Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[Guest]

perry wrote:

Think so? That would be unfortunate. Any time I get that uncomforatble feeling that someone is about to challenge long-held assumptions (as I got on listening to that first message), it interests me all the more.

aint that the truth! which is the main reason i enjoy steve g's teachings so much.

TK

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

Thank you for your response.

When I worked in Psychiatry for 7 years I was not permitted to speak about what is now called "sexual orientation" (formerly known as "sexual preference") from a Christian-religious viewpoint. This would have gotten me fired. I was once verbally warned for calling it "sexual preference" (in a staff meeting, not around any of the patients). I was made aware that I would be writen up if I said this again, though I personally believe it to be a choice (preference), based on my views from the Bible.

The fact that the field of psychiatry has taken a professional stance on the issue of homosexuality does not make it a religion, nor does its proscription of certain diction equate to definition of sin. As a public educator, there are a variety of restrictions on my behavior and personal expression while I am on the job. Then again, when I worked as a food handler, I was accountable to certain restrictions as well. Shall we now make every employment paradigm into a religion?

As for the particular example you mentioned, "sexual orientation" is not so objectionable a term, as it is neutral on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is elective. One's "orientation" can be chosen or not, as the case may be. But presumably your employer had further paradigmatic expectations for how you should approach the issue of homosexuality when on the job.

Now, you may personally prefer to express a different opinion - but when you are on the clock, working for an employer, you are being paid to fulfill the employer's agenda, not to express yourself (unless you are an artist or something like that, in which case you are being paid to fulfill the employer's agenda by expressing yourself).


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

so long as one might prefer the liberty afforded by the American laissez-faire tradition over a hostile and restrictive religiocracy.

I still say you are being less direct than clear communication warrants. Moreover, I find the accusation itself a real head-scratcher. On what basis do you suggest that I care more for the American laissez-faire than for adherence to religious conviction?

Then again, if your complaint is not methodological, but rather that such a tactic is not "nice" - you may be right.

I admit that I find your subtle innuendos unpleasant. However, the niceties of your debating tactics seem rather insignificant. There’s not much room to worry about subtle name-calling, given your open admission that, if you had your druthers, you’d see me executed.

Perry

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your response.

I still say you are being less direct than clear communication warrants.

You are welcome to ask questions to pursue clarification.

Moreover, I find the accusation itself a real head-scratcher. On what basis do you suggest that I care more for the American laissez-faire than for adherence to religious conviction?

My basis for imagining that an unfamiliar correspondent "might prefer the liberty afforded by the American laissez-faire tradition over a hostile and restrictive religiocracy" would be the number of times I have encountered persons who fit such a description.

I admit that I find your subtle innuendos unpleasant. However, the niceties of your debating tactics seem rather insignificant. There’s not much room to worry about subtle name-calling, given your open admission that, if you had your druthers, you’d see me executed.

If it makes you feel better, certain homosexual intercourse carries the same penalty.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_726.htm

Greg Boyd, in my opinion, offers the most consistent Jesus-like reponse to this issue of state and religion.

JC,

I've now listened to the entire series. I'm going to listen to it again, and I'm encouraging my wife to listen to it as well. I found much of what he said illuminating and quite convicting. Interestingly these messages provided new insights for me on topics that might, on first blush, seem quite unrelated. (Interesting how the Holy Spirit can do that).

There's a lot in there about the hypocracy in the church, and, sadly, the hypocracy I find in myself.

Now I want to go listen to Steve's Kingdom of God series even more. Man there's so much great info out there, and so little time.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you again for posting that link.

Perry

[Guest]

Think so? That would be unfortunate. Any time I get that uncomforatble feeling that someone is about to challenge long-held assumptions (as I got on listening to that first message), it interests me all the more.

He lost around 1,000 of the 5,000 members of his church.

This article talks about it.

God bless,

[_Rick_C]

I've still just heard the two Question & Answer Sessions.

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

“Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act,” he said. “And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed.”

One would think Greg would know that Jesus didn't have any need to push these so-called two buttons. Why didn't He need to? Because homosexuality and abortion were known by EVERY first century Jew to be sins!

I like a lot of what Boyd says but he's a tad too far over on the politico-theological left for me. If he wants to be so a-political then why does he side up with the left on these two issues? and make fun of politico-theological conservatives?

Sure, we're supposed to be imitators of the Lord. But the (very common liberal) "Let's all be Christ-like" theme that Greg is pushing...well, the theology behind this stems right out of Old Liberalism....

Am I missing something, folks?
The Evangelical Left isn't all that new: Maybe I should just drop it.
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Am I missing something, folks? Or do I just strongly disagree with politico-thelogical liberals on these issues? << Prolly << that
Maybe I should just drop it.

I think you're missing something here. Boyd doesn't "side-up" with liberals on this issue at all. He is a conservative.

His point is, that people in the world are starving, people are going to hell, etc.. And all you seem to hear Christians talk about are these issues.

He gives the example of this expose' which aired on television that showed the brutal sexual slavery of millons of little girls or something equally aweful, and no one said anything, but let Janet Jacksons breast pop out at the super bowl and all hell breaks loose. Christians everywhere are just outraged over this breast thing, but there's not public outcry against forced child prostitution when a major netword airs a special exposing it. It's kind of sad, if you ask me.

I think Boyd just kind of rubs you the wrong way. I see him in a much different light.

God bless bro,

[_Rick_C]

Hi Derek...you caught me in an edit but keep it that way, lol
"Evangelical Left" is a better way to describe where Boyd's coming from. Btw, I'm "with them" on some stuff, kinda.

I think you're missing something here. Boyd doesn't "side-up" with liberals on this issue at all. He is a conservative.

His point is, that people in the world are starving, people are going to hell, etc.. And all you seem to hear Christians talk about are these issues.

Please listen to the Q&A sessions, come back, and let me know if you still think he is a conservative. He's vague which isn't all that far to the Right (for a short preview)

"Let's all be "Christ-like" and stop talking about sinful people," just doesn't add up for me. If Boyd thinks conservative Christians who talk about these things are "petty hypocrites" in what way would you say he is on their side? Doesn't he oppose them? (calling people hypocrites is a fairly serious charge and people don't say that to folks on their own team)....

He gives the example of this expose' which aired on television that showed the brutal sexual slavery of millons of little girls or something equally aweful, and no one said anything, but let Janet Jacksons breast pop out at the super bowl and all hell breaks loose. Christians everywhere are just outraged over this breast thing, but there's not public outcry against forced child prostitution when a major netword airs a special exposing it. It's kind of sad, if you ask me.

In one of Greg's "Messy" sermon series he asked: How can I take a very expensive vacation when that money could have fed poor kids? His answer was (but maybe not the exact words): "God has very BIG shoulders and can take care of the Whole World." He went on to say that each of us have to find out what God is calling us to do and do it; that we should make it a priority to witness, help the poor, fight injustice, and so on -- but in the exact place God has assigned for each of us. On this basis, Greg reasoned his expensive vacation was an okay thing to do but added that we should always be mindful of how we spend our money, time, and energies.

I think Greg needs to practice what he preaches by letting his brothers and sisters do what they believe they are called to do: Speak out on moral issues in our society..."For we all shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ." You do what you're called to do, I the same....

His logic is faulty.
"Really evil things are happening. Christians should be outraged about them. Therefore, they shouldn't be outraged about abortion and homosexuality"...doesn't jibe.

Also, there are things to distinguish between a lady flopping out her breast on tv, prominent moral issues in society ...and other problems (whether in the USA or abroad). Parents naturally react, and rightly so, when their own kids see "private parts" and are being taught to accept ungodly values at school and basically everywhere else except church and home. What I mean is: "When it hits home"....parents are going to take action! In our society most parents work, constantly shuffling their schedules and kids around, and are generally very busy. By the time they get everything done they may have time for a short nap on Sunday afternoon. After all of this, they just don't have the capacity to "take on the whole world"...like Greg Boyd said in one sermon....

I think Boyd just kind of rubs you the wrong way. I see him in a much different light.

He's against Christians who get upset about issues that legitimately concern them, seeing them as petty hypocrites. In one sermon he said we all should do what God calls each of us to do and was pretty "lax" about however God leads each of us. With the stuff that's in this thread (mp3s, etc.) he seems either mixed up or a fair distance to the Left from the conservatives (who you say he is) or......both.

I really enjoyed and was challenged by Greg's "Messy" series though.
Thanks Bro Derek,
Rick

[Guest]

Please listen to the Q&A sessions, come back, and let me know if you still think he is a conservative. He's vague which isn't all that far to the Right (for a short preview)

I've listened to it. By conservative, I mean that he is against abortion, homosexuality, etc. He has made it very clear that he is against these things as far as I can tell.