He Gets Us campaign

[HarleyER]

And where in the New Testament (or even in the first century or two the history of the Christian faith) do we consistently see "Christian love for God" displayed in a way that reflects Samuel's active denunciation of Agag?

No, it's NOT me who has his (or her) biblical reading inverted. It's YOU ... !

Apparently, you missed the memo that we live under a New Covenant now rather than the Old one. It's time for you to get educated. Or should I say, re-educated?

And there is the problem isn't it? You want to dismiss the Old Testament because God, in the OT, doesn't fit with your paradigm. We don't dismiss the Old Testament simply because we live under the "New Covenant". Paul tells us these are examples to us ( 1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.) The same God who washed the apostles' feet is the same God that told Saul/Samuel to chop up Agag.

What all this discussion misses is that we think by doing something (e.g. feet washing, going to church, etc.), we are doing something wonderful for God and illustrating His love in the world. This is a work oriented solution. This is exactly what the Pharisees thought when they were acting out very nice things for God. Our compassion stems from us loving God so much that God will work through us to bring about His good works-whatever they happen to be. It is all His work.

 

[FenderTL5]

Where is "relationship" in the Bible?

the word "relationship" itself or the premise/concept of relationship? The latter begins in Genesis.

 

[FameBright]

Do not mix law with grace (Gal 2:16), or faith with works (Eph 2:8-9) in justification.
Do not mix man's decision with God's election (Jn 1:13) in the new birth.

I'm guessing your saying the passage was more metaphorical.

This was a pagan practice (Lev 19:27), along with self-mutilation, tatoos, and prostituting their daughters (Lev 19:28-29).

Exactly, which is why it's confusing to me when people mention homosexuality up there with adultery or stealing. Those actions are in the 10 commandments; homosexuality is not. But why such a focus on homosexuality? Why not like bestiality, adultery and stealing?

Forms of homosexuality are mentioned in Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians.

In Leviticus, it sounds like to me it's referring to homosexuality practices by the pagans. I don't know exactly but something along the lines of a man (one that isn't born gay) acting like a woman and having homosexual sex in worship of the fertility goddess. In context, it sounds to me like God wanted the Hebrews to just separate themselves and not do anything the pagans or Canaanites were doing that was in relation to worshipping idols.

In Romans, homosexuality seemed to be more of a result of idol worshipping.

In Corinthians, considering the cultural context it seemed to me to be talking about coercive sex between men which seemed to be a prevalent problem during that time. It's interesting that women weren't mentioned.

If people are talking about homosexuality in general then it wouldn't make sense to me why God would create people to be born homosexuals in the first place.

To me it seems like being born a homosexual fall outside of what the Bible is talking about.

We have a choice to lie, steal, commit adultery, or force other men to have sex. We don't seem to have a choice in the way we were born.

I see it more of as a deformity, or something like a mentally disabled person committing a crime. It's just an obvious fact and we know it's wrong - just not worthing talking about.

I say this because I think we have to be careful judging or condemning others in this way. It leads to increased suicides and people start these "woke" movements trying to normalize homosexuality. I would go far as to say that the people who are judging and condemning are partly responsible for the movement which doesn't do any good.

I don't agree with normalizing it because it could result in homosexual practices when someone wouldn't otherwise be a homosexual. In that case it would seem to resemble the practices as mentioned in Leviticus.

Therefore, I see a need for the message of acceptance but only if it doesn't provoke "woke" things in the context of normalizing homosexual behaviors.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And there is the problem isn't it? You want to dismiss the Old Testament because God, in the OT, doesn't fit with your paradigm. We don't dismiss the Old Testament simply because we live under the "New Covenant". Paul tells us these are examples to us ( 1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.) The same God who washed the apostles' feet is the same God that told Saul/Samuel to chop up Agag.

What all this discussion misses is that we think by doing something (e.g. feet washing, going to church, etc.), we are doing something wonderful for God and illustrating His love in the world. This is a work oriented solution. This is exactly what the Pharisees thought when they were acting out very nice things for God. Our compassion stems from us loving God so much that God will work through us to bring about His good works-whatever they happen to be. It is all His work.

"...whatever they happen to be?" NO, no, no, no!

