Twisted Scripture–Newsweek Preaches to Christians


Newsweek Sermon of the Week

In a “if you can’t beat’m join’m” approach, the would-be preachers over at Newsweek have taken the Sunday Sermon to the people in their new issue.

In a thinly veiled propaganda piece, Newsweek, the latest in a long line of same sex allies in the old media, tries to score points against marriage advocates by advocating the Bible…. sort of.   Ignoring mountains of facts decrying the myth of healthy gay marriage, they attempt to reinforce the idea that the only thing standing in the way of true love and equality is religion.

This new attack on religious Christians is a cheap appeal to the sense of goodness and fairness that Christians have for the world, and especially for those who hold different views.  Newsweek, take note:  the bible teaches tolerance, not acceptance.

Imagine the outrage if the media were to start parsing the Torah or Koran to change votes!  No, it would never happen, that’s acceptable diversity.  It’s only politically acceptable to rage from the bully pulpit at those hateful, bigoted, lousy Christians right?

Twisting scripture to fit a political agenda is nothing new, but I have to say, this is a new low for Newsweek and the mainstream media.

—Beetle Blogger

Our Mutual Joy

Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches rainbow_bibleabout love argues for the other side.”
December 15, 2008
by Lisa Miller

“….In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call “the traditional family” are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews’ precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between “one man and as many women as he could pay for.” Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument-in particular, this verse from Genesis: “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn’t God say, “Be fruitful and multiply”? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology-and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was-in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise-emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord’s lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband.” It probably goes without saying that the phrase “gay marriage” does not appear in the Bible at all.

If the bible doesn’t give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course-specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on “Homosexual Practices,” the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, “possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry).” The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as “an abomination” (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat-or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?”

….aaand that’s about all I can take of that.  Ozzie and Harriet??  Please tell me how this tedious stretch of a lecture could have made it to the front pages of Newsweek…..I can’t bear to post the whole tome here, so if you need some more speechifying…have at it!

Newsweek’s pseudo-biblical tedium drones on unaltered here:



  1. clay said,

    December 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    That has got to be the most twisted interpretation of scripture I have ever read. So basically rip all the bible pages that don’t agree with your “Lifestyle” Leave the rest to conjecture, and imagination.

    Best article lines “The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.” So….. what?, through ALL of it away, and create a new rule book with NO RULES?

    “What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.” Oh please, How about we remove the imagination statement and just leave it to history hmmm…. Does EVERY relationship, interpersonal encounter, etc… result in a sexual exchange? Is it impossible NOT to?

    I am sorry. Remove the sex from “gay Marraige” and what are you left with? Just Marraige? then what is the fight about, really?


  2. chadabshier said,

    December 8, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    These are the same old ridiculous arguments.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    December 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    These are just the same old arguments

    It’s true, but surprisingly, the mainstream media has been able to get away with reinforcing the one-sided belief that all opposition to gay marriage is religious and hate based. Kind of shocking actually since there are so many other facets of the argument. To exclude the science really does the public a disservice and relegates this pap to the propaganda junkpile.

  4. Amanda said,

    December 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    So who takes time out of their day, out of their busy publishing schedule to print junk like this? Don’t they have families, responsibilities, lives?

    They must think they’re going to get something positive out of all this negativity but I don’t see what. Are Christians so gullible as to think these people have a point beyond the one growing at the end of their noses? Good grief.

  5. Peace Brother said,

    December 8, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    It’s all about loooove…..Love not hate remember?

  6. MIMI said,

    December 8, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    The attempt is laughable if it weren’t so earnest. Have you seen the hollywood gurus out en force openly mocking Christians in that video? Prop 8 the musical?

  7. Charles H. said,

    December 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    That video was disgusting, but it’s consistent with the image they’re painting of religious people.

  8. Delirious said,

    December 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Actually, they have gone farther than just twisting scripture. Now a group of gays has written a “gay bible” called the Princess Diana Bible. They have taken out the parts that didn’t fit in with their lifestyle, and added things that would make it more politically correct, such as evolution. You can check it out here.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    December 8, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Now that is interesting. Delirious, I’ve never heard of that bible before, but once you go a certain distance, why not go all the way? What’s there left to stop you?

    “Nonetheless, I think we can see the tyranny of the political in our times. Much like the current abortion regime and the slavery jurisprudence of the antebellum era, proponents of gay marriage imagine that they can redefine inconvenient, permanent realities and remove traditional barriers to the relentless human desire to get what we want.”

    — “Personal Freedom Without Political Liberty”, R.R. Reno

  10. ruby said,

    December 8, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    she forgets to mention that Christ alway describes his relationship with his church/people as a marriage…

    and suddenly that verse:
    “…What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    it takes on a whole new meaning

    this site has an awesome awesome run down of all of the fallacies:

  11. waltzinexile said,

    December 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Am I hallucinating? When I bookmarked this earlier, I swear the post was different?

  12. beetlebabee said,

    December 8, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Waltz….I shortened the story to one long quote. It was taking up too much of my page and was redundant. The rest of the story is at the link for those who feel a need to read on.

  13. waltzinexile said,

    December 8, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Oh, I see. Okay. Thought I was imagining things.

  14. beetlebabee said,

    December 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    nah, the imagining things was back a couple of posts ago…. but, they could possibly be related. ;-)

  15. { Lisa } said,

    December 8, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    I dont even know what to say about that… wow. Jus goes to show that people will do or say anything to justify what they want to have or believe.

  16. waltzinexile said,

    December 8, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    You’ll have to explain that remark; I don’t recall imagining anything before?

  17. Chairm said,

    December 9, 2008 at 4:33 am

    The marriage issue is not about homosexuality, anyway.

    I’ve asked advocates of SSM to use their own special rules on their claims for gay union. They attack the core meaning of marriage but cannot bring themselves to apply their absolutist approach to gay union.

    * * *

    The marital presumption of paternity makes the conjugal relationship a sexual type of relationship. But that cannot apply to the one-sexed arrangement — gay or not.

    What, if anything, makes of gay union a sexual type of relationship?

    Nothing has been offered by the proponents of gay union. What they have in mind is not a sexual type of relationship even though they keep talking about gay this and gay that.

    See the following related blogposts and the discussions in the comment sections. The SSMers do not seem to be conscious of their own contraditions.

    The rebutted assumption of “gay marriage”


    Marital presumption

  18. Patrick said,

    December 10, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    The Newsweek article states: “In its entry on “Homosexual Practices,” the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, “possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry).”

    What about Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)?

    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:
    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 recompence of their error which was meet.

  19. debbie said,

    December 11, 2008 at 1:39 am

    Couldn’t even finish what you printed before I wanted to throw-up. The Bible has been revised so many times, why not go to the Jewish Torah and see what it says. As for the New Testament, It states in James, if you really want an answer, and you really think you can get one, pray.

    Maybe no one wants to know the answer.

    And when gays use Jesus as a person who was tolerant, it accepted the person, not the sin.
    Sometimes the Jesus “they” talk and write about is not even close to the person I know.

  20. Stirred to Action said,

    December 22, 2008 at 1:57 am

    The marital presumption of paternity makes the conjugal relationship a sexual type of relationship.

    If that were true then a wife would be obliged to submit to sex whenever her husband demanded it. However much you may believe that that is how it should be, the courts have repeatedly ruled that that is not the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: