Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[Cerebrum123]

How so? As I wrote to KingsGambit when the subject first came up, I'm quite sympathetic to Chrsitian Realism, even though Christ taught a radical pacifism, as I myself don't limit orthodoxy to Sola Scriptura or plenary inspiration or some other framework that disallows any flexibility or growth of doctrine.

When you are arguing that an explicit teaching needs to be seriously considered on one topic, and then abandoning an explicit teaching in another topic it's inconsistent. No amount of words, or "sympathy" can change that. I don't see what Sola Scriptura has to do with any of this, or plenary inspiration for that matter. The only possible argument I could see working against what is taught in the Bible is that it was corrupted later somehow. The only other option is to simply dismiss what is explicitly taught as being wrong. I know you're liberal, but do you really think that Jesus, who was God incarnate, and who taught what the Father told Him to, was wrong?

There isn't an inconsistency being applied from my end — just a different exegetical and hermenutic framework.

Yes, there is an inconsistency. Having to seriously consider one teaching because it's "explicit", and practically throwing out another that's at least equally explicit is inconsistent.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, no; we've gone a few rounds with you saying something to effect of me "rejecting scripture." That's old hat; I believe you even said something similar during the last discussion I participated in on the subject, though it may have been the time before that.

I honestly don't remember ever discussing specifics with you. But hey, at least I'm consistent. And, yes, you are rejecting scripture and calling God a liar when his Word says unequivocally that homosexuality is a sin, yet you come along and say, "No it isn't."

[Cow Poke]

Oh, no; we've gone a few rounds with you saying something to effect of me "rejecting scripture." That's old hat; I believe you even said something similar during the last discussion I participated in on the subject, though it may have been the time before that.

So why did you drag me into it when I was minding my own business? Are you just looking for a fight?

[Sam]

So why did you drag me into it when I was minding my own business? Are you just looking for a fight?

MM was responding to my response to you; felt it necessary to link back the chain of thought. No obligation, though.

[Sam]

When you are arguing that an explicit teaching needs to be seriously considered on one topic, and then abandoning an explicit teaching in another topic it's inconsistent. No amount of words, or "sympathy" can change that. I don't see what Sola Scriptura has to do with any of this, or plenary inspiration for that matter. The only possible argument I could see working against what is taught in the Bible is that it was corrupted later somehow. The only other option is to simply dismiss what is explicitly taught as being wrong. I know you're liberal, but do you really think that Jesus, who was God incarnate, and who taught what the Father told Him to, was wrong?



Yes, there is an inconsistency. Having to seriously consider one teaching because it's "explicit", and practically throwing out another that's at least equally explicit is inconsistent.

I've explained my position both topics in detail and neither time was I glib or simplistic. If you want to disagree, you'll have to go back to each topic and disagree with the arguments made and not simply imagine that they reduce to whimsy.

Complexity makes life harder but also fuller.

[Cow Poke]

Our job isn't to save people. That is God's job, through the holy spirit.

Which is why I love the summary statement "telling people about Jesus in the Power of the Holy Spirit, leaving the results to God".

[Cow Poke]

MM was responding to my response to you; felt it necessary to link back the chain of thought. No obligation, though.

bless your heart

[Cerebrum123]

I've explained my position both topics in detail and neither time was I glib or simplistic. If you want to disagree, you'll have to go back to each topic and disagree with the arguments made and not simply imagine that they reduce to whimsy.

Complexity makes life harder but also fuller.

Unless you have a brand new argument against what the Bible explicitly teaches about homosexuality, then I have no need to look at your old posts. I've seen the usual arguments, they've all been debunked. They've all been quite terrible. Oh, and no amount of "complexity" makes your statements any less inconsistent. Explaining why you reject the explicit teachings on one hand(with the usual arguments that would be without taking the text seriously), and saying we need to pay close attention to explicit teaching on something you personally approve of is inconsistent. There is no way around that fact.

[Sam]

Unless you have a brand new argument against what the Bible explicitly teaches about homosexuality, then I have no need to look at your old posts. I've seen the usual arguments, they've all been debunked. They've all been quite terrible. Oh, and no amount of "complexity" makes your statements any less inconsistent. Explaining why you reject the explicit teachings on one hand(with the usual arguments that would be without taking the text seriously), and saying we need to pay close attention to explicit teaching on something you personally approve of is inconsistent. There is no way around that fact.

If I allow that Christian realism, despite being against an explicit teaching in Scripture, is a valid position to hold then I am not being inconsistent in the least.