My question for you is this: why, if you're so inclined to pull out a proof-text and/or an example of faith being acted out in the Bible, do you cite one that has to deal with capital punishment from the Old Testament rather than one of grace, mercy and charity from the New Testament? Why not cite Stephen the Martyr as a good example of Christian faith? Or one of many, many others in the New Testament?

The Old Testament, NOW, is but a shadow and type of what we have in Christ. Not the present, lived substance. Sure, we can cite chapters 11 and 12 in the book of Hebrews, but that's not going to get you out of the interpretive pickle that you've put yourself in. In fact, reading Hebrews might actually undercut your interpretation.

I mean, do you see your inconsistency, especially when there is ZERO example of any Christian (apostle or various disciple) in the 1st Century who EVER pulled a sword and killed anyone with it in order to show his/her "true faith" in Jesus Christ?

So, don't play your semantic subterfuge on me. It will fail. And not simply because I am smart enough to discern your interpretive error in handling your reading and use of the Bible, but because I also have several hundred solid Christian minds at my reference who would also, I'm sure, readily, or mostly, disagree with your pernicious and myopic interpretive application.

Keep pushing your canard as you do, and your arguments will fall to me as the garbage that they are ...

Oh, and P.S. ... if you by chance you just happen to think you've been "misrepresented," then BY ALL MEANS, please bring more clarity to your position so we can all see that you didn't intend to infer that "living for Christ" can somehow be conflated with "living and dying by the sword."

I'd love to be shown that I've somehow simply ............................. misunderstood you in your Old Testament overture.

 

[Clare73]

Matthew 19:10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

: O) I'd like to see that on their website.

"Relationship" is not in the original Greek text, where it states, "If so is the cause of the man with the wife. . ."

 

[Clare73]

the word "relationship" itself or the premise/concept of relationship? The latter begins in Genesis.

The word itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since the actual topic in this thread is discerning the nature and aspects of the "He Gets Us" commercials recently aired during the Super Bowl games these past two years, let's bring in some additional considerations. Let's see how much of the theological and political ideology of the individuals and organizations that back this commercial either aligns or mis-aligns with the usual right leaning evangelical paradigm:

Article 1)​

The FAQs: What You Should Know About the ‘He Gets Us’ Campaign

He Gets Us is spending millions to talk about Jesus, yet the campaign is being criticized by secularists and Christians on the left and the right. Here’s what you should know about it.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

​

Article 2)​

The truth behind the ‘He Gets Us’ ads for Jesus airing during the Super Bowl - CNN​

Article 3)​

He Gets Us, Part 1: The men and money behind the movement – Baptist News Global

Comingling faith and football has been a feature of the NFL experience for decades, but this year’s Super Bowl included something different. A group calling itself He Gets Us tweeted: “On February 12, the world’s biggest influencer is coming to...

baptistnews.com

 

[Clare73]

I'm guessing your saying the passage was more metaphorical.

It teaches spiritual divine principles in a physical way.

Exactly, which is why it's confusing to me when people mention homosexuality up there with adultery or stealing. Those actions are in the 10 commandments; homosexuality is not. But why such a focus on homosexuality? Why not like inappropriate behavior with animals, adultery and stealing?

Homosexuality is "up there" with all sin--adultery, stealing, false witness, dishonoring parents, etc.
It is so much in focus in the Christian community now because the culture is trying to normalize that particular sin.
When the culture tries to normalize stealing, you will find the same response regarding stealing.

Forms of homosexuality are mentioned in Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians.
In Leviticus, it sounds like to me it's referring to homosexuality practices by the pagans. I don't know exactly but something along the lines of a man (one that isn't born gay) acting like a woman and having homosexual sex in worship of the fertility goddess. In context, it sounds to me like God wanted the Hebrews to just separate themselves and not do anything the pagans or Canaanites were doing that was in relation to worshipping idols.
In Romans, homosexuality seemed to be more of a result of idol worshipping.
Corinthians, considering the cultural context it seemed to me to be talking about coercive sex between men which seemed to be a prevalent problem during that time. It's interesting that women weren't mentioned.

It is still all in relation to sexual perversion; i.e., sex other than God ordained, including beastiality (Lev 20:15-16), for the natural order between a consenting man and woman.
It is a perversion of God's pattern for the relationship of the church to Christ (Eph 5:31-32), which is why Satan is so active in marring it.

