Vote: The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story

Are they planning a sequel, in case He changes His mind again in October?

https://www.logos.com/search?query=gushee&sortBy=Relevance&limit=30&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=all&useFuzzySearch=false&viewMode=list

FYI: James White has scheduled an episode of The Dividing Line webcast on Monday 9/16/24, 6 PM EDT to discuss (or begin discussion of) this book. The archive will likely be available Tuesday at https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/blog/ , on AOMin's YouTube channel, and AOMin's SermonAudio page. The live feed will be available on https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/blog/ during the original broadcast.

DMB

Please vote for this upcoming title from Christopher and Richard B. Hays to be included in Logos. This title is being released in September 2024.

vote: The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story | Logos

It'd be a good addition to David Gushee, which Logos covers:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315363#Comment_1315363

No thanks. I think this book is a bunch of hermeneutic gymnastics to push their agenda.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315380#Comment_1315380

I think this book is a bunch of hermeneutic gymnastics to push their agenda.

Is this your hermeneutic gymnastics to violate the guidelines and push your theological agenda? Mind you, I know nothing about the author, book, or the argument of the book but a reminder of the guidelines might keep the thread from going sideways. When such threads go sideways, I feel obligated to read the book and my to-read pile is already too high,

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315380#Comment_1315380

Hi Keith:

You have stumbled upon a Forum paradox, that is: book suggestions are often thinly (or not so thinly) -veiled theological advocacy, against which it is considered bad form to counter. (For example: "I suggest Dave Hunt's book When Did Calvinists Stop Beating Their Wives?") Sure enough, the Suggestion process becomes unwieldy when spitting contests erupt. The trick is, you have to figure out how to slip it over the transom.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315528#Comment_1315528

book suggestions are often thinly (or not so thinly) -veiled theological advocacy,

I've not observed this. I've observed a diversity in theological stances creating a diversity in suggestions ... and have openly pushed for more diversity, including Church of Christ, Anabaptists, Progressives, Oriental Orthodox ...

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315380#Comment_1315380

No thanks. I think this book is a bunch of hermeneutic gymnastics to push their agenda.

The next time you see a book suggestion you don't like, feel free to ignore it. That's what I do, and I wish more people would do that on these forums. The scroll function is your friend in these situations.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315623#Comment_1315623

The truth needed to be stated.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315629#Comment_1315629

The truth needed to be stated.

But not on the Logos forums. I know that you know that. If you have read the book, write a review on the product page.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315640#Comment_1315640

Some view their Logos library as a personal devotional center, the sanctity of which must be guarded and preserved.

Others, such as academics like myself, view Logos as a professional tool. Sometimes their work requires access to a wider ranger of resources that may or may not align with their personal beliefs but nonetheless are useful to their work.

For their needs, the former group need not obstruct the latter from acquiring controversial resources; all they have to do is refrain from purchasing them for themselves.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315655#Comment_1315655

Some view their Logos library as a personal devotional center, the sanctity of which must be guarded and preserved.

Others, such as academics like myself, view Logos as a professional tool. Sometimes their work requires access to a wider ranger of resources that may or may not align with their personal beliefs but nonetheless are useful to their work.

For their needs, the former group need not obstruct the latter from acquiring controversial resources; all they have to do is refrain from purchasing them for themselves.

I hear you, Sean. What you say is true.

The book cringes me. I will never buy another book from either dude.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315657#Comment_1315657

I hear you, Sean. What you say is true.

The book cringes me. I will never buy another book from either dude.

This one doesn't interest me. There have been times in the past, however, when I really could have used certain titles of significance in Logos that would have evoked similar forumite ire.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315657#Comment_1315657

The book cringes me. I will never buy another book from either dude.

Scooter, you need to read the Bible ... it's similarly cringing. I was in favor of the book for two reasons. First, unlike Sean, I don't deal much in theology. But it's the first I've seen, that instead of arguing a fragmented authors' texts (as a basis for considerable shifts in theology ... even gods), it holds on to the text, instead assigning the shifts to the Deity. And second, it tries to deal with child sacrifice .... which Logos has several volumes on, that also try hard.

Now, the specific argument ... if you read your NT, is not unlike wealth arguments (a subject discussed with far more frequency in both the OT and NT, and a much larger issue in today's world).

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315380#Comment_1315380

No thanks. I think this book is a bunch of hermeneutic gymnastics to push their agenda.

Hmmm. Taking another look.

I am searching for theological position in the post above and missing it. Also, any agenda seems unclear to me. However, I notice what a person thinks about a potential Logos resource. Thanks.

willing to change his mind

Maybe the guy who wrote the forum guidelines changed his mind.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315680#Comment_1315680

No thanks. I think this book is a bunch of hermeneutic gymnastics to push their agenda.

