tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post8483031437118579154..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Capitulation of the Church Hastened TransgenderismKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38312996149052108912016-06-08T15:41:16.153-07:002016-06-08T15:41:16.153-07:00Very late to the party...
James Bronsveld said......Very late to the party...<br /><br />James Bronsveld said... "Why are they so angry? They never did like the argument that "even the public bathrooms distinguish between men and women by drawing one stick-person in a skirt." They should be rejoicing that as they learn to share their restrooms, they will never have to hear that argument again."<br /><br />I am sure he was not trying to be funny, but this is hilarious to me.<br />It always grated on me when New Evangelicals mocked those who have dress standards with this argument - "The only reasoning they have for their rules is the Walmart bathroom doors". <br />This always made me angry. I knew the Bible presented dress standards, both testaments, & gender differing clothing, but the N. E. would hear none of it; presuming upon me that my only argument was a bathroom door. <br /><br />Rejoice, N. E. of the world. My last (supposed) argument is laid to rest. Let me know how it works out for you.JimCamp65https://www.blogger.com/profile/08293018820976464851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90118257393351521092016-06-07T18:09:10.381-07:002016-06-07T18:09:10.381-07:00Kent, There is something important being demonstra...Kent, There is something important being demonstrated here very clearly and it baffles me why so many are missing it. That something is how central "clouding the issue" is to the supporters of modern trends. <br /><br />I'm reminded of the video you posted some months back of the wife of some SBC leader (was it Land?). The same thing is here with these anonymous posts. You established that God did draw a line on "transgenderism". That was Deuteronomy 22:5 - not restrooms. Churches ignored God's line by accepting dumb 2nd grade playground arguments and now there is no line to defend. It's simple. It's not a slippery slope. These people whine that the cultural deck is stacked against them because they aren't allowed to defend THEIR restroom line when they chose years back to ignore God's line. This position MUST go to association-manufacturing and mockery. It's all they have. (Most of value in my comment came from your post. The nonsense is all mine)<br /><br />StephenSCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499180268365476522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8466997629611083112016-06-07T11:46:55.941-07:002016-06-07T11:46:55.941-07:00Everyone,
I had three different anonymous comment...Everyone,<br /><br />I had three different anonymous comments since the two I deleted, one of which said that this post seemed like he was reading the Babylon Bee, which is a total satire site. I would admit to him that some might mock a post like this in a satirical way, but it would be a different read if it were satire.<br /><br />I decided to publish this one, the first one, to give a taste of the type of anonymous comment I'm getting. This one is less mocking than the other one.<br /><br />This is the kind of argument against though, saying that the argument I'm making, the one that is the argument through all of Christian history, is not biblical. It's not how sola scriptura works, that is, you don't apply scripture to the real world. This is a modern understanding of "not biblical," really a postmodern one. <br /><br />He really provides nothing except a claim with no proof that this is unbiblical and then associating it with the Amish and with Hyles. Mussolini got the trains to run on time.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-65328256155387276482016-06-07T09:42:08.872-07:002016-06-07T09:42:08.872-07:00Mr. KB,
I think being Amish and having no electri...Mr. KB,<br /><br />I think being Amish and having no electricity is quaint and actually sort of cool. They will be more prepared than anyone if or when an EMP strikes and takes out much of the grid. I have nothing against their style of dress or their proscriptions against electricity. Hey, if they want to do that, more power (no pun intended) to them. They are a small sect of the world culture. I have no idea what the figures are, but they have go to be well under 1% of the entire population of the world. <br /><br />I almost feel sorry for the Amish that they are stuck in those man made rules which really are nothing but cultural preferences. Similarly, I almost feel sorry for you that you see some connection between women wearing pants and the slide to transgenderism. Just like the Amish, people who believe in these obsessive rules of dress are caught up in man-made rules. Granted, you have a much wider slice of the population in that regards than the Amish do. There is you, people who subscribe to Jack Hyles's rules of conduct, and Muslims. This slice of the population is large, because of the