Stephanie Miller again

***Bolden, underlined and increased font size is mine for clarity***

Tell ya what, Salt---------------I'll call Steph if you call Oprah!!!!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

>For example, Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality, therefore it there is nothing wrong with it.

The Presbyterian "regulative principle." <G>

 

The "regulative principle" does not say "just go with what Jesus said about an issue. If He didn't speak of it, it must be OK."

There is clear biblical teaching concerning the issue of homosexuality.

peace to youraying:

 

Never heard of Stephanie Miller before this thread and know nothing about her.

 

The sad part is that I remember Miller from a show she was on in the 80s and not only was she very funny, but I remember her as being the sweet, girl next door. Now, it looks like she's taken a turn for the shrewish.

OK. Three problems with this:

1. According to 2 Tim 3, every word in scripture is Jesus speaking to us. So from the Sodom account in Genesis, to the various condemnations in Leviticus, to the condemnation and judgement of homosexuality in Romans 1, to the banning of homosexuals from inheriting the Kingdom in 1 Cor, to the reiteration of the Judgement of Sodom's homosexuality in Jude, it's ALL JESUS speaking about (and condemning homosexuality).

1a. Even if Jesus had never said a word about it, the fact remains that it is still condemned at least four times (just off the top of my head) elsewhere in scripture and no less a spiritual authority than Jesus Christ routinely quoted other passages of scripture as though He understood them to be authoritative and, in fact, they are. No one verse of scripture is any more or less authoritative, prescriptive, or instructive than any other.

1b. Even if Jesus never said a word about homosexuality and even if He had never condemned it, we still have the teaching of the complimentary roles of male and female for procreation, for marriage, of the hierarchy within a marriage, as an illustration of Christ's relationship with the Church. There is simply no way to make homosexuality normative in those contexts.

Again, two small problems with this:

1. In the New Testament, the model is ALWAYS one of Christ's followers helping the poor and of Jews being required to help the poor as a part of the law. Nowhere in the New Testament will you see any command to government to help the poor or even any description of government doing so.

2. The only time the government is instructed to feed the poor is in the context of Old Covenant Israel, which was a theocracy. And yet, every time a Christian says, "Golly, maybe it's a bad idea to kill innocent little babies in the womb" or "Do you suppose there might be some moral issues connected with homosexuality", the very first thing they do is to shout, "You Christians just want to establish a theocracy!"

Well, which is it? Do they want to follow the theocratic model or not?

See above.

No it isn't. There is not one government welfare program, either state or federal, that is designed to help people get off of welfare. Every single one of them is designed to subsidize their poverty and keep them on welfare indefinitely so that the program can receive more funding. Every program has some flaw in its design that prevents a person from taking initiative on their own to get out of poverty and off welfare.

It's only when you get down into non-profit programs, mostly faith-based, that the goal is not to make people comfortable in their poverty, but to help them get on their feet, become self-reliant, institute a Biblical view of debt, work, and investing, and eventually become a productive and contributing member of society.