Transgender boy wins girls state wrestling title

[Recovering IFB]

I disagree. It says what it does, I just don't believe your (and the Evangelical) interpretation and hermeneutical expression about it.

I want to thank you for clearly admitting that one who chooses to follow solely the earthly teachings of Jesus is considered a heretic and an apostate to the Evangelical system. This is exactly the biggest issue I have with Evangelicalism.

You kinda' contradicted yourself here for accusing us of picking and choosing what to believe when you are doing the same. I assert that if you reject Paul, then you must reject then Gospels as  well. And the writing of Peter and John and Hebrews........there might be a good chance and argument for the OT also, they were written by men, laid down some tough laws that people like you have a hard time dealing with. (The anti-homosexual stance). So really SC, you have given up your position  to make any call wether we are right  or wrong on issues
. Christ gave the authority to the Apostles to teach whatever He commanded. Whatever Christ spoke, not every word he spoke is recorded for us, so you don't know what He taught the Apostles. We know that the implications of what Christ did for us is taught by the Apostles. Apparently if it's recorded in Scripture. It's a safe bet it wasn't the first time they taught it.

 

[Twisted]

Why all the criticisms?  This Christian, Republican mom has it all figured out.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a9551475/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/

 

[subllibrm]

Why all the criticisms?  This Christian, Republican mom has it all figured out.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a9551475/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/

Good = Evil
Evil = Good

"every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I disagree. It says what it does, I just don't believe your (and the Evangelical) interpretation and hermeneutical expression about it.

I want to thank you for clearly admitting that one who chooses to follow solely the earthly teachings of Jesus is considered a heretic and an apostate to the Evangelical system. This is exactly the biggest issue I have with Evangelicalism.

You kinda' contradicted yourself here for accusing us of picking and choosing what to believe when you are doing the same.

I have not contradicted myself. I've stated for a long time in several posts throughout several threads on this forum that WE ALL pick and choose what to believe. None of us have the "perfect" hermeneutic or view of truth.

I assert that if you reject Paul, then you must reject then Gospels as  well.

Why is that? Did Paul sit at the feet of Jesus, walk city-to-city with Him, learn directly from his earthly teaching, the very same teaching He told the disciples to propagate to the world throughout history? Or did Paul claim to have these visions and dreams of Jesus talking to him, giving him instruction to give to the churches, apart from true apostolic authority? I realize two of the Gospels were penned by those who didn't as well, but they were relaying record of the apostles. In contrast, Paul created his own theology via special visions that Jesus "forgot" to give the true apostles.

And the writing of Peter and John and Hebrews........there might be a good chance and argument for the OT also, they were written by men, laid down some tough laws that people like you have a hard time dealing with. (The anti-homosexual stance). So really SC, you have given up your position  to make any call wether we are right  or wrong on issues
.

They DID lay down some tough laws. Have you ever touched your wife while she was on her period? (Don't answer - rhetorical question.) Have you ever eaten pork or shellfish? Have you ever worn clothing made of mixed material? Point is, you also make the call. Sure you might divvy it up into "moral as opposed to cultural" laws, but unless you are a devout Jew, you have tossed out parts of the OT Law as well.

Christ gave the authority to the Apostles to teach whatever He commanded. Whatever Christ spoke, not every word he spoke is recorded for us, so you don't know what He taught the Apostles. We know that the implications of what Christ did for us is taught by the Apostles. Apparently if it's recorded in Scripture. It's a safe bet it wasn't the first time they taught it.

Again, what did Jesus teach Paul while He was on earth? You know, the same ideas He commanded to be spread to the world though those that sat under His earthly teaching?

I know it doesn't matter to you, but I don't believe Paul was always wrong. I believe he had a good mixture of truth and falsehoods (potentially with naivety), so I don't throw everything Paul taught out the window. Same with any other theologian whether it be C.S. Lewis, John Piper, Beth Moore, John Wesley, James Cone, ad nauseum.

 

[subllibrm]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

 

[LongGone]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

 

[biscuit1953]

Since the church gave up the fight for the biblical view of marriage at least a generation ago, I am not surprised that she so easily gets lost in the lies about human sexuality.

If you had a child that behaved like Kai...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said they were gay or transgender what would your response be?

If you had a child that behaved like a dog...how would you handle it?  If you had a grown child that came to you and said that they like to have sex with children or with crossdressers what would your response be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fSBUbjE20

 

[biscuit1953]

What if someone came on a Christian forum and said that they were a Christian but to hell with the scriptures (and their authority) upon which Christianity was based what would your response be?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What if someone came on a Christian forum and said that they were a Christian but to hell with the scriptures (and their authority) upon which Christianity was based what would your response be?

There is a huge difference between being a Christian and a Christ-follower/disciple.

Difference? Jesus is the authority, not a particular canon.

 

[FSSL]

Biscuit never even mentioned a canon. ONLY through Scripture does one learn about the Person and work of Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Biscuit never even mentioned a canon. ONLY through Scripture does one learn about the Person and work of Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the Apocryphal works are authoritative? I doubt you believe that. The assumption is those works aren't "Scripture". Why? It isn't deemed worthy enough to be a part of that particular canon. So yeah, Scripture and canon are one and the same.

And I do agree that learning about the person and work of Jesus is a function of Scripture/canon, but learning is informational and different than being authoritative.

