Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[Dave Likeness]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[Donald_Kirchner]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[readselerttoo]

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.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

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

[Felix Culpepper]

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.

[Donald_Kirchner]

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.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

"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

[Steven Tibbetts]

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?

[Coach-Rev]

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! 

[Coach-Rev]

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.

[George Erdner]

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.