Doctrine of Theological Diversity & Inclusion?

[bluegreenearth]

[IaLoaou]

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

The claim is unfalsifiable, meaning it is impossible to know if it is true or false.

The body of Christ is the church.

True or false?

[RightReason]

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]



How about that biological reality exists? You are forcing a person to say something is something it is not. I would not refer to a human being as a dog or a poached egg, even if they wanted me to, because it is a denial of truth, harmful, beneath their human dignity and wrong.

The distinction between biological sex and gender differentiates a person's reproductive anatomy from that person's gender. Gender can refer to either a social role based on the biological sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). "Dog" or poached egg" do not qualify as genders and are not an inescapable awareness a person can have of themselves. The idea of a "biological gender" is an oxymoron because the biological aspects are not gender-related and gender-related aspects are not biological. A person with the anatomy of a man can identify with the male gender when the two properties happen to align. Occasionally, though, a person with the anatomy of a man possesses an inescapable mental awareness that she has the gender of a woman.

This condition is known as Gender Dysphoria and is a painfully traumatic experience which can only be resolved by matching the person's anatomy with their gender identity when it is not possible to alter the person's gender identity to match their anatomy. It is difficult for people like me and you to imagine what it must be like to experience gender dysphoria since our gender identities happens to match our anatomy. For this reason, a person like yourself may be unable to take these people's suffering seriously and callously impose upon them an expectation that they accept the gender they were assigned at birth.

If an anorexic looks in the mirror and thinks she is fat, we don’t go along with her delusion. If a person says she identifies as a blind person, was always meant to be blind, we don’t allow her to pour bleach in her eyes to make herself blind (true story, by the way). We would try to help the person acknowledge reality.

In those examples, the person's behavior is causing objective harm. We treat those conditions because to do otherwise would permit suffering and harm. It is the same motivation people should respect the gender identity people assign for themselves.

Your comments make my point. So, it is a crime if I say same sex unions are immoral? I’m not allowed to hold that position? So, you are forcing your view that same sex unions are ok onto me? You are telling me I can’t hold a different view or speak out about my view without being labeled an intolerant bigot and guilty of hate speech?

Christians are welcome to their own unfalsifiable private opinions. Christians are not welcome to impose their unfalsifiable private opinion on other people who don't share them. I'm not attempting to force my view of same sex unions on anyone; only asking that Christians refrain from forcing their unfalsifiable views on people when doing so causes objective harm.

Sooo . . . kinda like you’re trying to do? You are imposing your judgment that anyone who believes same sex relations are immoral deserves to be considered narrow minded, intolerant, and hateful.

You aren’t being very open-minded or tolerant of my being permitted to have a different view.

When anyone attempts to impose their unfalsifiable beliefs on other people in ways that are objectively harmful, I respond by politely and respectfully asking that they refrain from exposing vulnerable people to their toxic and unverifiable propaganda. People deserve dignity and respect; the unfalsifiable claims and opinions they are permitted to have do not.

You really don’t see that it would also be wrong to tell a person who said they believed same sex relations are immoral that they are a bigoted hateful person? This is precisely why your position is dangerous. People like you are always saying, if you don’t want to be in a same sex relationship, then don’t be in one. But it isn’t just about that, is it? I’m also, in your opinion, not allowed to say I think same sex relations are immoral. It is a crime for me to hold the view I do. THAT is the problem. You are silencing those who disagree with you. You are forcing them to say they are cool with something they are not cool with and if they don’t then they will be fined, fired, put out of business, publicly shamed, charged with hate speech crime, etc. THAT is intolerant.

Once again, people deserve dignity and respect. This includes you. You deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Your unfalsifiable beliefs and opinions, on the other hand, do not deserve dignity or respect and neither would any of my unfalsifiable beliefs if I had any. I expect and demand that my claims and opinions be challenged in the marketplace of ideas. There is no such thing as a sacred idea.

​How we think and what we believe have the potential to significantly impact ​not only ourselves but ​others around us. As a result, we are obligated to think critically and defend our beliefs with empirical evidence or be prepared to discard them.​ Any claim to knowledge must be subject to rigorous debate and compete in the marketplace of ideas if we value an honest pursuit of the truth. No proposed idea should be granted immunity from skeptical inquiry regardless of its cultural significance or how strongly it is believed to be true.​

People with same sex attraction do not come out of the womb craving gay sex.

