ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: peter_speckhard on August 31, 2012, 11:45:04 AM

Title: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 31, 2012, 11:45:04 AM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/california-assembly-passes-attack-on-parental-rights-bill-banning-sex-orien?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=11ac129787-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_08_30_2012&utm_medium=email

A bill has passed the California assembly that would make it crime for parents to seek treatment or for a mental health professional to offer treatment for a sexually confused child aimed at bringing the child to sexual health and normalcy. This is the next step; they no longer want toleration for the idea that homosexuality is as healthy and normal as heterosexuality, they are now, predictably, refusing to tolerate the opposing view, to the point of being willing to interfere with parents trying to raise their children with traditional morality.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on August 31, 2012, 12:03:18 PM
Government is your parent, and this new parent has all the rights.  And they will ram this agenda through every facet of life.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: cssml on August 31, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
Thank you Pastor Speckhard.  I suppose this will put these Courage chapters in direct conflict with the state of California and its newly discerned 'truth'.

  http://couragerc.net/United_States_A-L.html

California, East Palo Alto
California, Fallbrook
California, Los Angeles (Hawthorne)
California, Oakland Diocese
California, Orange County (Costa Mesa)
California, Sacramento
California, San Diego
California, San Francisco
California, San Jose
California, Santa Rosa
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on August 31, 2012, 12:18:10 PM
This might bring a little bit of hope to some on the subject.

Quote
The University of Texas at Austin announced Wednesday that a sociologist who has been excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents’ homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children is innocent of academic misconduct.


http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/30/university-vindicates-mark-regnerus/
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Paul O Malley on August 31, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
On reading the legislation that was sent to Governor Brown there does not appear to be any restraint on parents' seeking help for their children, rather the bill "only" penalizes health care providers who address sexual orientation problems in minors (those under 18).  Parents at least should be able to take their children out of state (those who have the time and money that is).

The link to the bill (SB 1172) is:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1172_bill_20120705_amended_asm_v93.pdf

I find a certain irony in the bill's tacit assumption that someone under 18 is unable to voluntarily seek treatment given that the age of consent in California is 16.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 31, 2012, 12:53:37 PM
On reading the legislation that was sent to Governor Brown there does not appear to be any restraint on parents' seeking help for their children, rather the bill "only" penalizes health care providers who address sexual orientation problems in minors (those under 18).  Parents at least should be able to take their children out of state (those who have the time and money that is).

The link to the bill (SB 1172) is:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1172_bill_20120705_amended_asm_v93.pdf

I find a certain irony in the bill's tacit assumption that someone under 18 is unable to voluntarily seek treatment given that the age of consent in California is 16.
Plus, in many states a minor can get contraception or even an abortion without parental notification or consent, which means a health care professional may kill the child of a minor, but may not help that minor overcome an actual health disorder.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Daniel Eggold on September 01, 2012, 05:00:42 PM
Not long ago, I read Peter Hitchens' (not Christopher Hitchens, but his brother), "The Rage Against God." He had a brief section addressing the question, "Is Religion Child Abuse?" He quotes Dr. Richard Dawkins: "What I really object to – and I think it’s actually abusive to children – is to take a tiny child and say 'You are a Christian child' or 'You are a Muslim child'. I think it is wicked if children are told 'You are a member of such and such a faith simply because your parents are.'"

When I first read Peter Hitchens' chapter on this question, I hoped Peter assessment was more reactionary than true--that secularists "are not just an opinion seeking a place in a plural society," but a "dogmatic tyranny in the making." It seems, however, his assessment was not far off. I wonder how long until such treatment descibed in the article above (or even religious instruction generally) becomes codified as "child abuse?"
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: RogerMartim on September 01, 2012, 10:05:16 PM
After reading this thread, I had to walk away from my computer for a good long while to collect my mind.

Now I am back and I am outing myself. I am a Gay man. Having said that though, I try to lead my life in a way that God intended me to lead. I take very seriously God's admonitions that I should live my life responsibly when it comes to a relationship with another person. In my case it would not be with a person of the opposite gender. It's just not in my bones.

At no time in my life did I say to myself that this is where I want to go. I knew that I was Gay from as far back as I can remember, maybe three or four years of age although I certainly couldn't articulate it then. By the time I was 12 or so, I definitively knew that I was Gay and I struggled with it only from the standpoint that there were so few like me. If it were a choice as some of you might be implying, why would I choose the more difficult path in my life's journey. This thing is NEVER EVER a CHOICE. It is hard-wired in us what we are.

This parental intervention in a child's sexuality is as bogus as it can be. What say you that if you had a parent who happened to be a homosexual and wanted to send you as a heterosexual for intervention to change. It would be impossible. You are wired to be straight as I am to be Gay. There is no light switch here.

Yes, homosexuality comprises only a very small majority of the general population -- anywhere from 5 to 10%. Left-handers are hard wired in their brains to be left-handers and at one time in the not so distant past, it was considered to be "not right" and many parents forced them to become right-handers.

My father was as Missouri-Synodish as it was possible with very conservative views. He died in 1993 but just before he died we were talking general stuff. The television was on and there was a news piece about Pat Robertson's newest revelation that God was punishing the Gay people because of some natural disaster. My father said, "Who does this man think he is? God?" He was telling me indirectly that he loved me no matter what I am. I never came out to my mother years after my father died. One day I was at her house having breakfast. We finished and I was getting ready to go. All of a sudden she said to me, "Roger, I know that you are Gay and I don't care. I love you anyway." This from a mother who was then 86 years old. Needless to say, I sat back down and we talked another two hours.

I was fortunate to have had the parents I had who had the wisdom and foresight to know that I couldn't be changed. To be sure, they would have wished otherwise because they both knew I was on a hard journey going through the motions of pretending to be something that I wasn't. I couldn't marry or have children unless I put on a facade which could have destroyed many lives in the process.

The Mormon church tried this tactic on their own Gay members at BYU called Evergreen. They applied electro-shock wired to genitals to change the orientation. Many suicides resulted from it. Some are still mentally messed up from this extreme and very Medieval measure. During Proposition 8 in California of which the Mormon church invested millions of dollars into it, a Gay Mormon blew his brains out in front of his parents' Ward church. Their son's suicide did not change their minds that what they did was wrong. They feel "blessed" that their son killed himself.

All I can say is that this is a very unfortunate thread to bring up. California is right in intervening parents who take measures to change something that just can't be changed. So many lives have been damaged or destroyed by messing with minds as God created them. God created you and he created me. Dare we draw lines that one is better than the other?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Daniel Eggold on September 01, 2012, 11:04:41 PM
Roger, 

Thanks for your comments. There are some  points with which I would take issue (and some with which I would whole-heartedly agree). However, many of these issues have been discussed on many other threads; so in order to keep the thread from drifting too far, I will just address one.

If you or anyone else for that matter desires to bring up his or her child believing that homosexuality is normal and God-pleasing, you should be absolutely free to do so. I am confident enough of the rightness of the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality to believe that such a child may well learn later that he has been misled. 

But it is not a morally neutral act--that is, just telling kids the ways things are--to teach a child that homosexuality is always and purely by nature,  that God gives his blessing to homosexual behavior, that marriage can be between persons of the same gender. (Note: I don't know what you would tell your children. I don't intend at all to speak for you.)

I personally think it is wrong to teach a child such thing because I believe it is false and a road to all kinds of ruin. But in a free country, you should be able to do so. In return, I would ask for the same courtesy.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 02, 2012, 12:01:44 AM
Roger, I am glad you know your parents' love and certainly agree that yours is hard story. Nevertheless, I think there many things you fail to consider when you share your story in this context. First, I in no way intend to state an opinion one way or the other as to the effectiveness of orientation therapy. I have no first hand experience with it. Certainly there is evidence that it has worked in some cases, which is by no means to suggest that homosexuality is a choice in any or every case. But the issue is that the treatment, if any, is the parents' decision, and the state is taking it away from parents. There are many parenting decisions I can say fairly definitively that are bad for children, at least as I see it, but I still think what is far worse for children is government doing the parenting. When I want a state legislator's opinion on how to raise my children, I'll be sure to ask. Until then, I expect him to recognize his own incompetence when it comes to raising my children the way I want them raised. How he wants them raised is entirely irrelevant. Secondly, even given the fact that in your case it was hard-wired from birth, it does not logically follow that all cases of homosexuality are like yours. It is a leap to assume so. Though I have never felt same-sex attraction, I know of heterosexuals who have dabbled in it or been confused about their orientiation before arriving at their heterosexual self-understanding, so it would be entirely illogical and unfair for me to assume that all heterosexuals are heterosexual the same way I am, just as it is unfair for you to assume that your experience applies to all homosexuals. Thirdly, even if it were hard-wired in every case, that doesn't make it normal, acceptable, or right. It is a fallen world. You can compare being homosexual to being left-handed (which I am) but it can just as easily be compared to having a cleft pallet or crooked teeth or agoraphobia or being near-sighted or some other trait that is indeed (or may be in many cases) inherited, hard-wired, and common enough but which we nevetheless seek to correct with various forms of therapy. Some parents may perfectly legitimately seek to help their children have normal as opposed to abnormal and ineffective procreative desires. It may or may not be possible, but that is their choice. This law is nothing more than an attempt to foist a particular understanding of gender on the populace.   
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: John_Hannah on September 02, 2012, 07:31:39 AM
I'm not a psychologist and don't have the statistics but I should think that there are varying degrees of homosexual orientation. Some may have only a slight attraction to the same sex and therefore be subject to change toward normalcy. Others may be strong enough to be unalterable. Any success with the former should not dictate "failure" for the later.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 02, 2012, 08:54:18 AM
No one is "normal". We all fall short...

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 02, 2012, 02:33:33 PM
No one is "normal". We all fall short...

Lou

There is a big difference between "normal", in this context, and falling short. We all fall short in our attempts to follow God's Law as we should. That's not to say that some of us are tempted to engage in acts of sin that involve performing acts that are only sinful if conducted in the wrong context while others are tempted to engage in acts of sins that are always sinful, regardless of the context.
 
Heterosexual activities are only sinful in the wrong context, specifically with a partner other than one's spouse. There's a huge range of contexts where heterosexual activities are wrong, such as with multiple partners, with underage partners, or with partners who are not one's spouse. But there are no contexts in which homoerotic activities are ever not acts of sin. Homoerotic activities are never, ever "normal".
 
Some people seem to like to pretend that just because they claim they are "born that way", with urges to engage in that sort of activity, that makes it normal. The same could be said for being born autistic, or with any other sort of development disorder. Perhaps we should pass laws against providing eyeglasses or orthodontics to children, because if they are nearsighted or have crooked teeth, that's "normal" because they were born that way.
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 02, 2012, 02:54:48 PM
No one is "normal". We all fall short...

Lou

There is a big difference between "normal", in this context, and falling short. We all fall short in our attempts to follow God's Law as we should. That's not to say that some of us are tempted to engage in acts of sin that involve performing acts that are only sinful if conducted in the wrong context while others are tempted to engage in acts of sins that are always sinful, regardless of the context.
 
Heterosexual activities are only sinful in the wrong context, specifically with a partner other than one's spouse. There's a huge range of contexts where heterosexual activities are wrong, such as with multiple partners, with underage partners, or with partners who are not one's spouse. But there are no contexts in which homoerotic activities are ever not acts of sin. Homoerotic activities are never, ever "normal".
 
Some people seem to like to pretend that just because they claim they are "born that way", with urges to engage in that sort of activity, that makes it normal. The same could be said for being born autistic, or with any other sort of development disorder. Perhaps we should pass laws against providing eyeglasses or orthodontics to children, because if they are nearsighted or have crooked teeth, that's "normal" because they were born that way.

"All of our works are filthy rags." (Numerous other citations possible)

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 02, 2012, 03:08:22 PM
No one is "normal". We all fall short...

Lou

There is a big difference between "normal", in this context, and falling short. We all fall short in our attempts to follow God's Law as we should. That's not to say that some of us are tempted to engage in acts of sin that involve performing acts that are only sinful if conducted in the wrong context while others are tempted to engage in acts of sins that are always sinful, regardless of the context.
 
Heterosexual activities are only sinful in the wrong context, specifically with a partner other than one's spouse. There's a huge range of contexts where heterosexual activities are wrong, such as with multiple partners, with underage partners, or with partners who are not one's spouse. But there are no contexts in which homoerotic activities are ever not acts of sin. Homoerotic activities are never, ever "normal".
 
Some people seem to like to pretend that just because they claim they are "born that way", with urges to engage in that sort of activity, that makes it normal. The same could be said for being born autistic, or with any other sort of development disorder. Perhaps we should pass laws against providing eyeglasses or orthodontics to children, because if they are nearsighted or have crooked teeth, that's "normal" because they were born that way.

"All of our works are filthy rags." (Numerous other citations possible)

Lou

Which could be interpretted as, "Go ahead and do anything you want, since all our works are 'filthy rags', we might as well just wallow in the filth and never, ever even attempt anything else". Is that what you're saying? Should we just give up and never even put forth the slightest effort to try? Should we all just become antinomians?
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 02, 2012, 03:22:33 PM
Lou, I think you're missing the point of "normal." Sure, some people have only one eye while others have two, but that doesn't mean the one is as normal as the other. The norm for human beings-- the way our Creator designed us-- is to have two eyes, not one or three. People born with one eye (or three, I guess) are no less human, no more sinful or less redeemed, but they are not normal. Medical attention would consists of trying to restore them to a two-eyed state. Attempts to make a two-eyed person into a three-eyed or one-eyed person, on the other hand, would be quackery. Similarly, human beings were designed to desire and to be able to procreate. Like anything else in a fallen world, sometimes that desire is off, wrong, perverted, messed up, misdirected, whatever you want to call it. It may or may not be repairable, but what constitutes repaired ought not be in question. By the design of humanity, to be "heterosexual" is like being two-eyed; it is the normal state of how human beings are supposed to be. Homosexuality is a perversion, abnormality, problem, again, you fill in the word. Whether or not it is possible to do anything about it, the desire to do something about it is good and right-- parents should want normal procreative lives for their children just as they want healthy eyes and lungs for their children and will seek medical help if their children are abnormal in some way.

The gay agenda includes fighting the "heteronormative" worldview that I have just outlined. To them, homosexuality is no different that red hair or some other relatively uncommon but otherwise entirely neutral state of being. The California law is to declare my view of the matter illegal (at least in the sense that I can't raise my own children according to my beliefs) and to enforce thne gay agenda with the power of the state.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 02, 2012, 05:41:06 PM
No one is "normal". We all fall short...

Lou

There is a big difference between "normal", in this context, and falling short. We all fall short in our attempts to follow God's Law as we should. That's not to say that some of us are tempted to engage in acts of sin that involve performing acts that are only sinful if conducted in the wrong context while others are tempted to engage in acts of sins that are always sinful, regardless of the context.
 
Heterosexual activities are only sinful in the wrong context, specifically with a partner other than one's spouse. There's a huge range of contexts where heterosexual activities are wrong, such as with multiple partners, with underage partners, or with partners who are not one's spouse. But there are no contexts in which homoerotic activities are ever not acts of sin. Homoerotic activities are never, ever "normal".
 
Some people seem to like to pretend that just because they claim they are "born that way", with urges to engage in that sort of activity, that makes it normal. The same could be said for being born autistic, or with any other sort of development disorder. Perhaps we should pass laws against providing eyeglasses or orthodontics to children, because if they are nearsighted or have crooked teeth, that's "normal" because they were born that way.

"All of our works are filthy rags." (Numerous other citations possible)

Lou

Which could be interpretted as, "Go ahead and do anything you want, since all our works are 'filthy rags', we might as well just wallow in the filth and never, ever even attempt anything else". Is that what you're saying? Should we just give up and never even put forth the slightest effort to try? Should we all just become antinomians?

Three questions, three answers, No, No, No...

But I am saying, "be careful, lest you succumb to the leaven of the Pharisees". We really have no idea how much anyone else wrestles against the powers of this world. For all I know, my neighbor is fighting and making more progress against his bondages than I will ever make against mine. Our call is to bear each others burdens and be there (real Presence) for our neighbor as they wrestle. Now If I have a neighbor that refuses to recognize his bondage, well he stands condemned already and that is the only word he needs from me. But let's not slam the door too quickly....

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: RogerMartim on September 02, 2012, 05:49:38 PM
I don't expect to find a friendly audience here, but I am surprised that I am considered abnormal, perverted, messed up, mis-directed, and oh yes, three-eyed. The fact of the matter is that I feel quite normal; my mother, my siblings, most all my relatives and all my friends consider me normal. I find that the Roman Catholic Church's definition of homosexuality of homosexuality being an "intrinsic disorder" almost acceptable than to the three-eye analogy.

The fact of the matter is that there are times when the state must step in parents' shoes to stop their misguided approaches to what they think are in their child's best interest but really are oftentimes only in their best interests and not the child's. The state steps in when a child of Jehovah's Witnesses' parents refuse to provide their child a necessary blood transfusion. To be sure, it might be based on ignorance, but again, homosexuality is not curable. Reparative therapy, again, is bogus and it screws a person up even further and some to take extreme measures of taking their own lives. The APA rejects all forms of it. Parents are not always the best arbiters.

Mention has been made of sexuality being on a continuum: heterosexuality on one end and homosexuality on the opposite. The see-saw is permanently moored to the ground on the heterosexual side and that's the way it is. There is along the continuum degrees of bisexuality. Some can handle it and be faihtful to their wives or husbands, but many fall off the see-saw at some point in their lives. Even reparative therapy does not work for those folks. The temptation is always there. A case in point is Senator Larry Craig from Idaho. What hell he must have put his family through! Society demanded that he conform to something that is against his nature and along the way he has hurt so many people. How much easier Senator Craig's life would have been if he could have expressed who he is without all the judgment calls before he got married and had children. And I don't mean that he should be able to go to airport bathroom stalls to do the tap dance.

I've been on this board for quite a while now more as an lurker but occasionally butting in. I don't recall much of anything, if at all, any outrage and umbrage at the sexual sins perpetrated by straight men and women: prostitution, adultery, fornication, Internet pornography, etc. Why is the homosexual singled out and put on top of the pyramid that brings out the Old Testament God at his angriest with the most offensive subset of people of all? I don't recall reading in the Gospels that Jesus ever mentioned it. He sat with the sinners and broke bread with them.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 02, 2012, 06:02:53 PM
I don't recall much of anything, if at all, any outrage and umbrage at the sexual sins perpetrated by straight men and women: prostitution, adultery, fornication, Internet pornography, etc. Why is the homosexual singled out and put on top of the pyramid that brings out the Old Testament God at his angriest with the most offensive subset of people of all? I don't recall reading in the Gospels that Jesus ever mentioned it. He sat with the sinners and broke bread with them.
Roger, I think you'll find this forum friendly as a place of discussion, though not necessarily inclined to agree with you on some things. But you can bet that the minute people who cheat on their wives or view internet pornography seek to justify that behavior as just how they were hardwired, and claim that any attempt to get them to quit viewing pornagraphy or cheating on their wives is a misguided and harmful effort to get them to deny their nature, then there will be outrage, umbrage, etc. Nothing puts homosexuality on the to of any pyramid of sins except the attempts of some to claim it isn't sin.

The goal of the three-eyed analogy was not to be insulting but to make a point. Chesterton makes almost the same point (though dealing with economic policies rather than sexual sins) in What Is Wrong With the World when he says that our problem has gone from disagreeing on how to make the sick man healthy to disagreeing on what constitutes a healthy man. Again, you offer nothing but assertion and your own experience to debunk therapy, but there are people out there who claim to be former homosexuals. Are they evil liars? Buffoons? Or do they simply have a different experience than you? Why should I, were I a parent struggling with this issue, listen to you and not them?

If you are struggling against same-sex attraction because you know such behavior to be sinful, then indeed you are no different than the single person trying to remain chaste or the married person trying to remain faithful. There is no piling on as though your sins are worse, only a denial of any assertion that your sins are not really sins. 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 02, 2012, 06:08:30 PM
But I am saying, "be careful, lest you succumb to the leaven of the Pharisees". We really have no idea how much anyone else wrestles against the powers of this world. For all I know, my neighbor is fighting and making more progress against his bondages than I will ever make against mine. Our call is to bear each others burdens and be there (real Presence) for our neighbor as they wrestle. Now If I have a neighbor that refuses to recognize his bondage, well he stands condemned already and that is the only word he needs from me. But let's not slam the door too quickly....

Lou

I'm not addressing any issue of quantifying how much or how little anyone wrestles against the powers of the world or their inner demons. Some appear to have an easier time, others appear to have a more difficult time. I'm only addressing the point (which Peter also addressed above) that there is such a thing as normal and such a thing as abnormal. It is not right to pretend that anything which is abnormal is, in fact, normal.
 
Normal is not a state that is defined by a majority vote. It was defined for us by The Creator. And, in the context of this discussion, it's not so much about inner urges as it is about what one does about them. The Apostle Paul mentioned the thorn in his flesh. I suspect we all have such thorns. It does us no good to compare thorns with each other to measure their comparative thorniness. But it also does no one any good to pretend that we can just ignore our personal thorns and pretend they don't exist.
 
We're all tempted to commit overt acts of sin. We are not all tempted to commit the same overt acts of sin. The fact that at this time in history one particular set of overt acts of sin are gaining popular support and enthusiasm doesn't change anything.
 
Being different from how God defined what is "normal" from us is not a matter of group consideration. Back in the 1970's, I was being trained to be a quality control inspector in a machine shop. It was my job to compare machined pieces of steel with measuring devices. If a cylinder was supposed to be 1.825 ± .005 inches in diameter, I measured it with a micrometer. If it was within the acceptable dimensional range, it was "normal". If it was not within that range, it was not. Whether or not I "considered" it normal or not was irrelevant and immaterial. I compared it to a standard and it either conformed or it did not.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 02, 2012, 06:11:31 PM
Lou, I think you're missing the point of "normal." Sure, some people have only one eye while others have two, but that doesn't mean the one is as normal as the other. The norm for human beings-- the way our Creator designed us-- is to have two eyes, not one or three. People born with one eye (or three, I guess) are no less human, no more sinful or less redeemed, but they are not normal. Medical attention would consists of trying to restore them to a two-eyed state. Attempts to make a two-eyed person into a three-eyed or one-eyed person, on the other hand, would be quackery. Similarly, human beings were designed to desire and to be able to procreate. Like anything else in a fallen world, sometimes that desire is off, wrong, perverted, messed up, misdirected, whatever you want to call it. It may or may not be repairable, but what constitutes repaired ought not be in question. By the design of humanity, to be "heterosexual" is like being two-eyed; it is the normal state of how human beings are supposed to be. Homosexuality is a perversion, abnormality, problem, again, you fill in the word. Whether or not it is possible to do anything about it, the desire to do something about it is good and right-- parents should want normal procreative lives for their children just as they want healthy eyes and lungs for their children and will seek medical help if their children are abnormal in some way.

