Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Texas Pastor Protection Bill
Collapse
X
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
argue that the only legitimate position to take on lethal violence is pacifism, based on Scripture
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIf 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.
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostUnless 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI'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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostWhen 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostOh, 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostOh, 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostHow 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.
There isn't an inconsistency being applied from my end — just a different exegetical and hermenutic framework.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAs Cow Poke said, I just assumed you've been playing devil's advocate. I never realized that you actually reject scripture. It's not that I can't retain information. Rather, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you call yourself a Christian.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:24 AM
|
0 responses
4 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 11:24 AM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Today, 09:13 AM
|
3 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:42 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:15 AM
|
3 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 04:26 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-01-2024, 04:11 PM
|
14 responses
99 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:11 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-01-2024, 03:50 PM
|
2 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:35 AM
|
Leave a comment: