Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda

[Jim_Krauser]

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. 

[Charles_Austin]

And people can have different interpretations of what "purple " or "blue" is.

[Coach-Rev]

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...

[Team Hesse]

This thread has taken a turn toward the absurd. Genuinely funny. LOL

Lou

[George Erdner]

This thread has taken a turn toward the absurd. Genuinely funny. LOL

Lou

That's usually what happens when things descend into nit-picking.
 

[Marshall_Hahn]

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

[Steven Tibbetts]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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

[Marshall_Hahn]

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

[Steven Tibbetts]

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)

[Brian Stoffregen]

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).

[Donald_Kirchner]

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."

[pterandon]

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. 

[TravisW]

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.