The gay agenda includes fighting the "heteronormative" worldview that I have just outlined. To them, homosexuality is no different that red hair or some other relatively uncommon but otherwise entirely neutral state of being. The California law is to declare my view of the matter illegal (at least in the sense that I can't raise my own children according to my beliefs) and to enforce thne gay agenda with the power of the state.

You will get no argument from me, Peter, about the wickedness of the California law.

But I am also not quite ready to go as far as you with "normal".

Matt. 19:12--
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

These are Jesus words. Heterosexual married life may not be "normative" for all. It wasn't for my uncle, a lifelong bachelor. He was not gay, but I also have my doubts that he would have been capable of a life-long "normal" relationship. There is a set of people in my family who should never marry. I have come to the conclusion we are genetically prone to problems with Aspberger's syndrome. Abnormal? by most standards, yes. And how we, who are considered normal, interact with those who are what we consider "less functional" says quite a great deal. My uncle was teased, bullied, and functioned on the fringes. That is the way it is with those who are different, particularly among children and among swine (the four-legged kind). But children should be taught empathy and swine need to be separated. Part of the reason we must deal with the extremists on these gay issues is because we have not dealt with it well in the past. You know that. I do not need to provide examples. I believe Lutherans, better than anyone else, have the theological resources to properly deal with sinners who wrestle with these strong bondages. But we must stay true to our moorings that "we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves". Jesus frees us in His time and in His way.

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 02, 2012, 06:20:41 PM
If a cylinder was supposed to be 1.825 ± .005 inches in diameter, I measured it with a micrometer. If it was within the acceptable dimensional range, it was "normal". If it was not within that range, it was not. Whether or not I "considered" it normal or not was irrelevant and immaterial. I compared it to a standard and it either conformed or it did not.

And right here, George, you have proved my point. God's standard is perfect. No one makes it to "normal" on that standard. Whether you, Peter or I consider something more normal than not is irrelevant and immaterial as you said. What counts is the standard set by the one who sets the standard. By the standard God sets, well, I hope you get the picture.

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: RogerMartim on September 02, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
Pastor Speckhard,

I guess on some level I do appreciate the exchange of ideas on this Forum. I have learned a lot from this Board. As I have mentioned before, I do not contribute much to the discussion of many of the topics. I am a layman and some of the theological nuances of some discussions are quite beyond me. I do jump in occasionally when I consider that there are generalizations that are wrong and I need to put my two-cents in.

In this case, it is reparative therapy. I suppose I could list a hundred or so links right below this line as proof, but most minds are made up from the onset and so it would be fruitless. A person could Google "reparative therapy" and do their own homework, but I don't think that many would bother. Again, minds are made up.

I am 64 now. In reality, I am atypical of the Gay man that you might see at the Gay Pride Day parades; I have never gone to the three B's: The Baths or the Bushes or the Bathroom stalls where some Gay folks go because there are no other recourses for them to express intimacy with another person with society's judgment. I have led a quiet life, but I have had in my social circle many Gay men and women, a group that I have felt most comfortable with. There is a fourth B which is the Gay Bar. I have gone there many a Friday night for a beer and socialization.

I lived in Washington, DC for 35 years, 19 of which I spent as an administrative assistant in a Lutheran church office. Because of deteriorating hearing in which I could no longer handle the telephones, I had to go on disability. Washington is an expensive market to live in and so relocated back to Minnesota where my family lives. It was quite a culture shock for me to relocate as mindsets are quite different here than in DC. There are no Gay people here. To be sure, there are, but they lead secret lives and it is not easy to meet any of them. Thanks to all the homophobic folks who keep us under the wire.

In my early years in first coming out openly as a Gay man in my 20s, I did go to a psychiatrist to see where I stood with the whole hostile world out there. I may have even sought out a raison d'etre and if there was something that I could do to change. I don't think that I was too terribly committed to changing as I just knew from the bottom of my soul that this is what God wanted me to be. "I am wonderfully and fearfully made" as the Psalmist said and who was I to thwart God's will for my life? After six months of therapy, the psychiatrist finally told me, "What in the hell are you here for? I can't change you because you are what you are."

Not satisfied with his answer, I went to another. It was the same old, same old. And a phenomenal waste of money. No amount of reparative therapy would work on this young man. I was as hard wired as hard wired can be. It wasn't that I was stubborn or anything, it just wasn't me to be anything other than I am.

Gay liberation was at its height during the early 70s following the Stonewall Riots in NYC. It was also a time that a lot of witch hunting was going on. It was also a time when a lot of White House Folks and in Congress were caught in flagrante to sexual indiscretions. Most all were married and had families, most all repented and went for reparative therapy and six months later I'd see them at the bars again. Some had even gone on to catch AIDS and die. I knew one White House Aide personally, married, had kids, practiced unsafe sex, caught AIDS and his wife buried him.

Don't know how many kids you have, Pastor Speckhard, but if one of them might be Gay (and most likely they are not statistically), wouldn't it be best to try to steer them to lead a life as to live as responsibly as a Gay person can. I can't emphasize enough that intervention just doesn't work. It's even harder than making a left hander and right hander. It is messing with the mind and it leads to far too many tragic results.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 02, 2012, 09:26:34 PM
 Peter writes:
But you can bet that the minute people who cheat on their wives or view internet pornography seek to justify that behavior as just how they were hardwired, and claim that any attempt to get them to quit viewing pornagraphy or cheating on their wives is a misguided and harmful effort to get them to deny their nature, then there will be outrage, umbrage, etc.
I comment:
Another failed analogy.
There is no research to claim that certain people are "hard-wired" for certain things which you consider sex-related sins. And no one in the churches is trying to say the serial adulterer or the pornography addict has science to prove that he or she is o.k.

Peter writes:
Nothing puts homosexuality on the to of any pyramid of sins except the attempts of some to claim it isn't sin.
I comment:
Dead end again. Where is the outrage about the greedy, acquisitive, gonna-make-my-millions, commercialized, gimme-gimme spirit that pervades our society? It is perhaps more dangerous than any perceived sexual sin because getting rich, having things, exercising power because one is rich and has things is considered honorable and respectable and has even become the platform of one of our political parties.
No one sees anything wrong with the super-rich doing what they do, even if it has the potential of screwing the rest of the society while they get what they way.
But let two people of the same sex seek a small amount of benefit and civil recognition of their relationship and the timbers shake. I just don't get it.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 02, 2012, 10:38:38 PM
I just don't get it.
True.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 02, 2012, 11:10:14 PM
If a cylinder was supposed to be 1.825 ± .005 inches in diameter, I measured it with a micrometer. If it was within the acceptable dimensional range, it was "normal". If it was not within that range, it was not. Whether or not I "considered" it normal or not was irrelevant and immaterial. I compared it to a standard and it either conformed or it did not.

And right here, George, you have proved my point. God's standard is perfect. No one makes it to "normal" on that standard. Whether you, Peter or I consider something more normal than not is irrelevant and immaterial as you said. What counts is the standard set by the one who sets the standard. By the standard God sets, well, I hope you get the picture.

Lou

Actually, I pointed out that there was a tolerance range of "± .005 inches" that was acceptable. It didn't have to be perfect, it only had to be within the acceptable range.
 
And, that portion of my post was about the issue of it being God who sets the standards, not popular opinion. When I was measuring metal cylinders, it wasn't up to me to set standards. They were set by the engineer who designed the machine the part fit into. He wrote it down on a blueprint. My job was to compare it to the blueprint and indicate if it conformed to the standard or didn't. It wasn't a matter open to "consideration". It was clearly written down.
 
Just as God has clearly written down in the Bible what his standards are for human conduct. We do not "judge" in the Biblical sense like they did back when a judge not only determined guilt or innocence but also prescribed and carried out the punishments. We Christians should not hesitate to bear witness that if God says "Thou shalt not ...", then people who violate that statement should repent and stop doing it. It's not our place to discipline or punish someone for such a violation, but that doesn't mean to ignore it, or to pretend it doesn't exist, or worst of all, agree that it wasn't a very good law in the first place, and since God clearly didn't know what He was doing when He wrote it because all our friends and family think we're OK, we can just pretend it doesn't exist.
 
Don't know how many kids you have, Pastor Speckhard, but if one of them might be Gay (and most likely they are not statistically), wouldn't it be best to try to steer them to lead a life as to live as responsibly as a Gay person can. I can't emphasize enough that intervention just doesn't work. It's even harder than making a left hander and right hander. It is messing with the mind and it leads to far too many tragic results.

 
Your statement would be easier to agree with if you could replace "live as responsibly as a Gay person can" with some other form of besetting sin. Would you tell a kleptomaniac it's OK to give in to their urge to steal so long as they "live as responsibly as a thief can" by always taking care to not get caught?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 03, 2012, 09:12:53 AM
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 03, 2012, 09:37:13 AM
There is no research to claim that certain people are "hard-wired" for certain things which you consider sex-related sins. And no one in the churches is trying to say the serial adulterer or the pornography addict has science to prove that he or she is o.k.

Yet, the mental health field will note that compulsive sexuality may very well be an imbalance of natural brain chemicals or sex hormone levels.  Some will even claim that over time the brain rewires itself toward this kind of behavior.  See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/compulsive-sexual-behavior/DS00144/DSECTION=causes (http://See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/compulsive-sexual-behavior/DS00144/DSECTION=causes)

Perhaps it's not a completely failed analogy after all. 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 03, 2012, 10:04:48 AM
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.
Perhaps I''ve misunderstood the nature of this forum.  I thought that it was to discuss church issues and contested points of Lutheran teaching and practice.  Apparently it was supposed to be a forum for listing and deploring various kinds of sin with an eye to developing a comprehensive list of the major sins of contemporary society.

If the latter is our purpose, then a  lack of discussion of greed, exploitation and oppression is a serious defect.  Can we get a good discussion going on whether greed is good or not?  Who wants to defend greed as really OK in God's eyes?  Perhaps someone who is concerned that we have ignored greed can start a thread to discuss it.

Dan
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 03, 2012, 10:15:15 AM
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.
What on earth makes you think Christians who take the traditional Christian positions on sexual matters are silent about greed and materialism? This topic thread is about a California law that has nothing to do with those topics. One difference is that many sexual sins have actual advocates seeking to redefine sin.  Another difference is that being rich is not a sin, and when it comes to greed, it is hard to tell who is the more greedy, those with a lot of money or those who keep grubbing after it and whining that the rich don't give them some of it. Another difference is that taxing the wealthy does nothing about the spiritual sin of greed; it merely feeds the greed and resentment of another set of people. Anoter difference is that there is no single act (there are sex acts) that defines greed. Buying a yacht is not a sin the same way having sex with a prostitute is a sin. Well, I could go on and on but your little anti-Republican rant to which I previously offered a one word response was simply embarrassing to you and the less said about it the better. But if I really want to know, I will offer a rough guess that I preach ballpark three times as often against materialism and a wordly focus on possessions and social climbing as I do on anything related to sex. You wouldn't know that, of course, never having heard me preach. The threads here go back to sex again and again because the largest Lutheran church body is wholesale confused about it and this a Lutheran discussion forum.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on September 03, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
I wrote a rather long concern wondering why sexual "stuff" gets so much attention over against some other "stuff" about which scripture speaks - such as greed, egotism, etc. - and then I said "I don't get it."

Peter wrote:
True.