Muslims. If a person chooses to follow Jack Hyles, you, or the Muslim or Amish faith, more power to them! I just don't see how your common dress standards have really contributed to anything positive or really makes much difference in anything. I am NOT saying that it's a negative thing either. It's more of a non-factor. What if you, Jack Hyles, Muslims and the Amish all had a further common belief of not wearing white after Labor Day? That certainly would not harm anything, but on the other hand, does it really contribute anything either? I think you are too easily bound by these man-made beliefs about dress standards. Again, we are not making fun of you for having them. If people want to subscribe to this, that's great! I just think that you, Jack Hyles, the Amish and Muslims put perhaps way too much emphasis on dress standards and ascribe too much importance to it. It's not that we think there's anything wrong with these beliefs, it's just that we don't think there's anything right with them either. We are just sad that you ascribe too much importance to these minor issues. That does not mean we are being insulting. I happen to think that your complete, naive trust in the pharmaceutical industry and your distrust of alternative health therapies is insulting, (see other threads on this blog) but that doesn't mean I dislike you as a person or write you off totally. Actually, I think your views are more naive and not even meant to be insulting, as pertains to your trust of the pharmaceutical industry. You have a lot of good things to say on your site. We just wish you would stick to the important issues and not these man-made religious rules. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-61641872220018784042016-06-06T20:26:38.936-07:002016-06-06T20:26:38.936-07:00James,
I agree.James,<br /><br />I agree.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55772141206728119832016-06-06T20:26:06.704-07:002016-06-06T20:26:06.704-07:00Anonymous commenter,
I didn't publish your co...Anonymous commenter,<br /><br />I didn't publish your comment, because I would have to deal with your very negative, insulting comment, and almost never allow anonymous people to make those comments. You've got to tell us who you are if you are going to say those types of things.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69220648139968936572016-06-06T04:12:15.303-07:002016-06-06T04:12:15.303-07:00The "Slippery slope" argument assumes th...The "Slippery slope" argument assumes that one thing is the result of another without making argument for it. I don't see that here: slippery slope is different from looking back at a path of natural progression that has unfolded before our our eyes in the last 100 years. Evangelicals and fundamentalists who have for so long despised the distinction in roles (rejecting distinction in attire and authority, rejecting distinction in roles inside and outside the home, rejecting distinction in roles in the church, etc.) are now hopping mad over the fact that the last frontier (gender-distinct restrooms) is being crossed. Why are they so angry? They never did like the argument that "even the public bathrooms distinguish between men and women by drawing one stick-person in a skirt." They should be rejoicing that as they learn to share their restrooms, they will never have to hear that argument again.<br />If churches have given up the Biblical doctrines of dress distinction, role distinction, authority distinction, on what could they Biblically stand to oppose transgender bathrooms?James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6443042444137858542016-06-02T20:08:18.283-07:002016-06-02T20:08:18.283-07:00Tyler,
I think my argument is basic, and I can th...Tyler,<br /><br />I think my argument is basic, and I can think of two scriptural prongs to it.<br /><br />One, believers are the salt and light of the world (Matt 5:13-16). Accompanying that is the restraint of the Holy Spirit through believers (2 Thess 2). I haven't seen a stand against transgenderism, except for a few churches. I hear no biblical theology.<br /><br />Two, if judgment does begin in the house of God, it's because believers are more responsible than unbelievers. Earlier in 1 Peter, so that an unbeliever might glorify God in the day of judgment. If we're not serious about God's design, why should unbelievers. This is not solely slippery slope, which sounds like some kind of logical fallacy. This is just the truth. We're responsible. If we can't get up a defense, it's no wonder we won't defend a biblical position.<br /><br />I appreciate your agreement with the lame bathroom tack.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73585925368081944222016-06-02T19:24:27.796-07:002016-06-02T19:24:27.796-07:00I've pondered what you suggest all day, and I ...I've pondered what you suggest all day, and I can't buy your slippery slope argument. You wrote:<br /><br />"When the churches will not keep these biblical teachings, it's no wonder the world turns into the sewer. Churches are to provide the example of righteousness. Churches are to be the salt and the light. Judgment must begin in the house of God. A church can hardly declare a religious conviction in North Carolina, because churches haven't shown they even believe what they are against with their nutty bathroom laws."