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

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.

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

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.

Sean said:

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.  

scooter said:

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).

Kiyah said:

willing to change his mind

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

MJ. Smith said:

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

MJ. Smith said:

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?

"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)

MJ. Smith said:

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.[;)]

Keith Pang said:

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.

Aaron Hamilton said:

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!

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...

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.

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?

I read once that there is  a law about how many responses to a thread it takes before the thread veers off the OP.  This thread may have set an unbreakable record, as it seems to have gone off the rails from the very first response to the OP. 😱