I comment:
Must be nice to be a moderator.
So does anyone else have anything other than a put-down word about why Christians so concerned about "sin" pounce like hungry leopards on sins related to sex, and remain silent about these others. Greed and commercialism and the encouragement to "get more," and to "get yours" is, in my not so humble opinion, a bigger threat to the faith and society than the desire of same sex couples to marry. For these are exactly the kind of sins that cause us to leave the widows and orphans without care.
What on earth makes you think Christians who take the traditional Christian positions on sexual matters are silent about greed and materialism? This topic thread is about a California law that has nothing to do with those topics. One difference is that many sexual sins have actual advocates seeking to redefine sin.  Another difference is that being rich is not a sin, and when it comes to greed, it is hard to tell who is the more greedy, those with a lot of money or those who keep grubbing after it and whining that the rich don't give them some of it. Another difference is that taxing the wealthy does nothing about the spiritual sin of greed; it merely feeds the greed and resentment of another set of people. Anoter difference is that there is no single act (there are sex acts) that defines greed. Buying a yacht is not a sin the same way having sex with a prostitute is a sin. Well, I could go on and on but your little anti-Republican rant to which I previously offered a one word response was simply embarrassing to you and the less said about it the better. But if I really want to know, I will offer a rough guess that I preach ballpark three times as often against materialism and a wordly focus on possessions and social climbing as I do on anything related to sex. You wouldn't know that, of course, never having heard me preach. The threads here go back to sex again and again because the largest Lutheran church body is wholesale confused about it and this a Lutheran discussion forum.

True.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: pterandon on September 03, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
If it were a choice as some of you might be implying, why would I choose the more difficult path in my life's journey. This thing is NEVER EVER a CHOICE. It is hard-wired in us what we are.

The 1993 version of the Catholic Catechism (the version before the neocons demanded a re-write from Rome) said, "Homosexuals do not choose their condition. For most of them it is an ordeal."   Again, this was before the neocons demanded and got a less gay-friendly re-write.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on September 03, 2012, 11:08:27 AM
If it were a choice as some of you might be implying, why would I choose the more difficult path in my life's journey. This thing is NEVER EVER a CHOICE. It is hard-wired in us what we are.

The 1993 version of the Catholic Catechism (the version before the neocons demanded a re-write from Rome) said, "Homosexuals do not choose their condition. For most of them it is an ordeal."   Again, this was before the neocons demanded and got a less gay-friendly re-write.

I did not realize that Popes John Paul and Benedict were puppets of the evil American neocons, even as far back as 1993 when liberal Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. :o
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 03, 2012, 11:10:21 AM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on September 03, 2012, 12:10:52 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.
Also, I don't understand why social activists keep pushing their agenda on churches, and when confronted with scriptural references against homosexual acts, complain that they are being singled out. It is gay activism itself which singles out the scriptural prohibition on homosexual relationships, claiming that the Scriptures somehow don't apply to the present generation. I am in a congregation now (I guess it is considered "moderate" by LCMS standards) that does NOT single out homosexual sins, nor sexual sins in general. Sin is sin, and homosexual sins are not singled out as either better or worse than others. This is really refreshing after having been an ELCA parishoner (including congregation council member and council president and VP) from its inception until 2009, and being constantly bombarded with pro-gay propaganda from the ELCA. I feel like I have escaped a spiritual war zone.

It is neither wise nor healthy to ignore Scripture, but Deaconess you ask a question that will never receive a straight answer; you will get pages and pages of circumlocution and post-millenial mush to justify the opposing point of view. But never a straight answer argued directly from Scripture. I grew up in parsonages and attended countless synodical assemblies and assorted synodical events from adolesence to middle age, and am STILL waiting to hear that straightforward argument from scripture.

Kurt
"ELCA Exile" since 11/2009
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 05, 2012, 10:11:39 PM
If the latter is our purpose, then a  lack of discussion of greed, exploitation and oppression is a serious defect.  Can we get a good discussion going on whether greed is good or not?  Who wants to defend greed as really OK in God's eyes?  Perhaps someone who is concerned that we have ignored greed can start a thread to discuss it.

Dan

As I was saying, before the upgrade kicked in, what makes certain acts of sin related to sexuality different in terms of their suitability as discussion fodder is that they are the only acts of sin for which there are well-organized, well-funded, and hard-working pressure groups striving to change society's perception of those sins. If ever a group like the ARCUS Foundation were to start throwing money at a campaign to make theft or murder acceptable actions for society, with church bodies changing their teachings to accommodate the new secular point of view, then those acts of sin will similarly become discussion fodder.
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 05, 2012, 11:03:06 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.
Also, I don't understand why social activists keep pushing their agenda on churches, and when confronted with scriptural references against homosexual acts, complain that they are being singled out. It is gay activism itself which singles out the scriptural prohibition on homosexual relationships, claiming that the Scriptures somehow don't apply to the present generation. I am in a congregation now (I guess it is considered "moderate" by LCMS standards) that does NOT single out homosexual sins, nor sexual sins in general. Sin is sin, and homosexual sins are not singled out as either better or worse than others. This is really refreshing after having been an ELCA parishoner (including congregation council member and council president and VP) from its inception until 2009, and being constantly bombarded with pro-gay propaganda from the ELCA. I feel like I have escaped a spiritual war zone.

It is neither wise nor healthy to ignore Scripture, but Deaconess you ask a question that will never receive a straight answer; you will get pages and pages of circumlocution and post-millenial mush to justify the opposing point of view. But never a straight answer argued directly from Scripture. I grew up in parsonages and attended countless synodical assemblies and assorted synodical events from adolesence to middle age, and am STILL waiting to hear that straightforward argument from scripture.

Kurt
"ELCA Exile" since 11/2009

Thank you.

Kim

"Bailed from the ELCA in March of 1996 after losing twin premature infants (that were baptized and buried by my amazing ELCA pastor) and could no longer tolerate my offerings being used to support abortion on demand for pastors on the church's health care plan.  Sad to see the other novelties my former church body now entertains."
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 01:37:37 AM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Gary Hatcher on September 06, 2012, 09:35:01 AM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
Really? Is this the best you can do?  A first year seminarian might argue like this, but not someone who has 'thousands reading his sermon notes each week.' 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: ReformedCatholic on September 06, 2012, 10:40:15 AM
Actually, I think that Brian answered the question posed by the Deaconess. Countless responses over the years in regard to this subject have offered other "insights". Yet still many of us ponder and pray.
And I suspect it would depend on which seminary the first year student attends to the answers they will receive. ;)
And I have no doubt that Brian's notes are indeed widely read.....how much ends up in Sunday's sermon may be another question. He is provoking and challenging for sure. That is why we prepare for our sermons with Prayer and study and end in prayer again.
pax
Bob+
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 06, 2012, 11:09:07 AM

Why do you ignore some of these?

We have Jesus and the New Testament.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Marshall_Hahn on September 06, 2012, 11:28:23 AM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.  And these things have been pointed out many times over the years on this forum.  But I have a return question.
I assume you ignore all of these items - along with the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.  What things do you not ignore?  And on what basis?  I have never read a coherent explanation for deciding what can be ignored and what cannot by those who use this "shellfish" argument.  It is simply presented as a "gothcha" argument.  Not to lead this whole thread down an unwanted alley, but I seriously do not understand what basis you are using if not looking at the whole of Scripture.  And if that is the basis you are using, then you already have the answer to your question above.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 06, 2012, 11:39:03 AM
What I find deplorable about this entire thread is how it has devolved, once again, into something it is not.

What I find especially deplorable was the early effort to equate "homosexuality" with "left-handedness."  Seriously??

Quote
Yes, homosexuality comprises only a very small majority of the general population -- anywhere from 5 to 10%. Left-handers are hard wired in their brains to be left-handers and at one time in the not so distant past, it was considered to be "not right" and many parents forced them to become right-handers.

Ok, I guess its my turn to "come out."  Yes, I have been a left handed man since my childhood.  And yes, the discrimination against us lefties has been horrific:  forced to use left-handed scissors that were obviously made by someone who was right handed, since they NEVER worked, and so on.

But the one fundamental difference?  The Bible nowhere mentions left handedness as a sin.  I'm appalled by the shallow attempt to link the two.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steverem on September 06, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
Left-handers unite!

(Oh, not that it has much to do with the essence of the argument, but 5-10 percent numbers referring to the homosexual population are derived from Kinsey's research, and have been roundly debunked.  His statistical sample was highly skewed, and even then, it identifies those who have had even a fleeting same-sex attraction as part of that 10 percent.  There is still much debate over what the correct number actually is, but this NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137057974/-institute-of-medicine-finds-lgbt-health-research-gaps-in-us) with a researcher sympathetic to the GBLT cause places the number at 3.8 percent.  Other impartial observers have put it between one and two percent.  Again, this needn't affect the argument for those supporting gay marriage, but it does seem to claim a constituency that doesn't actually exist.)
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
Really? Is this the best you can do?  A first year seminarian might argue like this, but not someone who has 'thousands reading his sermon notes each week.'


This is a good example of ad hominem, you attack me (the hominem) rather than anything I wrote.


Apparently my question was too difficult for you to try and answer.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 12:14:50 PM

Why do you ignore some of these?

We have Jesus and the New Testament.


Jesus said that marrying a divorced person is committing adultery.


Jesus said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.


The early church said that we should not eat meat with blood still in it.


The early church members sold all their property and gave the money to the apostles to be distributed among them -- and lying about it brought deadly consequences.


Yes, we have Jesus and the New Testament and ignore some of it, too.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 06, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Considering Left Handers:

Ted Williams was one of the greatest hitters
in major league baseball, and is in the Hall
of Fame.  He was lefthanded.

Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest pitchers
in major league baseball, and is in the Hall
of Fame.  He was lefthanded.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 12:19:53 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.  And these things have been pointed out many times over the years on this forum.  But I have a return question.
I assume you ignore all of these items - along with the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.  What things do you not ignore?  And on what basis?  I have never read a coherent explanation for deciding what can be ignored and what cannot by those who use this "shellfish" argument.  It is simply presented as a "gothcha" argument.  Not to lead this whole thread down an unwanted alley, but I seriously do not understand what basis you are using if not looking at the whole of Scripture.  And if that is the basis you are using, then you already have the answer to your question above.

If we love God and love our neighbor as ourself, we fulfill the whole law. We can ignore everything else.


That which drives us to Christ we keep.


That which declares our justification by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone we proclaim.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 06, 2012, 12:20:45 PM

Why do you ignore some of these?

We have Jesus and the New Testament.


Jesus said that marrying a divorced person is committing adultery.


Jesus said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.


The early church said that we should not eat meat with blood still in it.


The early church members sold all their property and gave the money to the apostles to be distributed among them -- and lying about it brought deadly consequences.


Yes, we have Jesus and the New Testament and ignore some of it, too.

Ditto Gary Hatcher's characterization of Rev. Stoffregen's answer. Because that is what it is- a characterization of the answer, not an argumentum ad hominem. Actually, it is a rather childish argument that one sibling might use to play off against another sibling, e.g., "[So-and-so] doesn't have to. Why do I?"

Besides that, Rev. Stoffregen's answer above is a misconversion of a particular proposition, a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 12:21:14 PM
But the one fundamental difference?  The Bible nowhere mentions left handedness as a sin.  I'm appalled by the shallow attempt to link the two.


The Bible nowhere mentions homosexuality as a sin.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 06, 2012, 12:32:55 PM
But the one fundamental difference?  The Bible nowhere mentions left handedness as a sin.  I'm appalled by the shallow attempt to link the two.