<br /><br />I think it's a big stretch to say that abdication of dress distinction has resulted in this poor response to the transgender mafia. I think the real reason is because evangelicals are vainly tryign to make an argument for morality without mentioning God - so they seize on the "little girls in danger" line and grab hold of it with everything they've got. This won't work. This is the approach of secular conservatism. I saw the same thing when I read Chief Justice Robert's dissent from the Supreme Court decision last year. It was bad, because he spoke for secular conservatives who have no real foundation for their own morality. <br /><br />I think evangelicals (and fundamentalists) are making a terrible mistake to surrender the Bible when they engage in public discourse on moral issues. This is what they've done with the transgender issue. It's not about protecting little girls per se; it's about basic morality. We know morality from the Bible. We're not ashamed to use it as our sole infallible authority for faith and practice to inform our everyday lives. <br /><br />In a way, it's the same accomodatiion approach that the New Evangelicals began trying out in earnest in the 1950's.Tyler Robbinshttp://www.eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26489279516377437762016-06-02T14:33:53.356-07:002016-06-02T14:33:53.356-07:00Kent,
I like you. You are not like some bloggers...Kent,<br /><br />I like you. You are not like some bloggers associated with Sharper Iron who won't let anyone comment ever on anything because they always have their comments closed. Or, if they are ever open, you better never disagree with anyone or they won't publish your comment or engage in conversation. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, either. But I do like and respect you for allowing people to have disagreement on your site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15661107944590764712016-06-02T11:06:33.265-07:002016-06-02T11:06:33.265-07:00I printed the third comment here. Other readers, ...I printed the third comment here. Other readers, what do you think? Real or not? My guess is that this is someone who is smearing the post with an association with Hyles. It's not an argument, but it is what someone might be left with, to justify themselves, while they luxuriate in transgenderism.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45653588644429432182016-06-02T10:55:56.565-07:002016-06-02T10:55:56.565-07:00Dear Moderator,
You are probably referring to me....Dear Moderator,<br /><br />You are probably referring to me. I just think you live in too much of a black and white world. Even though you disagree with Jack Hyles on some things, (I don't know how anyone could do that, but I'll take your word for it that you do.) I don't know why you don't laud him for the things you do agree with him on. No pants on women is a major teaching of many in the IFB movement. In fact, for some IFB's this is their major belief and stance. Hyles was a firm defender of no pants on women. I think you should credit him for being 40 years ahead of the curve. Even though he is dead, he was right about this issue. Women wearing pants has led to a decline in the culture to where we now have transgender issues at the forefront. I am amazed over and over again at how much Jack Hyles was ahead of the curve and a legend in his own time - and beyond. I just wish you would not throw out the baby with the bathwater and admit he was correct in issues. Just because you disagree with someone in some things does not make everything they stand for incorrect. There are common issues we can all gather around. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21238201184985436162016-06-02T10:11:40.516-07:002016-06-02T10:11:40.516-07:00One more thing,
Joking about it, mocking, is what...One more thing,<br /><br />Joking about it, mocking, is what the other side is left to do, because they are the ones marinating in transgenderism. They joke about it like they are living in a simulation, some alternative reality. No, you live there. You can't make something else up, like you don't. If you don't like it, do something about it. Be courageous. Or, maybe you do like it, which is more likely.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42121070224182340582016-06-02T09:36:44.957-07:002016-06-02T09:36:44.957-07:00To the anonymous commenter, supporting this post,
...To the anonymous commenter, supporting this post,<br /><br />I deleted both comments. I couldn't tell if you were serious. My guess is no, that you were attempting to discredit this post in a subtle way, maybe not so subtle actually.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-7705887344692781382016-06-02T08:15:47.901-07:002016-06-02T08:15:47.901-07:00Yep!!Yep!!James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.com