Hmmm. Taking another look.

I am searching for theological position in the post above and missing it. Also, any agenda seems unclear to me. However, I notice what a person thinks about a potential Logos resource. Thanks.

if you cannot see the blatant promotion of same-sex attraction and relationships, then you need to reread brother.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315640#Comment_1315640

But not on the Logos forums. I know that you know that. If you have read the book, write a review on the product page.

This is probably the better idea. Thanks

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315660#Comment_1315660

There have been times in the past, however, when I really could have used certain titles of significance in Logos

I bought a book on secret society deism by one of their guys to see what he believed. It was a trade softcover, not a Logos electronic item.

I could feel the pull of his beliefs as I went through it. A few times, I had to shush these tugs by prayer.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315640#Comment_1315640

But not on the Logos forums. I know that you know that. If you have read the book, write a review on the product page.

Maybe in an ideal world/Logos/Forum.

The situation we're facing reminds me of the 'quantum measurement problem' in physics, where the mere act of observing a particle changes its behavior. BTW This has driven scientists crazy. Similarly, the proposal to publish ' The Widening of God's Mercy' creates an inevitable tension. While the forum rules prohibit doctrinal debates, the very suggestion of this book triggers reactions in many members that cannot be expressed without breaking the rules. Thus, if one expresses one's concern, one risks violating the forum's guidelines, but if one remains silent, one violates one's own conscience. This paradox, much like in quantum mechanics, leaves us in a kind of "superposition" where no action seems to be free of consequences that affect both freedom of expression and respect for the group's beliefs.

In conclusion, the LGBT lobby often tries to impose public policies based on irrelevant numbers. For example, in Argentina, where the latest census shows that this population is less than 0.18%, they still demand that the entire society be re-educated to conform to their whims. We don't need quantum physics to see the absurdity here. These groups already have enough propaganda via Hollywood and streaming services.

If you don't like the rules, you can always turn to interpretation. Come on, who will bell the cat?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315773#Comment_1315773

Thus, if one expresses one's concern, one risks violating the forum's guidelines, but if one remains silent, one violates one's own conscience. This paradox, much like in quantum mechanics, leaves us in a kind of "superposition" where no action seems to be free of consequences that affect both freedom of expression and respect for the group's beliefs.

I respectfully disagree. Remaining silent should not violate one's conscience as the issue is one of WHERE one expresses one's conscientious objection not IF one expresses it. My reaction to those who arrogantly assume their beliefs are correct and must be expressed everywhere is exactly the opposite of what I consider the Christian virtue of humility which is always willing to hear other opinions while holding firmly to their own. I consider an inability to listen to other positions to be a strong sign of insecurity in one's own beliefs.

In conclusion, the LGBT lobby often tries to impose public policies based on irrelevant numbers. For example, in Argentina, where the latest census shows that this population is less than 0.18%, they still demand that the entire society be re-educated to conform to their whims. We don't need quantum physics to see the absurdity here. These groups already have enough propaganda via Hollywood and streaming services.

This does not correspond to my experience; it does correspond to some "alternative facts" I have seen in the US. I have no knowledge to judge the situation in Argentina.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315776#Comment_1315776

"My dear Watson, there are times when all you have to do is lay evil squarely on the table. The masses, you see, will take care of the rest."

"Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Mat 10:16)

Remaining silent should not violate one's conscience as the issue is one of WHERE one expresses one's conscientious objection not IF one expresses it.

According to the rabbis, the core issue with humanity is that man has a fragmented soul, his heart is divided. This inner division explains why he often says one thing and does another. The inconsistency between words and actions stems from this internal conflict, a brokenness within the very essence of the human being that requires healing and integration.

That is why it is said: Speak little, do much. So the margin of contradiction is minimal. People talk a lot about respect, tolerance, inclusion, but the reality is that the lower instincts are spreading more and more.

I apologize for not believing in some rules that I feel restrict my freedom of expression. We'll see how much tolerance I find here.[;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315778#Comment_1315778

I apologize for not believing in some rules that I feel restrict my freedom of expression.

Sorry but I grew up and formed my values in a small rural community where everyone took care of each other and took care not to offend each other. Responsibility trumps freedom.

Aaron Hamilton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315780#Comment_1315780

In my view, this thread serves as an excellent example of why forum guidelines clearly state that discussing and debating controversial theological topics is unwelcome in the Logos forums. These forums are not a place where one should expect to find other believers with very similar theological beliefs. Use Reddit for that or any number of other online forums. Logos is used by many people from varying backgrounds and beliefs, and they should all feel welcome in the forums, because the forums exist primarily to help people maximize their use of the Logos software. Should someone really feel unwelcome in a place designed to aid in the use and learning of software only because their theological beliefs differ from yours? It is not always appropriate to give unbridled voice to one's convictions and beliefs. There are many times when self-control and silence is the correct decision. It would be easy to defend this statement biblically as well, though I certainly will not do so here and now.