The Bible nowhere mentions homosexuality as a sin.
Rom. 1 speaks of same-sex attraction as unnnatural and a result of the fall.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: readselerttoo on September 06, 2012, 12:39:06 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.  And these things have been pointed out many times over the years on this forum.  But I have a return question.
I assume you ignore all of these items - along with the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.  What things do you not ignore?  And on what basis?  I have never read a coherent explanation for deciding what can be ignored and what cannot by those who use this "shellfish" argument.  It is simply presented as a "gothcha" argument.  Not to lead this whole thread down an unwanted alley, but I seriously do not understand what basis you are using if not looking at the whole of Scripture.  And if that is the basis you are using, then you already have the answer to your question above.

If we love God and love our neighbor as ourself, we fulfill the whole law. We can ignore everything else.


That which drives us to Christ we keep.


That which declares our justification by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone we proclaim.



I'm not sure about the highlighted phrase.  Are you saying that Christ's death which has fulfilled the law is not sufficient?  Are you saying that we do love God and our neighbor as ourselves outside of Christ's death?  I cannot ignore the fact that God's law has been fulfilled through Christ's death on the cross.  What does that say about love of God and love of neighbor?  What does that say to someone who honestly can confess that he does not love God nor loves his neighbor even on good days?  I'm afraid I do not understand what is being said here about love of God and neighbor.  A Jew might be able to say these things as highlighted above but not a Christian.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 06, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
If we didn't have Pr. Brian S, we would have to invent him.
Now, leave him alone for awhile.

He's playing Socrates which is as useful as it is irritating.
Three Athenians got irritated enough to get Socrates to kill himself.
Most citizens just got irritated, some enlightened; others (youngsters) imitated him and became co-irritators and but most, I would think, thought him a colorful nuisance to pass on the street.

He even looks a bit like Socrates- except for the guitar.

Peter (I look like The Cat in the Hat) Garrison
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Felix Culpepper on September 06, 2012, 01:11:01 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.  And these things have been pointed out many times over the years on this forum.  But I have a return question.
I assume you ignore all of these items - along with the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.  What things do you not ignore?  And on what basis?  I have never read a coherent explanation for deciding what can be ignored and what cannot by those who use this "shellfish" argument.  It is simply presented as a "gothcha" argument.  Not to lead this whole thread down an unwanted alley, but I seriously do not understand what basis you are using if not looking at the whole of Scripture.  And if that is the basis you are using, then you already have the answer to your question above.

If we love God and love our neighbor as ourself, we fulfill the whole law. We can ignore everything else.


That which drives us to Christ we keep.


That which declares our justification by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone we proclaim.



I'm not sure about the highlighted phrase.  Are you saying that Christ's death which has fulfilled the law is not sufficient?  Are you saying that we do love God and our neighbor as ourselves outside of Christ's death?  I cannot ignore the fact that God's law has been fulfilled through Christ's death on the cross.  What does that say about love of God and love of neighbor?  What does that say to someone who honestly can confess that he does not love God nor loves his neighbor even on good days?  I'm afraid I do not understand what is being said here about love of God and neighbor.  A Jew might be able to say these things as highlighted above but not a Christian.

I had the same reaction.  If we are able to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, we can fulfill the Law.  In that case we would be able to ignore everything else.  But if that is possible, then Christ is not necessary.  And one of the tests of proper preaching of the Gospel is that it necessitates Christ.  Furthermore, as Brian often reminds us, lex semper accusat.  If it was possible to love God and neighbor as ourselves, that would not be true.  The Law would no longer accuse. 

Since we cannot fulfill the Law, then we cannot "ignore everything else".  I take the phrase "ignore everything else" to mean the same thing as saying, "The Law has been silenced."  Surely Brian knows that the Law cannot be silenced by our own actions, but only by the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 06, 2012, 01:37:09 PM
If we didn't have Pr. Brian S, we would have to invent him.
Now, leave him alone for awhile.

He's playing Socrates which is as useful as it is irritating.
Three Athenians got irritated enough to get Socrates to kill himself.
Most citizens just got irritated, some enlightened; others (youngsters) imitated him and became co-irritators and but most, I would think, thought him a colorful nuisance to pass on the street.

He even looks a bit like Socrates- except for the guitar.

Peter (I look like The Cat in the Hat) Garrison

No, utilizing childish and illogical argumentation is far from the Socratic method which I experienced for three years.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 06, 2012, 01:44:43 PM

"But the truth of the matter... is pretty certainly (sic) this: that real wisdom is the property of God, and this oracle (Brian S.?) is his way of telling us that human wisdom has little or no value."-Socrates

-Plato, Apology 22E-24A

Try Epictetus then and walk on by.

Peter
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 06, 2012, 03:22:47 PM

Why do you ignore some of these?

We have Jesus and the New Testament.

Jesus said that marrying a divorced person is committing adultery.

Jesus said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.

The early church said that we should not eat meat with blood still in it.

The early church members sold all their property and gave the money to the apostles to be distributed among them -- and lying about it brought deadly consequences.

Yes, we have Jesus and the New Testament and ignore some of it, too.

Okay.  What does that have to do with:
...eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.

?

I mean, we keep having this conversation.  You say, "But you don't follow these," picking and choosing a few instructions (torah) from Leviticus.  We point to the Gospels and Acts and, without any further mention of the first set of instructions (though in a few weeks you'll bring them up under a different subject as if we've never gone there before), you come up with a whole new list. 

Are you trying to make an argument?  Or are you just free-associating lists?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 06, 2012, 03:56:42 PM

Jesus said that if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.



And there it is:  its the "righties" that are condemned in the Bible!  ;)
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 06, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
But the one fundamental difference?  The Bible nowhere mentions left handedness as a sin.  I'm appalled by the shallow attempt to link the two.


The Bible nowhere mentions homosexuality as a sin.

Just because you think that, Brian, does not make it true, no more than if I think the sky is purple makes that statement true.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 06, 2012, 04:15:32 PM
But the one fundamental difference?  The Bible nowhere mentions left handedness as a sin.  I'm appalled by the shallow attempt to link the two.


The Bible nowhere mentions homosexuality as a sin.

Just because you think that, Brian, does not make it true, no more than if I think the sky is purple makes that statement true.

That's just Stoffregen's perpetual semantic nitpicking. He simply refuses to admit that one of the things that identifies a person as a homosexual is their desire for, and engaging in, homoerotic activities. The Bible is clear that homoerotic activities are counter to God's Law, but Stoffregen and the other revisionists likes to pretend that homosexuality only refers to a certain flamboyance in dress, fabulous decorating skills, and a fondness for Broadway show tunes. Except for lesbians, where it only refers to a fondness for wearing plaid flannel shirts and sensible shoes. I realize that identifying homosexuals by referring to the non-homoerotic stereotypes gets some peoples' knickers in a twist. I use that example to mock their position that being homosexual has nothing to do with homoerotic activities.
 
I'd also include the observation that there are some homosexuals who have chosen to lead lives of chastity to the best of their ability (and support of the Holy Spirit). However, this perpetual debate is not about chaste homosexuals. It's about the ones who insist on pretending that homoerotic activity is not prohibited by God.
 
To those who wish I would stop refuting the never-ending assertion that homosexuality is not about homoerotic activity, I promise to only mention it in response to the assertions of others. If they stop asserting that lie, I will stop refuting it.
 
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Marshall_Hahn on September 06, 2012, 04:44:53 PM


If we love God and love our neighbor as ourself, we fulfill the whole law. We can ignore everything else.
That is an awfully big "if".
Quote


That which drives us to Christ we keep.
Such as the law, which says, "you shall not steal, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not covet, etc.".
Quote
That which declares our justification by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone we proclaim.
Which is proclaimed rightly by preaching the whole counsel of God, including the law which condemns.

No, I still do not understand upon what basis you decide what is to be ignored and what is not.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 07:52:21 PM
How does one ignore what Scripture says about the practice of homosexuality?  Just curious.


The same way that we ignore many other things in scriptures, like eating pork, or forcing a brother to have sex with a dead brother's wife to produce a child for his brother, or killing homosexuals and adulterers or people who break the sabbath rest, or forcing a rapist to marry his victim, or cutting off the hand of a woman if she has grabbed a man's private parts, or wearing clothes made of blended cloth, and the list goes on of biblical rules that we ignore.


Why do you ignore some of these?
I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.  And these things have been pointed out many times over the years on this forum.  But I have a return question.
I assume you ignore all of these items - along with the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.  What things do you not ignore?  And on what basis?  I have never read a coherent explanation for deciding what can be ignored and what cannot by those who use this "shellfish" argument.  It is simply presented as a "gothcha" argument.  Not to lead this whole thread down an unwanted alley, but I seriously do not understand what basis you are using if not looking at the whole of Scripture.  And if that is the basis you are using, then you already have the answer to your question above.

If we love God and love our neighbor as ourself, we fulfill the whole law. We can ignore everything else.


That which drives us to Christ we keep.


That which declares our justification by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone we proclaim.



I'm not sure about the highlighted phrase.  Are you saying that Christ's death which has fulfilled the law is not sufficient?  Are you saying that we do love God and our neighbor as ourselves outside of Christ's death?  I cannot ignore the fact that God's law has been fulfilled through Christ's death on the cross.  What does that say about love of God and love of neighbor?  What does that say to someone who honestly can confess that he does not love God nor loves his neighbor even on good days?  I'm afraid I do not understand what is being said here about love of God and neighbor.  A Jew might be able to say these things as highlighted above but not a Christian.


I suggest that you take up your argument with Paul, whom I checked before posting that. He writes in Romans 13:8-10:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.


I'll also quote Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40:

He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

It seems to me that Jesus is saying these are the only two commandments we need. They are sufficient to be used by God civilly and theologically: to keep order in the world and to convict us of sin.


Neither Jesus nor Paul nor I have said that we are able to keep these commands, but they are sufficient. All the others are fulfilled by them. All the others "hang" on them.
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 07:59:53 PM
I had the same reaction.  If we are able to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, we can fulfill the Law.
 


Yup, and the answer is, we are not able to love God and our neighbor as ourself; but that doesn't change what Jesus and Paul said about these commands. All the others are fulfilled in them. All the others hang on them. They should be sufficient for our life together (the civil use) and for exposing our sin (the theological use).
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
I use that example to mock their position that being homosexual has nothing to do with homoerotic activities.


There are ELCA pastors who identify themselves as "homosexual," who agree with and live by the old Vision and Expectations. They are self-identified as "homosexual" and they engage in no homoerotic activities. They are living proof that being homosexual does not necessarily means engaging in homoerotic activities.



The converse is also true, there are people, often in prison who engage in homoerotic activities who do not identify themselves as homosexuals. Once out of the male-only world, they resume sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 08:08:39 PM
Are you trying to make an argument?  Or are you just free-associating lists?


I am stating that we ignore some commands in the Old and New Testament. Do you disagree with that?


The point being, if one wants to say that we ignore the prohibitions about homosexual behavior, it's just one of many commands that we ignore.


Often we offer reasons why we ignore them, like Mark's declaration that Jesus declared all foods clean so we can ignore God's laws about food regulations. Although that gets more tricky since the Apostolic council kept some of the food regulations for Christians. We spiritualize or make it a metaphor so we ignore the literal command about cutting off a sinful hand. We consider Paul's commands about hair length and head coverings to be specific to the culture and situation at Corinth so it doesn't really apply to life for us today.


We could say that Jesus did away with capital punishment when he stopped the crowd from stoning the adulteress; but there are Christians who still support killing certain criminals.


Do you agree with my statement that we ignore some commands in the Old and New Testaments?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 08:18:05 PM
No, I still do not understand upon what basis you decide what is to be ignored and what is not.

Why don't you tell me why you ignore some of the commands in the Old and New Testaments?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 06, 2012, 08:23:39 PM
What the 10 Commandments do is to discribe what loving God and loving the neighbor as oneself looks like.  I have to agree with one of Robert Heinlein's epigrams, "Man is not a rational creature but a rationalizing one."  In the middle of the last century Joseph Fletch wrote the influencial book, Situation Ehtics based on the idea that love is the fullfilling of the law and so as long as what is done is loving, it is right even if it violates the law as handed down.  As one cab driver is quoted as saying - sometimes you have to break the rules and do what it right.
 
I still remember one example Fletcher gave in the book.  He suggested that sometimes a psychotherapist should sleep (have sexual intercourse) with a client who has self esteem issues to demonstrate to her that she is desirable.  Would you agree that is at times a good idea?
 
We should be very careful when we invoke love as the fulfilling of the law as a reason to disregard the other legal pronouncements - it is so easy to rationalize what we (selfishly) want as the loving thing in the situation.
 
Dan
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 06, 2012, 08:26:18 PM
it is so easy to rationalize what we (selfishly) want as the loving thing in the situation.


If it is what we selfishly want, then it is not love. Love centers on what benefits the other person even if it is not what I selfishly desire.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Felix Culpepper on September 06, 2012, 08:38:18 PM
I had the same reaction.  If we are able to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, we can fulfill the Law.
 


Yup, and the answer is, we are not able to love God and our neighbor as ourself; but that doesn't change what Jesus and Paul said about these commands. All the others are fulfilled in them. All the others hang on them. They should be sufficient for our life together (the civil use) and for exposing our sin (the theological use).

From this you conclude that, even though we haven't fulfilled the Law, we can go ahead and dispense with the Ten Commandments?  I think you are wrong.  When and if you are able to love God and neighbor as yourself fully and completely, then you may dispense with the Ten Commandments, but not until then.  Until then, you need the Ten Commandments to remind you that when you serve other gods, fail to praise, thank and call upon God, harm your neighbor, commit adultery, lie, steal or envy the happiness of others that you have not loved. 

Or you perhaps you think that the Old Adam/Eve is completely dead in you, that he/she will never deceive you into thinking that you are acting in faith and love, when you are not?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 06, 2012, 08:41:42 PM
it is so easy to rationalize what we (selfishly) want as the loving thing in the situation.


If it is what we selfishly want, then it is not love. Love centers on what benefits the other person even if it is not what I selfishly desire.
Very true, but if the only criteria for decision making is what I see as loving in the situation, there is little to warn us when we are rationalizing as loving what is really something else.  After all, apparently the Bible gives us little or no guidance that we are obliged to follow.
 
If we love God and love our neighbor as ourself, we fulfill the whole law. We can ignore everything else.


That which drives us to Christ we keep.


That which declares our justification by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone we proclaim.

 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 06, 2012, 10:00:31 PM
No, I still do not understand upon what basis you decide what is to be ignored and what is not.

Why don't you tell me why you ignore some of the commands in the Old and New Testaments?
It's not like people haven't tried to explain it to you.  It's sort of like your argument that a relationship makes homosexual relations okay, except it has an actual scriptural foundation.  I'd also have more respect for your question if not for the matter that you yourself also "ignore" some of these commands you are attempting to bind on others.

Sterling Spatz
(Socrates didn't argue in circles in an attempt to win every disagreement)
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 06, 2012, 10:01:19 PM
I'll also quote Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40:

He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

It seems to me that Jesus is saying these are the only two commandments we need. They are sufficient to be used by God civilly and theologically: to keep order in the world and to convict us of sin.


It seems to me that you are exegeting Matthew 22:37-40 apart from anything else the Lord Jesus says in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 06, 2012, 10:39:30 PM
Is it oversimplifying something that needs to be complicated to recognize that, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" describes a pre-Fall understanding of how things were originally meant to be, had mankind not chosen the path we did? Find a human who could perfectly keep those two commandments, and there would be no need for any others. However, the only human who could perfectly keep those two commandments is the one who reminded us of them. For the rest of us, we need God's Law written out in detail.
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: pearson on September 06, 2012, 11:34:01 PM

Is it oversimplifying something that needs to be complicated to recognize that, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" describes a pre-Fall understanding of how things were originally meant to be, had mankind not chosen the path we did? Find a human who could perfectly keep those two commandments, and there would be no need for any others. However, the only human who could perfectly keep those two commandments is the one who reminded us of them. For the rest of us, we need God's Law written out in detail.


But does having "God's Law written out in detail" really help with the problem of whether human beings can "keep" the Law?  We can't keep the two great commandments, and we can't keep the original Ten, either.  It would seem that the more specifically we itemize the requirements of the Law, the more aware we are of our inability to act in accordance with them.  Isn't that Paul's argument in Romans 7?

Tom Pearson 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 07, 2012, 12:28:12 AM

Is it oversimplifying something that needs to be complicated to recognize that, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" describes a pre-Fall understanding of how things were originally meant to be, had mankind not chosen the path we did? Find a human who could perfectly keep those two commandments, and there would be no need for any others. However, the only human who could perfectly keep those two commandments is the one who reminded us of them. For the rest of us, we need God's Law written out in detail.


But does having "God's Law written out in detail" really help with the problem of whether human beings can "keep" the Law?  We can't keep the two great commandments, and we can't keep the original Ten, either.  It would seem that the more specifically we itemize the requirements of the Law, the more aware we are of our inability to act in accordance with them.  Isn't that Paul's argument in Romans 7?

Tom Pearson

While we cannot keep the Law perfectly, if we all do our best to at least try, things will be better for us. After all, didn't God give us the Law in part because He loved us and knew that it would be for our own good if we attempted to follow it, even if only imperfectly? Sure, it also teaches us that we need forgiveness and God's Grace. But who would argue that we should ignore God's Law as if it didn't exist? Should we wallow in debauchery so that we could claim an even bigger portion of God's Grace?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Jim_Krauser on September 07, 2012, 01:12:08 AM
But the one fundamental difference?  The Bible nowhere mentions left handedness as a sin.  I'm appalled by the shallow attempt to link the two.


The Bible nowhere mentions homosexuality as a sin.

Just because you think that, Brian, does not make it true, no more than if I think the sky is purple makes that statement true.
On some days when the conditions are just right near sunset the sky is purple, or violet, or pink, or orange or red.  The sky is not empircally blue.  The sky is air with no more color than the air right in front of your face.  The blue color is an appearance of light filtered through the atmosphere based on certain conditions, when those conditions change so does its appearance.  The sky simply appears blue under most conditions.  The sky is not always and absolutely blue. 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 07, 2012, 02:51:08 AM
And people can have different interpretations of what "purple " or "blue" is.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 07, 2012, 07:35:47 AM
Oh for the love of God.  The point still stands -

I guess I should have said that the sky was brown and orange with silver and red  flecks... ::)
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 07, 2012, 07:45:24 AM
This thread has taken a turn toward the absurd. Genuinely funny. LOL

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: George Erdner on September 07, 2012, 08:42:01 AM
This thread has taken a turn toward the absurd. Genuinely funny. LOL

Lou

That's usually what happens when things descend into nit-picking.
 
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Marshall_Hahn on September 07, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
No, I still do not understand upon what basis you decide what is to be ignored and what is not.

Why don't you tell me why you ignore some of the commands in the Old and New Testaments?

I did, I have, and you can go back and see.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 07, 2012, 10:48:42 AM

I am stating that we ignore some commands in the Old and New Testament. Do you disagree with that?


Yes. 

We may disregard them, as we have been taught by the Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit.  But we don't ignore them.  You won't let us.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 07, 2012, 11:46:20 AM
No, I still do not understand upon what basis you decide what is to be ignored and what is not.

Why don't you tell me why you ignore some of the commands in the Old and New Testaments?

I did, I have, and you can go back and see.


I did. You wrote: I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.

Your "one example" doesn't explain why you might eat meat with the blood still in it, contrary to the apostles' command; or why you might have long hair or your wife have short hair and attends worship without her head covered, contrary to Paul's commands.


The revisionists use exactly the same approach as you give in your first sentence: it is the witness of the whole of scripture that leads us to conclude that PALMS are not forbidden by scriptures in spite of the few passages against same-gender sexual behaviors. Similarly, most in the Protestant Churches have concluded that because of the witness of the whole of scriptures, they do not prohibit the marriage of divorced persons in spite of the few passages where Jesus and Paul call it committing adultery.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 07, 2012, 11:47:57 AM

I am stating that we ignore some commands in the Old and New Testament. Do you disagree with that?


Yes. 

We may disregard them, as we have been taught by the Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit.  But we don't ignore them.  You won't let us.


From the dictionary for "disregard": pay no attention to; ignore
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Marshall_Hahn on September 07, 2012, 04:14:22 PM
No, I still do not understand upon what basis you decide what is to be ignored and what is not.

Why don't you tell me why you ignore some of the commands in the Old and New Testaments?

I did, I have, and you can go back and see.


I did. You wrote: I ignore these items, as Pr. Tibbetts notes, because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  In particular, there are specific teachings in the New Testament from Jesus and elsewhere "declaring all foods clean" to give one example.

Your "one example" doesn't explain why you might eat meat with the blood still in it, contrary to the apostles' command; or why you might have long hair or your wife have short hair and attends worship without her head covered, contrary to Paul's commands.


The revisionists use exactly the same approach as you give in your first sentence: it is the witness of the whole of scripture that leads us to conclude that PALMS are not forbidden by scriptures in spite of the few passages against same-gender sexual behaviors. Similarly, most in the Protestant Churches have concluded that because of the witness of the whole of scriptures, they do not prohibit the marriage of divorced persons in spite of the few passages where Jesus and Paul call it committing adultery.

So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 08, 2012, 11:51:49 PM

I am stating that we ignore some commands in the Old and New Testament. Do you disagree with that?


Yes. 

We may disregard them, as we have been taught by the Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit.  But we don't ignore them.  You won't let us.

From the dictionary for "disregard": pay no attention to; ignore

2. to treat without due regard, respect, or attentiveness; slight  (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed., rev. 1993)
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 09, 2012, 02:34:09 AM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 10, 2012, 07:34:32 AM
My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

An irrelevant idea of your manufacture which is illogically applied to the issue at hand. And now we can add the straw man fallacy to the mix. IOW, a pointless and fallacious "point."
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: pterandon on September 10, 2012, 07:47:18 AM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love. 

Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: TravisW on September 10, 2012, 02:42:40 PM
I think we can all agree that the State of California has no right to tell parents how to teach their children about the spectrum of atmospheric colors observable to the average human eye.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 10, 2012, 06:13:03 PM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.

Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 10, 2012, 09:09:58 PM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 10, 2012, 09:41:31 PM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.


I wrote "commands" not "verses". If you eat pork, you ignore the command that prohibit eating it, but you follow the verse that declares all foods clean.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 10, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.


I wrote "commands" not "verses". If you eat pork, you ignore the command that prohibit eating it, but you follow the verse that declares all foods clean.
Actually, you didn't write commands. You wrote "things" on several occasions upstream. Be that as it may (and is), commands and things and rules are all subsets of verses. I do not ignore any commands in the Scriptures.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 10, 2012, 10:26:22 PM
Part of the problem with this discussion is that we have two diametrically different approaches to Scripture.  For some, one of the fundemental purposes of exegesis is to discect Scripture to find and amplify differences in theology, emphasis, and message.  Points are scored for every contradictory statement found.  A corollary to this is that each statement of Scripture must only be taken with wooden literalism and as an absolute command, not fit together with other seeming contradictory statements to form a more complete and nuanced whole.  To do so is to "harmonize" and of all the exegetical sins there are few greater.

Thus, for example, there are two contradictory teaching about faith - Paul's which says that we are saved by faith without works, and James's which says that faith without works is dead.  Obviously, this proves that there are contradictory theologies in Scripture that cannot, must not be harmonized.  By discerning and disecting these separate parts, that task of exegesis is finished and since all of theology is basically exegesis - systematics is simply an exercise in the forbidden harmonizing - we are finished. 

The other way of doing theology is to recognize that different parts of Scripture were written at different times and with differing audiences and purposes in mind.  The examination of the particular emphases of each writer is important, but the task does not end there, any more than the job of anatomy is finished when the body is disected and laid out on the table so that all the individual organs and tissues are seen and catalogued.  The next job is that of synthesis - discerning how these disparate parts work together and function, differently but harmoniously, so that the whole body as a unit functions.

In a body, not all of the parts are active in the same way all the time.  Some function more during growth and development and less so later.  Others function most when they are needed.  Of the various commands, instructions and passages in the Bible, some were of more importance before the birth of Christ and when the nation of Israel was functioning as a theocracy.  Some of those commands have been superceeded - as other passages of Scripture affirm.  However if each passage is to be considered in a wooden literalism where each passage must be considered independantly of every other passage, then there is conflict that such black and white consideration cannot resolve the conflict or even wants to.  So the accusation is that traditionalists ignore commands the same way that revisionists do.  But what we strive to do is see how it all fits together and that means at times that some commands do not apply to all situation or are no longer in effect.  But in a world of black and white where there are no shades of grey each passage and each command must be considered independently and given equal weight.  That one might modify another cannot be considered lest in the end we cannot simply go with what we in our superior knowledge and sensibility informed by our advanced and superior society tells us it should be.
 
Dan
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Team Hesse on September 10, 2012, 11:25:39 PM
There is a fundamental difference between asking questions of scripture and questioning scripture. The first should be embraced the last should be deplored.....

Lou
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 11, 2012, 01:10:24 PM
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.


I wrote "commands" not "verses". If you eat pork, you ignore the command that prohibit eating it, but you follow the verse that declares all foods clean.
Actually, you didn't write commands. You wrote "things" on several occasions upstream. Be that as it may (and is), commands and things and rules are all subsets of verses. I do not ignore any commands in the Scriptures.


First of all, I wrote "commands" three times in the post you responded to.


Secondly, there is a command in Scriptures against eating pork (and some other foods). If you ever eat pork, you are ignoring/breaking/disregarding/nullifying that command. I'm certain that you have good and valid reasons for ignoring that command, but you are still acting contrary to that biblical command.

Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 11, 2012, 01:16:25 PM
So the accusation is that traditionalists ignore commands the same way that revisionists do.  But what we strive to do is see how it all fits together and that means at times that some commands do not apply to all situation or are no longer in effect.


So you ignore those commands that "do not apply to all situations or are no longer in effect". I've not given reasons why some commands are ignored, just that we all ignore some of the biblical commands, contrary to Peter's statement that he does not.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 11, 2012, 01:57:22 PM
Brian, you do not know what "ignore" means. I do not "ignore" any Biblical commands. I consider them all carefully. Some weren't addressed to me (e.g. "Go and wash in the Pool of Siloam,") others were fulfilled, others I have failed to keep to my shame and cause me to repent, others I insist be used (e.g. Matthew 18) in a practical way. But I do not ignore any of them.

But I should go back to my prior discipline of "ignoring" your posts.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Marshall_Hahn on September 11, 2012, 04:16:52 PM
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.
Quite right you are Pr. Speckhard.  Neither do I.  I evaluate each command in light of the whole of Scripture.  Some (against eating pork, for example) I disregard due to other passages in Scripture (such as the passage in Mark "declaring all foods clean").  Pr. Stoffregen has failed to be clear as to whether he means "ignore", "disregard", "disobey", "oppose" or what exactly he has in mind.  Thank you for pointing out this confusion.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 11, 2012, 05:52:15 PM
Brian, you do not know what "ignore" means.


This is how the online Oxford American Dictionary defines it: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

I agree that we do not refuse to take notice of any verse in the Bible; but I'm just as certain that we intentionally disregard some of the commands. We often have very good and legitimate reasons for disregarding those biblical commands, otherwise we'd all be missing hands and have eyes plucked out.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: cnehring on September 11, 2012, 05:59:26 PM
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.
Quite right you are Pr. Speckhard.  Neither do I.  I evaluate each command in light of the whole of Scripture.  Some (against eating pork, for example) I disregard due to other passages in Scripture (such as the passage in Mark "declaring all foods clean").  Pr. Stoffregen has failed to be clear as to whether he means "ignore", "disregard", "disobey", "oppose" or what exactly he has in mind.  Thank you for pointing out this confusion.

Marshall Hahn

Don't you just "love" the way revisionists and post-moderns play with language and, in regards to the Church, Scripture? We all know that Brian very well understands the Church's teaching on Christ's fulfilling of parts of the law, so they are no longer binding, but when it doesn't fit his agenda, he conviently "ignores" as if such a thing has never happened. However, whenever it fits his agenda, he will sudeenly insist on nothing else but the prevoiusly ignored concept.

Ahhhh.....post-modernism, the "active embodiment of Genesis 3:5."
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 11, 2012, 06:45:44 PM
Brian, you do not know what "ignore" means.


This is how the online Oxford American Dictionary defines it: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

I agree that we do not refuse to take notice of any verse in the Bible; but I'm just as certain that we intentionally disregard some of the commands. We often have very good and legitimate reasons for disregarding those biblical commands, otherwise we'd all be missing hands and have eyes plucked out.
But again, I do take notice of, acknowledge, and otherwise intentionally consider (as opposed to disregard) every command and every verse I come across. It isn't a matter of liberals and conservatives simply picking and choosing differently as to which verses to ignore. Fundamentally different and mutually-exclusive approaches to the Scriptures are involved, not just different preferences.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Rev Mathew Andersen on September 12, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
First of all, a couple of things about the regulations of the Old Testament.  It is true that Christ put them aside and it is for this reason, not because we do not happen to find them convenient, that we do not follow them.  But what we often forget to point out is that the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel.  We are not dealing here with a set of Laws God originally set down for all people and then about which He later changed his mind.  We are dealing with a set of Laws a great many of which, from the start, applied only to Israel.  Dietary laws, with the exception of eating blood, did not apply to devout gentiles living in Israel who were permitted, for instance, to eat animals that had died a natural death.  Interestingly enough, even though non-proselytized gentiles were exempt from many of these laws and could not eat the Passover, they could bring an offering to the tent of meeting and they were included in the communal sacrifices for unintentional sins.  So, even though they were not seen as part of the people of Israel, the means of grace and, therefore, salvation were available to them.  (It is interesting that, with the exception of a foreigner who blasphemed, the vast majority of times that God says there will be one law for both Israelites and gentiles concerns access to the worship of the tabernacle)

The Laws which DID apply to the gentiles living within Israel were the moral laws, especially as revealed in the ten commandments.  Laws against murder, adultery, theft and the worship of false Gods all applied to gentiles, devout or not, who lived in Israel.  The only two that we in the Church "ignore" today would be the keeping of the Sabbath and the eating of blood.  The Sabbath law was specifically set aside in the new Testament.  I would argue that this was done not because it was too hard or uncomfortable to keep but that, having been fulfilled, all the time from the resurrection to the second coming of Christ IS the Sabbath.  The eating of blood was, obviously, seen by the council of Jerusalem as applying to gentiles as well as Jewish believers and, frankly, I would have no problem we a bit more keeping of that today.

In any case, moving on to the specific laws of sexuality.  In Lev 18:24, which concludes the section on sexual immorality, it says "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean."  It is pretty obvious, therefore, that these particular Laws, flowing directly from the moral Law, were seen by God as applying beyond the borders and beyond the existence of Israel as a nation.

Do these moral Laws apply to Christians today since we have been released from condemnation by the Law?  Absolutely.  The council of Jerusalem also affirmed this as did Christ. The relationship, however, is now different.  We realize that in the moral Law God is not merely setting down a bunch of regulations on a whim.  He has, in this Law, described how He has created the universe to run.  As created beings and as people of faith, we desire to live in respect for God and gratitude for the universe He has created.  Therefore, we seek to keep the Law, not out of fear, but out of trust and respect.

When we choose to live in a repeated and purposeful sin we are saying "I have trust in God.  But I DON'T trust His knowledge of what is good and bad for me.  I don't trust that He cares for me.  In fact, I believe He has commanded me to stay away from something that is good for me and to do things that are not good for me.  I don't trust Him to have expressed His will correctly in His Word.  I don't really trust Him to be a forgiving God.  All I really want to trust Him for is permissiveness."  This attitude is not faith.  It is the very opposite of faith.  It is the demand that God follow our Will and bow to us.  It is the demand that God ignore sin rather than forgive it.  It is a blatant breaking of the first commandment.  True Faith is a joyful knowledge that there is no other God but one and that He is a loving God from first to last.  Purposefully living is sin is a denial of that faith and a demand that God turn a blind eye while allowing us to live in slavery to desire.  We humans are contradictory beings and it may be that one can have faith while living in its antithesis for a time.  But, in the end, feeding such an attitude will destroy faith, rip it to pieces and kill it.  Faith in the true God will be replaced by the worship of an idol of the mind who smiles and nods indulgently at our progress on the road to our own destruction.  in the end, faith WILL die.
 
Can a person live a gay 'lifestyle' and still go to Heaven?  Well, maybe.  It is also possible that a person might smoke cigarettes for their whole lives and die at a healthy old age.  It is possible a person might live after falling several stories.  It is possible that a person could survive a disastrous car accident.  But it is still stupid to take up smoking, to jump off a high balcony or to drive drunk.  It would be even more ridiculous for us to expect others to support us in such actions.  Can a Person Live a Gay "lifestyle" and Still Go to Heaven?  Maybe.  But to live in such antithesis of faith is just plain stilly, dangerous and scary.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Rev Mathew Andersen on September 12, 2012, 12:22:05 PM
As to the conservative side, however, while we have been clear and correct on the Law, we have failed miserably with the Gospel.

Until the mid 1800's no one really cared who or  what you were sexually attracted to as long as you kept sexual behavior within marriage between a man and a woman.  There is no verse in the Bible that even discusses homosexuality as "orientation."  The closest is Romans 1 but the condemnation there is that people are "given over to desire" not that the desire itself was the penalty for sin.  There is absolutely no implication or assumption in Romans 1 that a Christian would not face homosexual temptation either more or less than a non-Christian.  The dividing line is that a Christian is not abandoned by God to face that desire or temptation alone.  All other verses in the Bible about homosexual behavior focus on action alone.

Then in the mid 1800s, as the pseudo science of psychology was born, the focus shifted to feelings and desires instead of behavior.  The question was not "how should a Christian overcome temptation?" but "why are people tempted in the first place?"  A new word was born to describe this "orientation" and that word was "homosexuality."  Unlike the Biblical view which concentrated almost entirely on behavior, this word concentrate almost exclusively on the presence of desire and simply describes a person for whom, when temptation comes, it comes toward those of the same sex instead of the opposite.

In other words we have turned temptation into the sin.

Though you, as the pastor may not put all this together, the 13 and 14 year old boys in your congregation who face this temptation DO.

If, the fact he faces temptation is, in and of itself a sin then he must read

Hebrews 4:15 this way:  For I have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with my weakness, but one who has never been tempted as I am, for He was without sin.

and 1 Corinthians 10:13 as: "A temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is not faithful, for he has let you be tempted beyond your ability,  and in that temptation he has not provided the way of escape, and you are not able to endure it. "

And if "EVERY manner" in Hebrews 4 excludes homosexuals and "NO temptation has overcome you that is not common to man" excludes homosexuals then these young adolescents have to ask, "Does not 'ALL sins are forgiven'  also exclude homosexuals?"

This implication that a person can not face homosexual temptation and still be included as Christians is further emphasized when the pastor preaches about homosexuality as if it were something awful that happens outside the Church, out there in the world or when he talks about homosexuality in casual conversation or discusses it on his blog without Gospel.

The message is sent VERY clearly to these kids and their parents that a pre-requisite for forgiveness is that one must FIRST be heterosexual.

This is the real danger of reparative therapy.  The methods mentioned earlier in the thread have not really been around since the mid 80s.  The therapy itself is actually pretty healthy - simply working on healthy relationships with parents and friends.  The danger lies in the expectations of the client and his parents that he must be "fixed" before he can be forgiven.  Such therapy, however, almost never creates a complete change in sexual desire, even for those who, as a result of the therapy, can maintain a healthy and fulfilling heterosexual marriage.  So the kid is set up for failure as a child of his parents and a child of God long before the first therapy session.  He will have to live his whole life fighting against the overwhelming message that he can not really be forgiven if he does not like girls.

Again and again I speak to devout, faithful men and women who face this temptation but who, instead of being honored for the courageous manner in which they have fought the battle against homosexual desires, feel condemned by their brothers and sisters in Christ for being sent to this particular battle field at all.  While struggling to wield the Sword of the Word, they must struggle to hold onto their armor as the very ones who should be supporting them in their battle seek to snatch it away with the message "this salvation is not for you."

Don't believe me?  Hmmm, well how about 7 pages of a thread, a thread on which one reader already admitted early on that he was homosexual, and not a single word of Gospel.  Not one post about how Christ forgives rather than excuses sin, about how baptism creates a new identity as a beloved child of God, not one post about the cross or the fact that Christ's blood washes away sin and gives encouragement to stand against temptation.  Nothing about communion being a fellowship of believers who all struggle and who all find relieve in the table of the Lord.  Now multiply that by the hundreds or thousands of letters to the editor, blog posts, emailed notices from the Manhattan declaration, joint letters from denominations defending marriage, the Ruth institute, The family research council and on and on and on in which there is hardly even a word of forgiveness or grace or encouragement even to those who repentantly maintain celibacy, much less to those who fall into unwanted sin.  (Maybe the very worst example of this is the book "A Queer Thing Happened to America" in which a "Christian" author delineates the history of all the worst things about homosexual behavior and keeps saying he "loves gays" but includes less than 3 pages of anything even remotely resembling Gospel.  I wish he were alone in this.)

And somehow, in spite of all this, a 12 year old boy is supposed to hold on to faith AND successfully fight temptation that would fell a grown man?

If we are angry about this measure in California then we need to do our part by not setting kids up for failure, by acknowledging that a Christian might very well be "homosexual" in orientation, by standing with them as they acknowledge that homoserrotic behavior is always wrong, by strengthening their faith in the Gospel, by forgiving them when they fall, and by encouraging them and honoring them when they seek to obey God in this very difficult battle.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2012, 12:41:00 PM
But what we often forget to point out is that the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel.


There are the seven Noahide Commandments that the rabbis believe are binding on all humankind since they were given to Noah before God's covenant with Abraham and the commandments at Sinai. Maimonides, a 12th century rabbi and philosopher, wrote in his commentary, the Mishneh Torah, that a non-Jew who keeps these laws is a "righteous Gentile" and will have a place in heaven. The seven laws include prohibitions on idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and eating living flesh, as well as exhortations for the establishment of courts of justice.


Are the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, eating living flesh religious or moral regulations? Is the establishment of courts of justice a civil or moral regulation?
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 12, 2012, 02:36:36 PM
If you ever eat pork, you are ignoring/breaking/disregarding/nullifying that command. I'm certain that you have good and valid reasons for ignoring that command, but you are still acting contrary to that biblical command.


It's nice that you, an ordained Lutheran pastor who exegetes the weekily Gospel readings for "thousands" of pastors, are willing to acknowledge that other Lutherans have good and valid reasons for being able to eat pork.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: readselerttoo on September 12, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
But what we often forget to point out is that the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel.


There are the seven Noahide Commandments that the rabbis believe are binding on all humankind since they were given to Noah covenant with Abraham and the commandments at Sinai. Maimonides, a 12th century rabbi and philosopher, wrote in his commentary, the Mishneh Torah, that a non-Jew who keeps these laws is a "righteous Gentile" and will have a place in heaven. The seven laws include prohibitions on idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and eating living flesh, as well as exhortations for the establishment of courts of justice.


Are the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, eating living flesh religious or moral regulations? Is the establishment of courts of justice a civil or moral regulation?



But the Noahide commands were not addressed to a nation of Israel but to humanity in general.  It is silly to talk about the Israelite theocracy at this point since Abraham and his progeny had not entered the picture.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2012, 05:16:08 PM
If you ever eat pork, you are ignoring/breaking/disregarding/nullifying that command. I'm certain that you have good and valid reasons for ignoring that command, but you are still acting contrary to that biblical command.


It's nice that you, an ordained Lutheran pastor who exegetes the weekily Gospel readings for "thousands" of pastors, are willing to acknowledge that other Lutherans have good and valid reasons for being able to eat pork.


… and ignore = intentionally disregard many other commands from God's Word.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2012, 05:19:47 PM
But what we often forget to point out is that the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel.


There are the seven Noahide Commandments that the rabbis believe are binding on all humankind since they were given to Noah covenant with Abraham and the commandments at Sinai. Maimonides, a 12th century rabbi and philosopher, wrote in his commentary, the Mishneh Torah, that a non-Jew who keeps these laws is a "righteous Gentile" and will have a place in heaven. The seven laws include prohibitions on idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and eating living flesh, as well as exhortations for the establishment of courts of justice.


Are the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, eating living flesh religious or moral regulations? Is the establishment of courts of justice a civil or moral regulation?



But the Noahide commands were not addressed to a nation of Israel but to humanity in general.  It is silly to talk about the Israelite theocracy at this point since Abraham and his progeny had not entered the picture.


I think that's what I said by stating that the rabbis believe these seven commands apply to all humanity. This is in opposition to the comment stated in the first quote: "the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel."


However, the question, which I also think I raised, can be asked if any of these seven fall under "civil and religious regulations".
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: readselerttoo on September 12, 2012, 05:33:07 PM
But what we often forget to point out is that the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel.


There are the seven Noahide Commandments that the rabbis believe are binding on all humankind since they were given to Noah covenant with Abraham and the commandments at Sinai. Maimonides, a 12th century rabbi and philosopher, wrote in his commentary, the Mishneh Torah, that a non-Jew who keeps these laws is a "righteous Gentile" and will have a place in heaven. The seven laws include prohibitions on idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, and eating living flesh, as well as exhortations for the establishment of courts of justice.


Are the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, eating living flesh religious or moral regulations? Is the establishment of courts of justice a civil or moral regulation?



But the Noahide commands were not addressed to a nation of Israel but to humanity in general.  It is silly to talk about the Israelite theocracy at this point since Abraham and his progeny had not entered the picture.


I think that's what I said by stating that the rabbis believe these seven commands apply to all humanity. This is in opposition to the comment stated in the first quote: "the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel."


However, the question, which I also think I raised, can be asked if any of these seven fall under "civil and religious regulations".



My inability to be clear is apparent here.  I want to make a distinction in that I was not referring to any type of rabbinic extrapolation of Genesis 9 reference to prohibitions for general humanity.  I am confining myself to the text of Genesis 9.  I see only a prohibition to  food and to murder:  ] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
[22] While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Gen.9

[1]
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.


[2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
[4] Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
[5] For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.
[6] Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
[7] And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it."


Whatever the rabbis have constructed is not applicable to me as a Christian.  It is confined to the people of Israel.  My being granted entrance into God's promises is confined to the missionary activity of St. Paul to the Gentiles not to the Jewish mission ala James and the Jerusalem community.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 13, 2012, 02:49:15 AM
I want to make a distinction in that I was not referring to any type of rabbinic extrapolation of Genesis 9 reference to prohibitions for general humanity.  I am confining myself to the text of Genesis 9.


The rabbis come up with the seven by looking at all the commands God gives prior to the covenant with Abraham, beginning with Adam, not just what is in Genesis 9. They are named after Noah, rather than Adam, because God's first covenant with humanity occurred with Noah.


I've started meeting with a layman who is quite well versed in Hebrew (and Aramaic) and midrash. He has brought up the seven in our meetings. For my post, I looked them up in the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, which does not give biblical references for the seven commands. My friend said that the Gentiles who agreed to follow these seven laws (and circumcision is not one of them) were the "god-fearers" we have in the NT. Another source indicated that Gentiles who officially vowed to obey these laws were the "resident aliens" in the holy land.


In The Torah: A Modern Commentary, there is this statement: "Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not deny salvation to those outside of its fold, for, according to Jewish law, all non-Jews who observe the Noahide laws will participate in salvation and in the rewards of the world to come." (p. 71)



Quote

Whatever the rabbis have constructed is not applicable to me as a Christian.  It is confined to the people of Israel.  My being granted entrance into God's promises is confined to the missionary activity of St. Paul to the Gentiles not to the Jewish mission ala James and the Jerusalem community.



Except that the Noahide laws may have been the basis for the ruling by the Jerusalem Council as to what would be required of Gentile converts.
Title: Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
Post by: readselerttoo on September 13, 2012, 11:27:51 AM
I want to make a distinction in that I was not referring to any type of rabbinic extrapolation of Genesis 9 reference to prohibitions for general humanity.  I am confining myself to the text of Genesis 9.


The rabbis come up with the seven by looking at all the commands God gives prior to the covenant with Abraham, beginning with Adam, not just what is in Genesis 9. They are named after Noah, rather than Adam, because God's first covenant with humanity occurred with Noah.


I've started meeting with a layman who is quite well versed in Hebrew (and Aramaic) and midrash. He has brought up the seven in our meetings. For my post, I looked them up in the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, which does not give biblical references for the seven commands. My friend said that the Gentiles who agreed to follow these seven laws (and circumcision is not one of them) were the "god-fearers" we have in the NT. Another source indicated that Gentiles who officially vowed to obey these laws were the "resident aliens" in the holy land.


In The Torah: A Modern Commentary, there is this statement: "Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not deny salvation to those outside of its fold, for, according to Jewish law, all non-Jews who observe the Noahide laws will participate in salvation and in the rewards of the world to come." (p. 71)



Quote

Whatever the rabbis have constructed is not applicable to me as a Christian.  It is confined to the people of Israel.  My being granted entrance into God's promises is confined to the missionary activity of St. Paul to the Gentiles not to the Jewish mission ala James and the Jerusalem community.



Except that the Noahide laws may have been the basis for the ruling by the Jerusalem Council as to what would be required of Gentile converts.


To the bold above only:
The writer seems to have omitted any appeal to Romans 9-11 in which there definitely is a sense that Christianity is not confined to a "religion" per se and that the new covenant points to people who without any claim to national identity are called by God into a relationship as God called Abraham and Sarah.  Incidentally, Abraham and Sarah were called by God before circumcision and any identifying mark of national identity could be claimed by them.  The writer seems to be seeing Christianity through the specs of a specific grounded identity which is foreign to the Church's nature, it seems to me.