Your argument here demands that I either

1) argue that the only legitimate position to take on lethal violence is pacifism, based on Scripture

or

2) argue that we do not need to "seriously consider" the passages in Scripture dealing with homosexuality.

That I've argued neither of those indicates 1) that I'm not being inconsistent here and 2) you're not being careful enough in crafting other folks' arguments when restating them.

[Cerebrum123]

If I allow that Christian realism, despite being against an explicit teaching in Scripture, is a valid position to hold then I am not being inconsistent in the least.

Your argument here demands that I either

1) argue that the only legitimate position to take on lethal violence is pacifism, based on Scripture

or

2) argue that we do not need to "seriously consider" the passages in Scripture dealing with homosexuality.

That I've argued neither of those indicates 1) that I'm not being inconsistent here and 2) you're not being careful enough in crafting other folks' arguments when restating them.

Actually, unless you've got some new argument I've never heard, you have argued the latter. None of the arguments for the acceptance of "monogamous homosexual relationships" as not being sinful take the explicit teaching of the Bible seriously. Some of them try to appear as if they are, but they ultimately boil down to "they were too dumb back then, but we're "enlightened" enough to know better", or "that's not what those words mean". Usually a combination of both. They weren't dumb, in fact they were often far more intelligent than many people today, and the latter is demonstrably false. They boil down to chronological snobbery, and redefining what "is" is.
So, do you have an argument that I haven't heard before? The only other one is the idea that only cultic practices concerning homosexuality are wrong, but this again doesn't treat the texts seriously. From Genesis to Revelation "sexual immorality" is denounced, and that would be any sex outside of marriage. The state God created marriage for was for one man, and one woman to be together. This is clearly what God the Father, and Jesus state marriage is supposed to be. So, again, you pretty much have to redefine things, and ignore the context of the Bible, both historical and textual, to argue for.

So, where's this new argument of yours?

[Christianbookworm]

argue that the only legitimate position to take on lethal violence is pacifism, based on Scripture

Wait... what???? How does that follow? Where does it say that one should never kill in self defense or defense of others?

[Adrift]

The big one used to be that Paul was referring to male cultic prostitution whenever he condemned homosexuality or effeminacy. That one seems to be on the outs now as scholarly exegetical work has more or less completely refuted it. The new excuse I've been hearing lately is that the Bible's teaching on the subject can be ignored because the concept of a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship between equals was unheard of in the ancient world, and so contextually, there is no way the Bible could have been referring to what we moderns consider "homosexuality", and while there is some truth to that idea it still missing the forest for the trees.

[Jedidiah]

Way off topic here. There is a thread for this derail stuff.

[seer]

The new excuse I've been hearing lately is that the Bible's teaching on the subject can be ignored because the concept of a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship between equals was unheard of in the ancient world, and so contextually, there is no way the Bible could have been referring to what we moderns consider "homosexuality", and while there is some truth to that idea it still missing the forest for the trees.

Who says there weren't loving, monogamous homosexual relationships back then?

[Sam]

Actually, unless you've got some new argument I've never heard, you have argued the latter. None of the arguments for the acceptance of "monogamous homosexual relationships" as not being sinful take the explicit teaching of the Bible seriously. Some of them try to appear as if they are, but they ultimately boil down to "they were too dumb back then, but we're "enlightened" enough to know better", or "that's not what those words mean". Usually a combination of both. They weren't dumb, in fact they were often far more intelligent than many people today, and the latter is demonstrably false. They boil down to chronological snobbery, and redefining what "is" is.
So, do you have an argument that I haven't heard before? The only other one is the idea that only cultic practices concerning homosexuality are wrong, but this again doesn't treat the texts seriously. From Genesis to Revelation "sexual immorality" is denounced, and that would be any sex outside of marriage. The state God created marriage for was for one man, and one woman to be together. This is clearly what God the Father, and Jesus state marriage is supposed to be. So, again, you pretty much have to redefine things, and ignore the context of the Bible, both historical and textual, to argue for.

So, where's this new argument of yours?

Given the fact that I've driven ~2500 miles in the past few days, have a backlog of work, and am in no mood to go into yet another discussion on a topic that will see all arguments more complex than proof-texting disappear into the ether forever, I'm not interested in re-litigating this.

My only concern here is to show that my application of reasoning is not inconsistent, as you had alleged. You'll either have to find something technically wrong with what I wrote above or wait for another day, I'm afraid.