Correct, they come out of the womb biologically determined to develop a homosexual orientation.

Yes, because it is something all men can know. Our bodies say something about the world around us. All scientists know that shape/form give us clues as to something’s purpose/function. We can observe how things work (consequences and results) to understand something. We can also know what is right/good based on man and his relationship with this world we live in. So, it is via science/biology/facts/ and reason that we can determine homosexual acts as disordered.

Except for the fact that homosexuality is observed in nature. Except for the fact that purpose and function are not exclusively dictated by biology but are also deliberately assigned by agents with intentions. The biological function and purpose of a human nose is for detecting odors; not for supporting a pair of reading glasses. However, we assign that function to the human nose because it serves a purpose we intended for it.

Funny, how the only one bringing up God is you. I don’t base the immorality of homosexual acts on God. But again, therein lies the problem – you do. You erroneously believe that a person only thinks homosexual acts are immoral because their god tells them so. That is wrong. But it is very convenient for your side, because it is the tactic you use most often – to silence those who disagree with you by simply claiming they are relying on outdated religious beliefs and you then say we don’t have to hear their argument because it’s a religious argument so you toss it out. Clever and understandable because your position does not hold up on its merits alone.

The proper understanding of my position that is not a straw-man is as follows:

I have no interest in silencing anyone's ideas; religious or otherwise. In fact, I encourage all ideas be subject to falsification, skepticism, and debate. I only ask that caution be deployed before acting on ideas that were informed by unfalsifiable beliefs. It is perfectly safe and healthy to consider the church's perspective on homosexuality in controlled settings where vulnerable and impressionable people would not be adversely affected. Imposing those religious perspectives unsolicited on other people is where it becomes an objectively harmful action based on an unfalsifiable belief.

You don’t find it odd that if a person had same sex attraction and did not want to that they are literally banned from seeking the therapy of their choice? You do not find that the ultimate of intolerance and forcing one person’s views on someone else? It is a mad, mad world we live in.

This is not a double-standard. In one circumstance, you have an unfalsifiable claim informing an action that has been demonstrated to produce objective harm. In the other circumstance, you have a falsifiable claim that could not be disproved when tested informing an action is demonstrated to improve well-being.

You might want to look into the history of psychology and the labeling of same sex attraction as a psychological issue. There isn’t a lot of actual science that caused same sex attraction to be not labeled a psychological issue, however there was a lot of politics involved in that decision. Please look up the history.

There is professional and peer-reviewed research and there is propaganda produced by biased think-tanks. Which of these two sources should I consult?

Completely false. A topic for another thread, but you get a great deal wrong in your assessment of objective morality. In fact, what you recited was the typical relativists spiel.

Go ahead and post your rebuttal in another thread and invite me to respond to it.

Nope. You don’t get to present such a statement as fact. You don’t get to suggest for example that the reason trans have a higher suicide rate is because they felt mistreated by Christians. Way too many factors involved for that.

The claim I've made is falsifiable. Go ahead and falsify it if you can.

As am I – how open are you?

What is your proposal?

[bluegreenearth]

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

The claim is unfalsifiable, meaning it is impossible to know if it is true or false.

Yet another unfalsifiable claim that cannot be known as true or false.
The body of Christ is the church.

True or false?

[IaLoaou]

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

The claim is unfalsifiable, meaning it is impossible to know if it is true or false.

Yet another unfalsifiable claim that cannot be known as true or false.
The body of Christ is the church.

True or false?

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

[bluegreenearth]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

A rather homoerotic Christian notion and another unfalsifiable claim that we cannot know to be true or false.

[IaLoaou]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

A rather homoerotic Christian notion and another unfalsifiable claim that we cannot know to be true or false.

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

[Tcg]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

A rather homoerotic Christian notion and another unfalsifiable claim that we cannot know to be true or false.

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

You can't produce verifiable evidence of this thing you call the devil.

True or false?

[IaLoaou]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

A rather homoerotic Christian notion and another unfalsifiable claim that we cannot know to be true or false.

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

You can't produce verifiable evidence of this thing you call the devil.

True or false?

False
I can produce evidence for anything I say to anyone at any time any place whenever I so desire no matter what whatsoever forever and ever.

[bluegreenearth]

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

It is empirically and conceptually true that I am a child of my biological parents.