 

[FSSL]

And I do agree that learning about the person and work of Jesus is a function of Scripture/canon...

Much more than just a function... It is the ONLY revelation of the Person and work of Christ..

...but learning is informational and different than being authoritative.

If Scripture is not authoritative, and only informational, then your knowledge of Christ is only informational. It could be wrong information. The nature of Scripture is that it is the "very word of God." Remember, Jesus refers to Scripture all of the time when he said, "God has said."

Can you imagine the absurdity of the disciples questioning Jesus' quotation of Scripture?

You have set up an improper dichotomy. All you know about Jesus is from the Scriptures we have. So... how do you go from "Scripture has no authority" to "Jesus is my authority?"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And I do agree that learning about the person and work of Jesus is a function of Scripture/canon...

Much more than just a function... It is the ONLY revelation of the Person and work of Christ..

It may or my not be the only revelation, but it contains the revelation that both of us believe. The difference is you believe it to be via the whole canon whereas I believe it to be through the red letters and Gospel accounts.

...but learning is informational and different than being authoritative.

If Scripture is not authoritative, and only informational, then your knowledge of Christ is only informational. It could be wrong information. The nature of Scripture is that it is the "very word of God."

Hence, the need for faith. There is no faith in absolutes, only things which can be doubted. So if Scripture is absolute and final authority, then there is no faith.

The potential for "wrong information" is the risk of faith that we both are taking.

Remember, Jesus refers to Scripture all of the time when he said, "God has said."

So what part of Paul's epistles was He quoting?

Can you imagine the absurdity of the disciples questioning Jesus' quotation of Scripture?

No absurdity at all. When He opposed the Law concerning retribution, they stood by Him and not the Law itself. There are parts of the OT He fulfilled and others He didn't.

You have set up an improper dichotomy. All you know about Jesus is from the Scriptures we have. So... how do you go from "Scripture has no authority" to "Jesus is my authority?"

I just bought a new lawnmower. I have faith in the instruction manual and believe the information to be accurate. I even filled it with the proper oil according to the instructions. But I don't view the manual as a source of absolute truth by which every person is mandated to obey. And the biggest difference is this: the manual is interpreted primarily with singular view. The Scriptures have many different interpretations (various hermeneutical approaches), so say the Scripture is authoritative, one is simply arguing your interpretation and hermeneutic is authoritative.

You do not believe in obeying every command in the Bible. You run it through one of many contextual lenses (and rightfully so). You throw out what doesn't agree with your purview. So do I. So in essence, neither of us believe it, in its canonical entirety to be authoritative for every man for all time.

 

[Recovering IFB]

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, that's why we don't also.

 

[FSSL]

It may or my not be the only revelation, but it contains the revelation that both of us believe. The difference is you believe it to be via the whole canon whereas I believe it to be through the red letters and Gospel accounts.

You do not believe any Scripture to be authoritative. Therefore, your Jesus is not trustworthy. You may have the wrong information and believing things about Him that are not true.

The rest of your post just moves to a different topic. If you cannot begin with an authoritative Scripture (the very words of God), then all of the rest of your post is moot.

So in essence, neither of us believe it, in its canonical entirety to be authoritative for every man for all time.

Speak for yourself. I believe 2 Timothy 3.16.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, that's why we don't also.

They don't accept the New Testament, so why do you?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It may or my not be the only revelation, but it contains the revelation that both of us believe. The difference is you believe it to be via the whole canon whereas I believe it to be through the red letters and Gospel accounts.

You do not believe any Scripture to be authoritative. Therefore, your Jesus is not trustworthy. You may have the wrong information and believing things about Him that are not true.

A manuscript or document need not be authoritative to be accurate. Any accurate manuscript or document does not mean it is authoritative. The ideas are not always mutually exclusive.

The rest of your post just moves to a different topic. If you cannot begin with an authoritative Scripture (the very words of God), then all of the rest of your post is moot.

It comes down to canon, then hermeneutic. There are followers of Christ who DO believe in its authority who have a totally different hermeneutic than mainstream Evangelicalism. So the issue is not the authoritarianism of Scripture, but rather interpretation. It is through hermeneutic that one comes to accept/reject biblical authority.

Your argument isn't about the Bible at all, but about how it is to be perceived. The argument is about personal opinion.

So in essence, neither of us believe it, in its canonical entirety to be authoritative for every man for all time.

Speak for yourself. I believe 2 Timothy 3.16.

Perhaps you think you do, but I thought you believed in context. Paul was NOT talking about any New Testament writings, so you "believe" that passage out of its context.

 

[FSSL]

Perhaps you think you do, but I thought you believed in context. Paul was NOT talking about any New Testament writings, so you "believe" that passage out of its context.

You reiterate a common misconception. There were a few NT books existing in his day. In fact, Paul quoted Luke and referred to his writings as Scripture (cf 1 Tim 5.18 with Lk 10.7). Paul even knew that what he wrote, himself, was Scripture ( 1 Corinthians 14:37?-38).

Paul assigned authority to his own words AND Luke's words.

When Paul says, "All Scripture," he certainly understands that Scripture includes the NT books that were already being distributed among the believers in his day.

 

[Recovering IFB]

The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, that's why we don't also.

They don't accept the New Testament, so why do you?

Becauuuuuuuse Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. This is funny because you repeatedly accuse us of picking and choosing.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Leviticus 20:13 ?If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.?