If people are talking about homosexuality in general then it wouldn't make sense to me why God would create people to be born homosexuals in the first place.

God doesn't '"create us," only Adam was created, we are generated by our parents, and we all inherit their nature, which is sinful.

To me it seems like being born a homosexual fall outside of what the Bible is talking about.

We have a choice to lie, steal, commit adultery, or force other men to have sex. We don't seem to have a choice in the way we were born.
I see it more of as a deformity, or something like a mentally disabled person committing a crime. It's just an obvious fact and we know it's wrong - just not worthing talking about.

All sin is a deformity by our father, Adam, of the human nature God created.
And according to God's laws of nature, we inherit that nature, just as we do our skin color.

So you would accept (legalize) kleptomania because it is simply a human deformity?
Whose fault is it that we are born with a sinful nature? Not God's.
You would have God spiritually normalize the consequences of Adam's sin, making it acceptable to himself?
Our fallen nature is the natural consequences of Adam's violation of the laws built into created nature.
We're stuck with our inherited (fallen) nature, just as are the skunks and the poisonous snakes are stuck with their's.

I say this because I think we have to be careful judging or condemning others in this way. It leads to increased suicides and people start these "woke" movements trying to normalize homosexuality. I would go far as to say that the people who are judging and condemning are partly responsible for the movement which doesn't do any good.

However, your view is a fallen human view, rather than God's Biblical view, for the nature of sin is not caused simply by those who resist it.
We are to transform our minds (Ro 12:2) to the mind of God on this and all matters.

I don't agree with normalizing it because it could result in homosexual practices when someone wouldn't otherwise be a homosexual. In that case it would seem to resemble the practices as mentioned in Leviticus.
Therefore, I see a need for the message of acceptance but only if it doesn't provoke "woke" things in the context of normalizing homosexual behaviors.

God has no message of acceptance for the practice of homosexuality.
The Christian community is to accept those who have repented (turned from) that practice.They are not to accept into the community those who are practicing it (1 Co 5:11).
God regards it as abhorrable and abominable (Ro 1:27).

 

[Hazelelponi]

My answer would be to apply the investigative and critical thinking skills that were taught to me at the university ...

Sorry we ended up in family meeting because it's almost the weekend... took a while.

I did look up the program after the first comment and did some research since it's multiple donors.

But in general they made this because they feel Christians aren't presenting the gospel correctly, and/or always come across as judgemental or whatever. As I disagree with the assessment, and as the sentiment matches the left portion of Christianity (the ones who are ordaining females and practicing homosexuals as well as wanting to marry homosexuals in the church) I believe it's coming from that portion of the church, but I could also be wrong.

I personally like judgemental preachers. Christians need it sometimes. We need to be told to shape up and fly right on occasion. Correction is necessary. It's certainly not the only thing but it is a thing that is necessary.

Paul Washer years ago said the Gospel has never been anything but offensive to those who are dying.

And he's right. It's offensive to hear the Truth. But hearing it and accepting that Truth is what heals.

I think Christians do fail in American outreach... I lived around Christians all my life and didn't meet anyone who could actually sit and explain the faith to my understanding until I met what people classify as generally traditionally Calvinist.

That's what led me to Christ, not social club Christianity. And it is much harder to hear and it does make you mad. I know. But then it heals, because you meet a real God there and a real Christ.

Can you happen upon the real God and the real Christ with the other stuff too... I'm sure you can but it's not as intentional I don't think, and in some cases is counterintuitive in my opinion.

However, I did rather jump to an assumption that the difference of opinion on forum here is general left Christianity versus right Christianity since the differences between what the ad depicted and why there was differences of theological opinions have to do with the theological difference between left and right Christianity, in my understanding of the issues at play.

But I have been approaching this whole thread with the thought process of what is best for American outreach in mind.

 

[FameBright]

Homosexuality us "up there" with all sin--adultery, stealing, false witness, dishonoring parents, etc.

Would you agree that adultery, stealing, false witness, dishonoring parents, etc. are choices that we can make and being born a homosexual is not? Later you attribute it to Adam's sin. If that's the case then shouldn't that be the sin that we should be focused on rather than homosexuality itself?

It is so much in focus in the Christian community now because the culture is trying to normalize that particular sin.

I agree but like I said, I think culture is trying to normalize it because of the very people condemning it. Normalizing it seems to be more aligned with the "Biblical View" that you mentioned later in the post which I agree is wrong. Again, it may result in someone carrying out homosexual practices who wouldn't normally be gay. I'm not sure how the "Biblical View" addresses people being born gay.

All sin is a deformity by our father, Adam, of the human nature God created.

I can buy that but like I said, shouldn't that be the sin we should be focused on if that was the case? It sounds like you're making the case that it's because of Adam's sin. So why would being born that way be our fault?

So you would accept (legalize) kleptomania because it is simply a human deformity?

I wouldn't use the term legalize, but yes I would excuse it or condone it. Kleptomania is a mental disorder so sounds like we're relating homosexuality in the same way.

You would have God spiritually normalize the consequences of Adam's sin, making it acceptable to himself?

Is deformity a consequence of Adam's sin? If yes, then I would treat it the same way.

However, your view is a fallen human view, rather than God's Biblical view,

The Biblical view is what I have a hard time understanding and no one seems to make a strong case. I think the "Biblical View" may be different than the Christian View.

We are to transform our minds (Ro 12:2) to the mind of God on this and all matters.

True, but is it fair to apply this to a person with a mental disorder?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In and of itself Liberation theology it has to be denounced as heresy. You can't look at people and tell them to explore it for that 10% worth that is decent.

I think Paul the Apostle would have if he were alive today in the 21st century rather than in the 1st century (hence the reason he was able to give his evangelical sermon in Athens on Mars Hill---Acts 17:16-34).

Moreover, my suggestion to engage Liberation Theology in some limited way isn't to find some 10% merit in the midst of it; no, rather, I intend it to be an academic exercise in actually listening to other people's complaints and pain. That is what I attempt to do, as I'm doing even for you here, now. I'd do it for Liberals with whom I disagree, and I will do it for Conservatives whom I also might disagree with.

To pretend though, that Evangelical Christians are not giving, loving and caring people is to literally not know them.

I've never met more generous and kind people. They aren't perfect, but face to face they'd give the shirt off their back to anyone who had a need. Even those who themselves live in poverty would.

To me I guess that's what is striking, is that even out of their poverty they will give.

And look at my husband's family. They never met me and they opened their home to me and treated me better than I've ever been treated. Never pressure, never judgement. Just love.

You may not understand their mannerisms or their language, but they are Christians and they act like it in rural America in very real ways. They always have even if we aren't recognizing that in them.

Just after 9/11 is honestly the only time in rural America I ever felt a different vibe than this. And that was simply cause and effect. People are always going to react in certain ways, we are human after all.

It didn't stop any of my friends from coming to my get togethers or them inviting me to theirs. But at the gas station people would just freeze when they saw me and stuff.

I had more than one veteran tell me I actually set off their PTSD. I became friends with one vet because he wanted a safe exposure therapy so he didn't panic when he saw Muslims in public.

That's not to say there's not nuts. There are, everywhere. My husband says some people are just born junk yard dog mean, and you can't change them. But they aren't Christian either, nor are they evangelical even if they may vote similarly.

As far as public policies, in rural America we see nothing but abject failure of public policies, and most are living through the largest opioid epidemic in American history. It's serious out here.

My son has lost more friends to opioids - lost their actual lives - than I had known people to die by the time I was his age if we don't include his friends that got caught up in it. He's lost 7 or 8 friends to opioids. Funeral after funeral. I don't even understand how it's happening when they are seeing everyone die from it.

People never used to die like they die now.... Sure there were addicts but this is intentional murder by those making these drugs and selling them. They are trying to kill Americans and succeeding.

Put a few death pills in the bag of pills they're selling and boom; it's Russian roulette every time they buy drugs now.

It's so bad out here that the authorities recommend everyone keeps that drug that can bring someone back from an overdose even if you don't think you know anyone who does the drugs - just in case you find yourself somewhere and an OD occurs. They give it out free so people can do that.

When people say things about welfare and such, it's because of things they see in life. When people recommend giving charity to people in person and making sure it's not going to drugs etc it's because of what we see out here in rural America.

They still give, they just give how their conscious informs them instead of the way it's been failing to address real need and can sometimes support negative behaviors like drug addiction.

It might not sound loving to your ears, but it's actually because they care about people.

I'd never give my neighbor cash because he's a drug person. But I'd empty out my freezer to make sure he ate. Make sense? (No one who knows him will just give money, but they'll go to the gas station and put gas in his truck, or pay a bill for him, or buy him a space heater etc)

Some people think tough love is better, though I think there's a happy medium somewhere.

The accusations against evangelicals are simply false. Evangelicals just want people to hear that they think another way of helping the poor is better, it's not because they are somehow uncharitable.

Well, I understand where you're coming from in sharing all of this. I really do. But if you read, say, one of the following books, I think you'd have a better insight into what it is I've only attempted to begin to convey:

Bauder, Kevin, R. Albert Mohler Jr, John G. Stackhouse Jr, and Roger E. Olson. Four views on the spectrum of evangelicalism. Zondervan Academic, 2011.​

​

Wilkens, Steve, and Don Thorsen. Everything You Know about Evangelicals Is Wrong (Well, Almost Everything): An Insider's Look at Myths and Realities. Baker Books, 2010.​

 

[Merrill]

Would you agree that adultery, stealing, false witness, dishonoring parents, etc. are choices that we can make and being born a homosexual is not? Later you attribute it to Adam's sin. If that's the case then shouldn't that be the sin that we should be focused on rather than homosexuality itself?

I agree but like I said, I think culture is trying to normalize it because of the very people condemning it. Normalizing it seems to be more aligned with the "Biblical View" that you mentioned later in the post which I agree is wrong. Again, it may result in someone carrying out homosexual practices who wouldn't normally be gay. I'm not sure how the "Biblical View" addresses people being born gay.


I can buy that but like I said, shouldn't that be the sin we should be focused on if that was the case?

I wouldn't use the term legalize, but yes I would excuse it. Kleptomania is a mental disorder so sounds like we're relating homosexuality in the same way.

Is deformity a consequence of Adam's sin? If yes, then I would treat it the same way.

The Biblical view is what I have a hard time understanding and no one seems to make a strong case.

True, but is it fair to apply this to a person with a mental disorder?

Just to jump in...

Homosexuality in the western world is not a behavior, it is an ideology. The "rainbow flag" (especially the one with the added transgender elements) is a political and ideological flag.

There are some central claims homosexuals make, but can be questioned:

1. People are "born gay". But there is no biological proof to this (as of yet). From a Christian perspective, the idea that "God made some people gay" is problematic at best, and heretical at worst.
2. Homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom. But animals are acting out of ignorant impulse. Those animals will mate with a female--they are not exclusive to members of their own sex.

Some gay men, such as Milo Yianoppoulis, have openly said that their homosexuality was a consequence of their upbringing and their environment. But this is politically-incorrect to say, because identity politics demands that identity be fixed

So when we compare the sin of homosexuality to something like theft, dishonoring your parents, etc., there are some ways to look at it

If a person claims that they steal because they are a thief --that the defining definition of their person is that of a thief, they are comparable to the homosexual who defines himself as a "gay man". But if a person says he is a human being who committed the sin of theft, it is quite different.

God would not condemn 2% of the population to perpetual sin by "making them gay", and making it impossible for them to change their behavior, or embrace a more virtuous life.

Likewise, we always have to remember that we are born-again in Christ, and that He "makes us who we are not". This means we have to shed our sinful ways (or at least try)--and this requires that we view ourselves as children of God, not "homosexual", or a "thief".

The Alphabet people want to define themselves using fixed, trendy categories, and this feeds into a Manichean worldview where these "essential victims" are in the kingdom of the oppressed, while everyone else, is in the kingdom of the oppressor

 

[Hazelelponi]

Since the actual topic in this thread is discerning the nature and aspects of the "He Gets Us" commercials recently aired during the Super Bowl games these past two years, let's bring in some additional considerations. Let's see how much of the theological and political ideology of the individuals and organizations that back this commercial either aligns or mis-aligns with the usual right leaning evangelical paradigm:

Article 1)​

The FAQs: What You Should Know About the ‘He Gets Us’ Campaign

He Gets Us is spending millions to talk about Jesus, yet the campaign is being criticized by secularists and Christians on the left and the right. Here’s what you should know about it.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

​

Article 2)​

The truth behind the ‘He Gets Us’ ads for Jesus airing during the Super Bowl - CNN​

Article 3)​

He Gets Us, Part 1: The men and money behind the movement – Baptist News Global

Comingling faith and football has been a feature of the NFL experience for decades, but this year’s Super Bowl included something different. A group calling itself He Gets Us tweeted: “On February 12, the world’s biggest influencer is coming to...

baptistnews.com

Yes, they do fund various religious causes that are traditionally supported by right wing evangelicals.

I read an article where they had given a statement and it's that public statement I've been going off of mentally since earlier on in the thread.

I should have posted it after I read it because now I can't find it. It sounded judgy to my ears. But I can't find it now to post.

However, I could be looking at the wrong ideological differences when I was thinking left and right. Look at who's in this thread. Calvinist Christians. Reformed people. More Traditional Christianity. Left Christianity.

I think this is the more stringent fire and brimstone Christianity that's being judged negatively.

Which is probably definitely my section. I enjoy preachers like Paul Washer, RC Sproul, Spurgeon, Baucham etc.

Because we do want to stay as biblical as possible with everything.

They also seem to reject all the various popular church growth stuff many churches go for in outreach, and I believe always have.

And it's this section of Christianity that are also the one's who don't really like the message, because it's inaccurate in the way it comes across.

 

[Clare73]

Would you agree that adultery, stealing, false witness, dishonoring parents, etc. are choices that we can make and being born a homosexual is not? Later you attribute it to Adam's sin. If that's the case then shouldn't that be the sin that we should be focused on rather than homosexuality itself?

Adam's sin is a given in our fallen nature with which we are born and which is the reason for all our sin, for which sin we are personally responsible, including the sin of homosexuality (Ro 1:27).
Again, we are focused on homosexuality because the culture is trying to normalize the sin.
We will be just as focused on the next sin which the culture tries to normalize

I agree but like I said, I think culture is trying to normalize it because of the very people condemning it. Normalizing it seems to be more aligned with the "Biblical View" that you mentioned later in the post which I agree is wrong. Again, it may result in someone carrying out homosexual practices who wouldn't normally be gay. I'm not sure how the "Biblical View" addresses people being born gay.

It addresses people being born gay the same way it addresses being born with a sinful nature which we likewise did not choose.
The practices of both homosexuality and the sin nature are sin.

I can buy that but like I said, shouldn't that be the sin we should be focused on if that was the case? It sounds like you're making the case that it's because of Adam's sin. So why would being born that way be our fault?

The same way God holds us guilty of Adam's sin for which we are all condemned (Ro 5:18).
However, he likewise makes provision for the removal of that guilt in Jesus Christ and repentance (turning from it).

I wouldn't use the term legalize, but yes I would excuse it or condone it. Kleptomania is a mental disorder so sounds like we're relating homosexuality in the same way.

We are relating the proclivity to sin with which you say we are born--kleptomania, homosexuality.
Being born with it doesn't make it acceptable to God.

Is deformity a consequence of Adam's sin? If yes, then I would treat it the same way.

The Biblical view is what I have a hard time understanding and no one seems to make a strong case. I think the "Biblical View" may be different than the Christian View.

Christianity is based in Scripture.
Any view not in agreement with Scripture (the Biblical view) is not a Christian view. It is simply that of fallen human nature

True, but is it fair to apply this to a person with a mental disorder?

As long as one is capable of knowing right from wrong, whether they agree with it or not, it is to be applied to them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just to jump in...

Homosexuality in the western world is not a behavior, it is an ideology. The "rainbow flag" (especially the one with the added transgender elements) is a political and ideological flag.

There are some central claims homosexuals make, but can be questioned:

1. People are "born gay". But there is no biological proof to this (as of yet). From a Christian perspective, the idea that "God made some people gay" is problematic at best, and heretical at worst.
2. Homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom. But animals are acting out of ignorant impulse. Those animals will mate with a female--they are not exclusive to members of their own sex.

Some gay men, such as Milo Yianoppoulis, have openly said that their homosexuality was a consequence of their upbringing and their environment. But this is politically-incorrect to say, because identity politics demands that identity be fixed

So when we compare the sin of homosexuality to something like theft, dishonoring your parents, etc., there are some ways to look at it

If a person claims that they steal because they are a thief --that the defining definition of their person is that of a thief, they are comparable to the homosexual who defines himself as a "gay man". But if a person says he is a human being who committed the sin of theft, it is quite different.

God would not condemn 2% of the population to perpetual sin by "making them gay", and making it impossible for them to change their behavior, or embrace a more virtuous life.

Likewise, we always have to remember that we are born-again in Christ, and that He "makes us who we are not". This means we have to shed our sinful ways (or at least try)--and this requires that we view ourselves as children of God, not "homosexual", or a "thief".

The Alphabet people want to define themselves using fixed, trendy categories, and this feeds into a Manichean worldview where these "essential victims" are in the kingdom of the oppressed, while everyone else, is in the kingdom of the oppressor

Merrill, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounds like your theology doesn't have much room for the neurological recognition of either mental disorders or mental illnesses, whether those conditions are congenital or due to chronic onsets. Is this the case in your thinking? If so, isn't this a problem because a disorder or illness of that nature isn't something that can simply be "repented" of (and here, I'm not even referring to homosexuality, just typical mental problems so many folks deal with).

The thing is, while we know that the Lord says that 'Not a Sparrow falls apart from His Will,' they do fall, nevertheless. I think that when they do, He intends that the rest of us be there to help them where they've fallen.

 

[Merrill]

Merrill, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounds like your theology doesn't have much room for the neurological recognition of either mental disorders or mental illnesses, whether those conditions are congenital or due to chronic onsets. Is this the case in your thinking? If so, isn't this a problem because a disorder or illness of that nature isn't something that can simply be "repented" of.

Not at all:

we live in a fallen world, and we have free-will. Things like homosexuality or gender-dysphoria, could very well have some biological elements, but we haven't really found them.

that is not the same thing as saying "God made me gay in the womb, and it is impossible for me to be anything other than gay"

we treat mental disorders with medications and therapy.

Homosexuals and transgender people do not view themselves as suffering from an illness or disorder.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not at all:

we live in a fallen world, and we have free-will. Things like homosexuality or gender-dysphoria, could very well have some biological elements, but we haven't really found them.

that is not the same thing as saying "God made me gay in the womb, and it is impossible for me to be anything other than gay"

we treat mental disorders with medications and therapy.

Homosexuals and transgender people do not view themselves as suffering from an illness or disorder.

My apologies. I added an edited addition to my previous post. I guess you got to it before I added the edit. I wasn't orginally intending to address homosexuality, but since you've brought it up...

Yes, I already understand and know all of that. But other folks also go for decades undiagnosed and untreated, or mistreated, for this or that mental malady, so just because the current DSM manual has reneged on its previous positions regarding the homosexually inclined mind doesn't mean the jury isn't still out on the extent to which anyone might have a disorder that contributes to that tendency.

And here's the thing: Just because I can recognize that at least a few among the LGBTQ+ community may have been born with a disorder that causes them to be prone to their lifestyle choices doesn't also mean that I am pro-LGBTQ+ rainbow ideology. It does mean, though, that I'm willing to see them as fellow human beings in need of care BEFORE I see them as sinners like myself.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Moreover, my suggestion to engage Liberation Theology in some limited way isn't to find some 10% merit in the midst of it; no, rather, I intend it to be an academic exercise in actually listening to other people's complaints and pain. That is what I attempt to do, as I'm doing even for you here, now. I'd do it for Liberals with whom I disagree, and I will do it for Conservatives whom I also might disagree with.

I don't think everyone is Paul the Apostle.

This is why the church leaders themselves have always decried and called out heresy, after looking into it deeply.

Even mentioning liberation theology in this house is enough to set my husband off on a verbal tirade that can last, and last, and last. I don't do it often as a result unless I want to hear about it for days on end. Hahaha

So, in my opinion the church has denounced it, even the Catholics decried it (the former two popes I think?)

Should we as Christians look into it ourselves to see what the complaints are?

Don't we always as we add new convert's listen to their thoughts?

I find a church who does seek to reach others, who wants to know how best to do so. That's my personal experience. #1 question is always about outreach.

I'll check out those books. If you can find me a link for reading without purchasing a book though I'd appreciate it, though you don't have to. I have a list right now of 3 books I'd like to read and that's my financial limit. One is about liberation theology though, suggested by the Catholics.

But you are correct, hearing what others have to say is always positive, since the goal is to win souls. But we do have to balance this with what Scripture teaches and make sure God's opinion is the one we follow.

But of course there's certainly leeway in methodology within reason.

 

[Merrill]

My apologies. I added an edited addition to my previous post. I guess you got to it before I added the edit. I wasn't orginally intending to address homosexuality, but since you've brought it up...

Yes, I already understand and know all of that. But other folks also go for decades undiagnosed and untreated, or mistreated, for this or that mental malady, so just because the current DSM manual has reneged on its previous positions regarding the homosexually inclined mind doesn't mean the jury isn't still out on the extent to which anyone might have a disorder that contributes to that tendency.

And here's the thing: Just because I can recognize that at least a few among the LGBTQ+ community may have been born with a disorder that causes them to be prone to their lifestyle choices doesn't also mean that I am pro-LGBTQ+ rainbow ideology. It does mean, though, that I'm willing to see them as fellow human beings in need of care BEFORE I see them as sinners like myself.

I think we absolutely need to consider themselves as sinners just like ourselves as well

and I am certainly not calling for their persecution

for me, the ideology is a much bigger problem than the behavior.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think everyone is Paul the Apostle.

This is why the church leaders themselves have always decried and called out heresy, after looking into it deeply.

A couple of my husbands friends dealt directly with the physical results of liberation theology, working private contracts overseas. My husband wasn't involved with the same contracts, but they all worked for the same firm.

Even mentioning liberation theology in this house is enough to set him off on a verbal tirade that can last, and last, and last. I don't do it often as a result unless I want to hear about it for days on end. Hahaha

I didn't say that Liberation Theology was good, or correct, or unproblematic, or orthodox. Please keep that in mind.

As for the comment about Paul the Apostle, you're right. Only one person is that person or ever could be that person, let alone be an apostle. However, he did engage the Philosophies of his own time, and I take his 'form apologetic' and preaching given on Mars Hill as one legitimate way in which to engage the insufficient philosophies of this World. He didn't simply line up all errors and shoot them all down. No, he acknowledged where pagans sometimes had a few things 'right' in to order to touch base with them on a human psychological level so he could also, THEN, deliver the Kerygma regarding Jesus.

So, in my opinion the church has denounced it, even the Catholics decried it (the former two popes I think?)

Yes. And I haven't affirmed it. See? This is the problem that's running at the moment in our American Culture: many here all too often too easily see everything in sheer dichotomies when they should some issues dichotomously but some others on a continuum.

Should we as Christians look into it ourselves to see what the complaints are?

Yes. Then, perhaps, for instance, some groups will understand how other groups actually feel and perceive the world before we land into them. In this, I'm not referring to homosexuals. I'm referring more to the "race" and/or "culture" divide between, say, African Americans and White Americans, or between American citizens and Immigrants, etc. etc.

As it is now, it's rare that I talk to fellow Christians of the more Right-leaning, Fundamentalist mind who are right to spring on a person who disagrees with them, much in the way a mouse-trap is set to go off when the bait is taken. I intend, fully intend, to crush mouse-traps whenever I find they've been seemingly "set" for me. I'm not playing that game................with either those on the Right OR the Left. Both will feel my scrutiny. Both sides deserve it since they've seen it in themselves to make sure they make others pay for their differences of opinion (usually through out of place ostracism and or stigmatization or unjustified disfellowship).

Don't we always as we add new convert's listen to their thoughts?

No. I can't say that I always saw that in action at all of the Evangelical churches I've been to in my life. They offended my mother, and they offended my wife. So, yeah. I have a tough role to mediate as a fellow Christian being that Christians have poked at me for one reason or another ever since I was convinced I should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I find a church who does seek to reach others, who wants to know how best to do so. That's my personal experience. #1 question is always about outreach.

I'll check out those books. If you can find me a link for reading without purchasing a book though I'd appreciate it, though you don't have to. I have a list right now of 3 books I'd like to read and that's my financial limit. One is about liberation theology though, suggested by the Catholics.

But you are correct, hearing what others have to say is always positive, since the goal is to win souls. But we do have to balance this with what Scripture teaches and make sure God's opinion is the one we follow.

But of course there's certainly leeway in methodology within reason.

These are excellent comments.