The book suggestion at the beginning of this thread is perfectly appropriate. Just because a book is suggested does not mean it will be incorporated into Logos (as anyone who has frequently suggested books well knows). While disagreeing and debating is often the easiest way to respond, it is quite often not the right way to respond.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315784#Comment_1315784

Well said - much better than I.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315703#Comment_1315703

if you cannot see the blatant promotion of same-sex attraction and relationships, then you need to reread brother.

I was speaking specifically of your post and defending it. Which, with respect toward all. I still do. I found it fair and right, though perhaps not the best idea on forums where strong feelings can be readily expressed without much benefit. I know; I've done that.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315841#Comment_1315841

if you cannot see the blatant promotion of same-sex attraction and relationships, then you need to reread brother.

I was speaking specifically of your post and defending it. Which, with respect toward all. I still do. I found it fair and right, though perhaps not the best idea on forums where strong feelings can be readily expressed without much benefit. I know; I've done that.

Sorry, for the misunderstanding. Thank you, brother.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315784#Comment_1315784

While disagreeing and debating is often the easiest way to respond

No, the easiest thing to do is not to give reasons or arguments. "Tears for fears", Everybody Wants to Rule the World.

Well, it's all good. Everyone has made their point!

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315784#Comment_1315784

Just because a book is suggested does not mean it will be incorporated into Logos

This book on a similar topic is on sale right now for only $3:

Is God Anti-gay? And Other Questions about Homosexuality, the Bible and Same-Sex Attraction (Questions Christians Ask)

I did catch the review by James White that was mentioned in this thread. I have to say Dr. White is right-on.

He is not new to the issue. He has a book on the topic which is also available on Logos.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315898#Comment_1315898

I did catch the review by James White that was mentioned in this thread. I have to say Dr. White is right-on.

Whether Dr. White is right-on on a book I have not read, I cannot say. However, his evaluation of Pope Francis' statements is not an accurate representation of Pope Francis' and the Catholic theology - references available on request. However, the primary thrust of the book initially requested is why the author changed his position, a point that appears to have become lost in this thread.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315901#Comment_1315901

I did catch the review by James White that was mentioned in this thread. I have to say Dr. White is right-on.

Whether Dr. White is right-on on a book I have not read, I cannot say. However, his evaluation of Pope Francis' statements is not an accurate representation of Pope Francis' and the Catholic theology - references available on request. However, the primary thrust of the book initially requested is why the author changed his position, a point that appears to have become lost in this thread.

If Dr. White is correct, then the book requested is likely to receive a lot of attention. So my guess would be that it will eventually end up on Logos. Assuming that sales numbers are a deciding factor? It is clear from other similar titles that Logos is not avoiding the topic.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315713#Comment_1315713

There is a very important point that is often overlooked in these discussions. And that is that no one despises homosexuals for being homosexual. Many make this mistake in their comments.

What is being challenged in the LGTB groups is their irrational demand that everyone give up their own principles in order to accept theirs. This is unacceptable.

I admire the designers D. Doce and S. Gabbana, who understood that their sexual choice should not be imposed and that the family should be respected. It seems to me a humble attitude.

The Spanish Inquisition required Jews to eat ham as proof of their conversion. Similarly, today they want to require us to acknowledge a sinful practice in order, according to some, to prove that we love homosexuals.

Note: family. In scientific and biological terms, a family refers to a group of individuals who are related by genetic ties, typically comprising parents and their offspring. This concept is grounded in the biological relationship established through reproduction, where offspring inherit genetic material from their parents...

Aaron Hamilton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315936#Comment_1315936

Why are the Logos forums being used to vent personal frustration in this way? I know moderation is not heavy handed around here but this is getting to be a bit much.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315937#Comment_1315937

Sorry. Interesting observation. I didn't realize that expressing an opinion was interpreted as a manifestation of frustration. I appreciate the clarification. Again, tears for fears.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315778#Comment_1315778

People talk a lot about respect, tolerance, inclusion, but the reality is that the lower instincts are spreading more and more.

I think the aspect of respect, tolerance and inclusion led to an unwritten rule in the Suggestions subforum, that was adhered to in the past, which basically was that suggestions and the related topical positions are not to be critiqued. People supported a suggestion or kept quiet - thus something inadequate would not receive traction, but there wouldn't be discussion about who's right or wrong. Sometimes people might give an additional suggestion to round out the topic.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1315901#Comment_1315901

MJ, for someone who champions the forum rules, you sure seem quick to bend them when you've been irked.

It's also a bit ironic you bring the Pope into the thread and then fuss about the OP's point being lost.

What am I missing?