This lady must have taken bible lessons from the current presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.

She is wholey witless about Holy Writ!

Opps, did I say lady. How about, woman of the cloth over her eyes.

"Living Document". Bulls*#%. Same weak diatribe I had to suffer through in law school; where the "constitutional law" professors would rub their chin and wax about the constitution as a living document. Niether are "living documents", but this is liberals way of wide interpretation and insertion of unconstitutional and athiest agenda into otherwise clearly settled principles and teachings.

...agrees the bible should not be used to justify same-sex marriage.

 As for this woman, her bible must not have Romans 1:27 in it...

And you see how quickly rights are being lost to reinterpretations of the Constitution.

God is unchanging.  The Bible is unchanging.  Liberals hate anything that tells them they can't do everything/everyone they want to do...

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Everytime I read one of these "Bible" articles, I always ask myself why do I participate?  It's like a game of "pull my finger".

"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."

Actually I think one of the points of the Bible is that mankind doesn't change without God.  We're still struggling with the same problems that the people in the Bible had.  Telling God we can do it by ourselves and then go and elect a bad king? Sound familiar? (And the Old Testament is way more than 2,000 years old).

"Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does." "Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists."

God defines marriage, and Jesus echoes the definition:  "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  All of the above examples are showing how human beings went against God's will. 

I don't know whether to pity this fool or be angry.  Either accept the Bible or don't - but please don't give us the "living document" crap - you've already trashed the Constitution with that garbage, now they're applying it to the Bible...

Lisa,

I hope the day finds you well.

For the record, while you and yours may use the term "living document" to attack and vivisect the U.S. Constitution, doing so to the Bible doesn't give you cover for similar attacks.

Before I go any further, let's be clear.  Those of us who are Christians, and who have even a modicum of maturity in the faith, define the Bible as "living," because God defines Scripture that way.  Hebrews 4:12 says that "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

That word "quick" is just as easily translated "living."  Hate to break it to you, but the fact that the Bible is, by its own definition, a "living document" actually cuts down your revisionist notions.

You mention instances of polygamy mentioned in the Old Testament as how the Bible supposedly defines marriage.  You opine that the singleness of both Jesus (thanks for not going all DaVinci Code on us) and Paul are undercutting the value of marriage.  And you break out the old saw of how David and his friend Jonathan were supposedly more than just friends--doing things "best left to history and our own imaginations."

Therein lies the problem.  You're letting your own imagination interfere with taking the Biblical record at face value.

Let's touch on a few things you left out.  First off: Have you ever read the Song of Solomon?  Good night, nurse!  If there's a more astounding example of the Biblical advocacy of heterosexual monogamy, someone will have to point me to it.

Then, there's the problem of documentation vs. advocacy.  You mention the extracurricular activities of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, but you never show where God endorsed their multiple relationships.  You never show where God taught that it was a good idea for a fellow to have more than one wife.   

And I know the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" thing might be old news, but you really can't get past it in suggesting that the Bible endorses sexual deviancies such as homosexuality.  We know, Lisa, that if you were a creative deity you'd have whipped up all sorts of combinations of human beings and decreed them all to be equally "good."  However, the Biblical records shows us that God had something different in mind: One man, and one woman.  No polygamy, no sexual "diversity," none.

Your article did have a few outright lies, among them this one: "...while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman."  Oops.  Quoting Jesus from Matthew 19 thusly, and like so: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Now, I know your definition of "explicit" might not be as wholesome as others', but that's pretty clear.  

And I know you ignore some of the things I've mentioned, but that doesn't mean they don't categorically invalidate the nonsense you wrote.  I could give you many more examples, but where I come from, the notion of "piling on" is considered poor form.

Do us a favor, and stop trying to excuse deviancy by using the Bible.  It simply doesn't work. 

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport.com 

I hope she likes really warm weather, cause last time I checked thats where blasphemy gets you!

vicis pro insurgo est propinquus

some very great posts in re Harmless. I was impressed. However, I do have a question that sprung up for me first thing when I read the post. Why, if you are hetero and happily married, is it so important to you to fight FOR homo marriage? Why not let them fight their own battles? I guess I don't get why you are so worried that people, not just Christians, disagree. Also, as far as wanting gay marriage to be called "marriage," not all gays even want that/or care. Look at Elton John, he doesn't think it is a big deal. I know quite a few gay people, I do business all over this country and a few more, and I do not know one single gay person who cares one way or the other, so it is obvious to me that like in Cali, it takes on a gang mentality. And, as a matter of fact, several of the gays I know were sexually molested as kids. And that's just the ones that volunteered this info to me, I didn't ask.

I just got around to reading this thread of comments. Unfortunately it is now cold.

If you want to understand how the liberals, and even conservative Supreme Court Justices, view the Constitution listen to the American Conservative University podcast Show #244 with Jaffe from Claremont. Fast forward to about 37 minutes into the show. He starts talking about the Supreme Court. It will open your eyes wide to hear what he has to say.

In another podcast called The Conservative Fun House Show #1 talks about the liberal view of morality. Basically to a liberal there is no individual morality only societal morality. Listen to the show, a summary can't do it justice.