accursed of God, married more than one woman. Solomon, likewise married many women, however, the bible explicitly describes (1Kings 11, 1-6) God’s displeasure with this. Further, most of these were to foreign women, which was explicitly forbidden by God to the Israelites. When these women led Solomon astray, and into the sanctification of their gods, God became angry with Solomon, and took Israel away from him and his descendants, leaving them only the tribe of Judah (1Kings 11, 12-13).

Matthew 19, 5-6: 5“and [Jesus is already speaking here] said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

The singularliness and specific sexualities drawn here by Jesus are absolute. There is nothing in Hebrew or Aramaic that allows for reference to a man or a woman, specifically named as such, which would blur their sexuality.

Nor is there anything in this text that allows for plurality of spouse. As to whether the Patriarchs were ‘guilty’ of polygamy, custom of the Patriarchs, as a dictate from God, was that a barren wife was required to give her servant girl to her husband, to bear him sons. And while polygamy was indeed practiced among the Israelites, the cited texts make it quite clear that this was not the original divine intent.

Proverbs 2:17:

17 . . . who has left the partner of her youth
and ignored the covenant she made before God . . .

The subject of Proverbs Chapter 2 is the Moral Benefits of Wisdom. The covenant to which the author refers is the covenant of marriage. The ‘partner of her youth’ refers to the husband the woman in question married when she was younger.
Wisdom requires the woman remain with her husband. To do otherwise is folly, save only that the marriage be invalid under the law of that day.

So much for her first allegation. Now let us look at the second:

“And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.”

Oh, really? I’m sensible, and I’m modern, and I want my marriage to look like the biblical model. I’ll make you a bet of a thousand dollars, that I can call fifty ‘sensible and modern’ people – right now – and ask whether they feel the same way, and that they will answer in the affirmative. Any takers? I didn’t think so.

Analysis: Again, this is patently and absolutely FALSE. Her second statement is ludicrous on its face. But she compounds her error by switching in midstream from the concept of marriage as defined as being between a man and a woman, to a concept defined as between ‘partners.’ This creates a slippery slope down which it is obviously her fervent desire that the reader will slide.

Probably, this will not happen.

Her final fatal error is in trying to re-define the bible as a living document:

“Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”

Living documents are alterable. For the bible, this is impossible, given that the bible is held to be, by every known biblical authority, a canonically closed document, that is to say, unalterable, and not subject to arbitrary redefinition by someone with an agenda. Even the Jews define the Old Testament – “The Law and The Prophets” – as sacred and unalterable writing. By Christian definition, and who better to define their own manifesto than the Christian, the bible is the unalterable Word of God. Thus, she sets herself up for making the final ludicrous statement in her fundamental argument:

“[In that light,] Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

In examining her article, most especially these first paragraphs, in which she sets up her failing argument, I find no substantive support for that statement, other than her own agenda, which is destroyed by the above argument.

Finally, I will address what I think is the most comical error I have seen in years, regarding biblical ‘interpretation:’

“Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.” Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.”

What Miller attempts with this text would be absolutely laughable, if it were not that she is attempting to equate friendship with sexual desire, which makes it more maniacal than laughable. David is not suggesting that marital love is inferior to that of friendship, nor do his remarks have any sexual implications. What David is doing, in context, is simply calling attention to Jonathan’s incredible self-denial, in his commitment to his friend David. We must remember that Jonathan had long recognized David as the lord’s choice to succeed his father (Saul) as King, rather than Jonathan himself. The prophet Samuel had anointed David (1 Samuel 16: 1-13) for this purpose, Jonathan had recognized this, and so served David in both soldier-ship and friendship as the Lord’s anointed.

All normal heterosexual men enjoy the friendship and companionship of other heterosexual men. Whether in a bar on Friday night after work, either boisterously relaxing over a beer, or in earnest conversation or political debate, or whether with a friend over whose loss one would grieve, as did David for his friend Jonathon, they enjoy each others’ company. This is not to suggest that they would enjoy partaking in sexual perversion with each other; the ninety-six-plus percent of the male population who are straight decidedly would not. The other three-odd (operative word?) percent cannot be allowed to pervert friendship into some sexual interest.

Neither can Ms. Miller. It is nothing short of despicable for a person to make such an attempt to pervert the bible for such a base end. Biblical law, and Canonical law form the bedrock of credibility for our system of law and justice, for our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. To attack it in such a perverse manner, therefore, is to attack the fundamental concepts on which our country is based.

She should know better. So should Newsweek.

As to my hits, I’ve received 357 today. Not bad for a hobby.

I’ll put it below this comment, though I will say your tone could use a bit more charity. Anything else, I’m fine leaving up to my readers.

All that said, please keep comments a bit shorter in the future.

Peace.

You know better, one would think. Enjoy your obviously not-very-well-participated-in blog. It will have to get along without me, I’m afraid.

Bon Chance

Charles Petitt is a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He has taught from scripture extensively, and recently completed a cycle in the tenets of the 33 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

In the December 15 issue of Newsweek magazine, its editors allow one Lisa Miller, abetted by Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood, to publish an abhorrent and totally indefensible article on sexual perversion, and to hold it up as justifiable……[deleted]…..
Her final fatal error is in trying to re-define the bible as a living document [....deleted...]

….Neither can Ms. Miller. It is nothing short of despicable for a person to make such an attempt to pervert the bible for such a base end. Biblical law, and Canonical law form the bedrock of credibility for our system of law and justice, for our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. To attack it in such a perverse manner, therefore, is to attack the fundamental concepts on which our country is based.

She should know better. So should Newsweek.