Doctrine of Theological Diversity & Inclusion?

[bluegreenearth]

With the establishment of an official doctrine, a church congregation may only be exposed to a single theological perspective on any given issue to the exclusion of many equally plausible alternative theological perspectives. Consequently, the average Christian views pastoral guidance from their church leadership as prescribed law rather than a subjective interpretation of the law. In many instances, average Christians are unaware that diverse interpretations of contested scriptures are available for their consideration. Whether it is deliberate or unintentional, minimizing or restricting the availability of diverse theological interpretations in this way helps church leaders maintain control of the prevailing perspective held by the congregation.

It is easier to persuade Christians to adopt a single interpretation of scripture endorsed by the church when they believe it to be the only viable option. Obedience to doctrine is further reinforced by the church’s authority to assign punitive consequences for the heresy of developing unauthorized alternative theological interpretations. In most modern churches, the most extreme form of discipline is expulsion from the membership. Since the church is a primary source of community for its congregation, the threat of excommunication is a strong incentive to dogmatically accept only the authorized interpretations of scripture and remain in compliance with established doctrines.

At the same time, there are diverse perspectives on matters which are not essential for salvation that the church allows individual Christians to decide for themselves. In 1577 A.D., the Lutherans settled on the “Formula of Concord� that declared insignificant theological issues as “…neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God.� The Anglicans also developed a similar perspective during the 17th century when they determined that God really only cares about the moral state of a Christian’s soul and is indifferent to things like proper church governance. However, the problem of multiple plausible interpretations exists here as well and is exposed when theologians consult the scriptures to distinguish nonessential matters from matters essential to salvation. Different theologians arrive at different perspectives on what is and isn’t essential to salvation based on their diverse interpretations of Biblical texts. Meanwhile, none of them have an objective method for ruling-out competing interpretations or even their own interpretation.

Occasionally, an issue emerges that is divisive enough to cause a significant number of Christians to risk challenging established church doctrine. For these Christians, it is no longer a simple choice between obeying or disobeying God as the church might have them believe. Instead, many of these frustrated Christians find themselves having to contend with several choices; each choice claiming obedience to the true will of God. Of course, Christians on all sides of these debates will articulate logical arguments and point to Biblical support for why their particular interpretation of the scriptures should define church doctrine more than any alternative interpretation. What they all fail to understand, though, is that an ability to demonstrate a theological justification for one interpretation does nothing to disprove any of the competing theological interpretations.

When faced with various unfalsifiable interpretations of Biblical texts, theologians have no objective standard by which to mitigate for confirmation bias or other conscious and subconscious prejudices which may influence personal preference for one perspective over another. The historic consequence of this impasse has been the fragmentation of Christianity into thousands of competing denominations. Even within a single Christian denomination, unresolvable doctrinal disputes continue to divide the church’s congregation. In fact, some critics have argued that the Bible’s ability to justify almost any theological perspective has produced as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.

A potential compromise could be achieved by adopting a “Doctrine of Theological Diversity and Inclusion� that reveals rather than conceals plausible alternative interpretations of contested scriptures. To imagine the functionality of this, consider how diversity and inclusion (D&I) awareness programs in the workplace contribute to increased employee satisfaction, improved productivity, and above average employee retention. For instance, if two diverse groups of employees each submit an equally viable proposal for achieving a shared goal, their creativity is rewarded when the leadership permits each proposal to proceed rather than arbitrarily demanding the implementation of just one of the proposals. In other words, the leadership assumes an agnostic position towards each viable proposal since they have no way to justify choosing one over the other. As a result, employees from both groups are willing to contribute more innovative ideas when their diversity of thought is not discouraged in the workplace. More importantly, inclusive workplaces that welcome diverse perspectives exceed their competition in recruiting the most qualified and talented employees which leads to even more innovation.

The Christian church would equally benefit from D&I awareness by soliciting various theological perspectives and openly disclosing where contested scriptures have multiple plausible interpretations. Adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will better position the church to facilitate compromise by remaining agnostic in situations where Biblical guidance is ambiguous rather than arbitrarily enforcing a single interpretation. Instead of feeling compelled to dictate which interpretations of scripture are authorized, the church leadership may simply encourage their congregation to seek direct revelatory guidance from the Holy Spirit. After all, if Christianity is true, the burden of directing people towards the proper interpretation of difficult scriptures should resides with the Holy Spirit and not with fallible theologians. As such, the Christian theologian’s responsibility should not necessarily be to speak for God but merely to facilitate someone’s introduction to the Holy Spirit as the mechanism by which God may speak for himself.

A doctrine of theological D&I compels theologians to have faith that God will guide each unique Christian towards an appropriate interpretation of a difficult scripture regardless of whether it aligns with church tradition or not. In this way, the existence of contradictory interpretations is rendered inconsequential because it may be the case that God does not intend for every Christian to live by the exact same interpretation of an ambiguous Biblical text. Rather than being an unfortunate byproduct from the utilization of fallible human authors to communicate his words, the debatable language which comprise select Bible passages may have been deliberately designed by God to be ambiguous in order to facilitate personalized plans for a diverse population of Christians.

It must be clarified that a doctrine of theological D&I does not restrict theologians from conveying their own personal interpretations of ambiguous scriptures even if the church as a whole assumes an agnostic perspective. To the contrary, a doctrine of theological D&I encourages theologians to communicate their individual perspectives. However, their pastoral obligation would also compel church leaders to disclose plausible alternative interpretations for consideration. Otherwise, a failure to reveal all the theological options could potentially deprive a valued Christian of a Biblical interpretation God intends for that individual.

Furthermore, the church must not abuse its authority by discouraging Christians from accepting an equally plausible interpretation of a contested scripture which does not conform to the majority perspective since there is no objective method for resolving such disputes. Therefore, theologians must resist the compulsion to impose their fallibly biased interpretations of imprecise Biblical texts on a diverse congregation for the sake of establishing or reinforcing arbitrary church doctrines. In fact, such authoritarian practices have been observably and unnecessarily destructive to the Christian community. Instituting a doctrine of theological D&I will help the Christian church to recover from the damages caused by fallible yet non-negotiable doctrines.

In closing, the establishment of a theological D&I doctrine would facilitate a compromise for almost any internal theological dispute regarding the interpretation of ambiguous scriptures. From arguments over the Theory of Evolution to decisions about Planned Parenthood, a doctrine of theological diversity offers church leaders an ability to satisfy their pastoral obligations in way that fosters compassion rather than division. As long as the core components of Christianity are maintained, there doesn’t appear to be any logical or theological reason to reject the application of D&I awareness to church doctrine. If Christianity is a relationship and not a religion as many Christians assert, then adopting a doctrine of theological D&I will serve to grow that relationship by encouraging congregants to seek direct revelatory guidance from God. Otherwise, this self-imposed obligation to support non-negotiable but fallible church doctrines will only continue to drive people farther away from a relationship with Jesus.

[brianbbs67]

Pinseeker, It looks like the Homosexual community wants not only to marry but have us say its holy. Which according to our beliefs its not. I care not that they marry. That's on them, not me. I do care if they tell me I have to approve of it. This is because God teaches against it and I will not oppose God. Live and let live, but don't demand I approve it. So, they have their cake now, and want to force us to eat it too. Who is being oppressed now?

Drawing all this back a bit, we should pray for them. It is a sin, and all sin is the same to God. There are not degrees, but I can't see myself or many others accepting sin as good. "Woe unto the nation that calls evil, good and good , evil"

You probably should read my post where I discuss the impossibility of knowing if the interpretation of scripture which has led to your beliefs about homosexuality is true. So, it is not about accepting homosexual marriage as a lesser degree of sin but whether it is a sin at all. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting the interpretation of scripture you are using is incorrect; only that you cannot demonstrate that other interpretations which are used by some Christians to sanction homosexual marriage are false. Since you cannot disprove the other interpretations, they must remain as plausible candidates regardless of the quantity and quality of evidence supporting your preferred interpretation. Therefore, non-negotiable confidence in your unfalsifiable belief about homosexual marriage is not justifiable.

Israel knew what they wrote. Some of them still do. Is it the Greek LXX or the Hebrew you have arguement with in this?

Are you saying if someone says the writings say different, we must accept it? Anyone can say anything. Does not mean its true. I like to go back as far in time as I can with translations and then compare and divide.

https://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/ ... ality.html

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 31 by brianbbs67]

I'm not saying that you must accept any interpretation as being true but any interpretation has an equal chance at being true unless it can be falsified.

[PinSeeker]

In what way are people being made to facilitate, condone, and endorse gay marriage? Is this is in reference that person who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

As I said before, this is a representative Republic. Our government represents the citizens of this country (as a whole, we elect them to do that), and it has legalized gay marriage, thus facilitating, condoning, and endorsing it. Thus the citizenry, which includes those against gay marriage, does. Much as you may try or want to, you can't get around that fact.

In a free democracy, a certain amount of discomfort is expected in exchange for civil rights.

Ah, so I've been wondering when you would introduce civil rights to the conversation. That's just a tactic in this debate; it really has no relevance. It's like shifting the abortion issue from murder to the right to choose. Well, nobody denies anybody free choices in this country, but nobody should actually be for murdering children, which is what abortion is. So in the same way but regarding the subject of our discussion, nobody is against someone pursuing pleasure or love, but nobody should actually be fore engagement in societal- and self-destructive behavior. Ohhhhh... that'll get your blood boiling. Sorry.

There will always people who will be bothered by the personal choices made by other people in a free society. We tolerate our differences because we appreciate the ability to make our own personal life choices.

No doubt true. But toleration of people's behavior does not necessitate acceptance of said behavior as right or good. To say "you shouldn't" is not to say "you can't."

Lack of acceptance of behavior does not then mean condemnation of the person. To say "I don't like the way you're talking to me right now; you're acting like a jerk" is not by necessity then -- as a defense mechanism -- saying, "You're a horrible person." That's exactly what it is, a defense mechanism. But people buy into it, and the result is societal chaos, really, and that's what we're spiraling toward.

If you suspect a theocratic system of government would be better, you could investigate how things are working out for people who are currently living under a theocracy like Iran.

"Theocracy." Here we go. LOL! Nobody's even suggesting a theocracy, bluegreenearth. Nobody. That's another meme.

You can't excuse maladaptive behaviors and actions by claiming they are only targeting sin and not the people who sin.

Ah, the "maladaptive behavior" meme again. Shaking my head... Anyway, standing in opposition to sin and standing in opposition to people are two vastly different things; you can absolutely do the former without doing the latter. Back to my example of telling your child not to misbehave in some way, as a parent, you are not somehow "against your child" -- or unloving -- by being against his/her misbehavior.

Your intentions amount to nothing because it is still the people who suffer the consequences of your maladaptive behaviors and actions.

I engage in no "maladaptive" behavior or action. Refusal to accept sin as right or good is not "maladaptive" in any way. Hey, if somebody doesn't like something I'm doing -- even hates it -- my reaction is either, "Hey, maybe I ought to rethink what I'm doing" or "I don't really care if that person hates what I'm doing or not" -- or both.

Your beliefs in unverifiable supernatural claims...

Oh, but they're not unverifiable. Seek and you will find. All Christians become Christians that way. But that's your opinion, and that's fine with me.

...are not a sufficient justification for the objectively verifiable harm caused by the actions informed by your beliefs.

None caused. See above. Except maybe some hurt feelings... But you're just as guilty of that as me or anybody else.

I was referring to the claimed sacrifice from 2000 years ago. That concept disgusts me, but I'm willing to accept the discomfort and not interfere with your right to worship it as long as that worship doesn't cause unjustifiable harm to me or other people.

So, it disgusts you that someone would lay down his/her life for the sake of others? Is that not the greatest act of selflessness and love possible? I say it is, anyway...

Even so, how could that possibly cause "unjustifiable harm" to you or anybody else? That's just laughable.

However, I would never emotionally, psychologically, or physically abuse Christians who embrace such an immoral concept or object to their right to worship it.

You're doing it right now.

Really?

Yes, really. This is you and me, BGE. And I know what I feel, and I see and hear what's going on in the Christian community all around me. So why would you not take me at my word? You know, because you seem so eager to take the word of any member of the LGBTO community...

The reason you accuse me of trivializing your concern is precisely because your concern is trivial compared to what the LGBTQ community experiences.

Mere opinion.

Underestimating and trivializing sin is tragically harmful to every single one of us. Not according to any "expert," per se, but surely according to the Judge.

When you can demonstrate the "Judge" objectively exist, I'll take this comment more seriously.

Who are you (or who is anybody, including me) to argue against God?

When you can demonstrate that God objectively exists, I'll be happy to present him my arguments.

Ah, yes, it all finally comes down to the existence of God. Start another thread if you want. I mean, it would be merely the latest in a long, long line...

When you can demonstrate that support for the LGBTQ community is causing a disproportionate amount of objectively verifiable harm to more people than the harm caused by not supporting the LGBTQ community, I'll take your comment more seriously.

BGE, I -- Christian that I am -- support all people, including those of the LGBTO community. All Christians do! They just don't support the specific behaviors represented by that acronym within that community. It is entirely possible to support the person but not the sin... to love the person but hate the behavior he or she engages in. To not be able make or refuse to accept that distinction is just blind acceptance and pure stubbornness. My goodness.

What consenting adults choose to do in their private lives, regardless of how unusual it might seem, is none of my business unless it is causing objectively verifiable harm to me or other people. Objectively demonstrate where polygamy or polyamory consistently causes verifiable harm and I'll consider changing my perspective on that specific issue.

So polygamy is cool with you; you're all for opening up the institution of marriage up to any number of people -- um, sorry, consenting adults. Hm. Well, okay. Well why just adults? Why not children? Because that's out there, too. Aren't you discriminating against children? That's a rhetorical question, really; you don't have to waste time and bandwidth answering that...

Objectively demonstrate where my perspective of the maladaptive behaviors and actions of many Christians falls short and I'll reconsider it.

You sin. We all do. I think you should start reconsidering. But I'm not holding my breath...

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

Pinseeker, It looks like the Homosexual community wants not only to marry but have us say its holy. Which according to our beliefs its not. I care not that they marry. That's on them, not me. I do care if they tell me I have to approve of it. This is because God teaches against it and I will not oppose God. Live and let live, but don't demand I approve it. So, they have their cake now, and want to force us to eat it too. Who is being oppressed now?

Drawing all this back a bit, we should pray for them. It is a sin, and all sin is the same to God. There are not degrees, but I can't see myself or many others accepting sin as good. "Woe unto the nation that calls evil, good and good , evil"

I agree with every word here, brianbbs67. Maybe not to say it's holy, but just "acceptable" and "good." But you're pretty much echoing what I've been saying.

[PinSeeker]

Okay, I've said my peace. I'm out. Unless at some point I change my mind...

Grace and peace to you all.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 32 by bluegreenearth]

I'm not saying that you must accept any interpretation as being true but any interpretation has an equal chance at being true unless it can be falsified.

Not true. You are failing to recognize that an interpretation given by someone who has no authority to give an interpretation should not receive the same consideration of an interpretation from someone who has been given the authority to provide the interpretation.

You seem to think believing in your above statement would allow the best, most sound, most supported interpretation to prevail, but clearly, as we observe in life, your method does nothing to insure progress or evolution of good ideas/truth. Why? Because you can’t even get human beings to agree on a 3 word sentence.

Suppose we only had this sentence written over 2000 years ago . . .

Got the keys. One interpreter might place emphasis on got, another on the, and a third on keys. A fourth interpreter might suggest the word keys[/] has multiple meanings. A fifth interpreter might suggest the entire sentence be taken figuratively where a 6th interpreter says the sentence is clearly to have been taken literally. I could go on and all. They all make rational arguments, but logically speaking only one of them can be right. How are we better off allowing for so many wrong versions simply because as you claim, it could not be absolutely falsified?

I think you falsely reduce what it is Christians consider the Bible in the first place. We see it as the Word of God that has been entrusted to His Church to interpret. You don’t like that and that’s fine, but your suggested remedy is no remedy. You get that, right? In a sense, your remedy is just as much a matter of faith as is believing Jesus is the son of God.

[PinSeeker]

I think you falsely reduce what it is Christians consider the Bible in the first place. We see it as the Word of God that has been entrusted to His Church to interpret.

No, that's pretty much exclusive to Catholicism. Most of us know that God is His own arbiter.

But I agree that his "remedy" is no real remedy at all.

And I would argue that his "remedy" is not faith at all but just a blind statement; biblical faith is not a "wish" or a "blind hope," but a surety. It is unassailable, because God is unassailable.

[bluegreenearth]

In what way are people being made to facilitate, condone, and endorse gay marriage? Is this is in reference that person who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

As I said before, this is a representative Republic. Our government represents the citizens of this country (as a whole, we elect them to do that), and it has legalized gay marriage, thus facilitating, condoning, and endorsing it. Thus the citizenry, which includes those against gay marriage, does. Much as you may try or want to, you can't get around that fact.

Legalizing gay marriage doesn't imply the government is condoning and endorsing it any more than the availability of bacon flavored ice cream in the grocery freezer implies that every shopper in the store will purchase and enjoy it. It simply gives people the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to condone and endorse it. If you don't want to be gay married, then don't marry someone of your same gender. If you don't want to eat bacon flavored ice cream, then you have at least 31 more flavors to choose from. It is as simple as that.

No doubt true. But toleration of people's behavior does not necessitate acceptance of said behavior as right or good. To say "you shouldn't" is not to say "you can't."

Agreed. Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't necessitate that everyone must accept it as right or good any more than the availability of bacon flavored ice cream necessitates that everyone accept it as delicious and healthy.

"Theocracy." Here we go. LOL! Nobody's even suggesting a theocracy, bluegreenearth. Nobody. That's another meme.

Fair point.

Ah, the "maladaptive behavior" meme again. Shaking my head... Anyway, standing in opposition to sin and standing in opposition to people are two vastly different things; you can absolutely do the former without doing the latter. Back to my example of telling your child not to misbehave in some way, as a parent, you are not somehow "against your child" -- or unloving -- by being against his/her misbehavior.

Some behaviors exhibited by children are voluntary and some are not. For example, my child feels angry sometimes for various reasons. I teach him that it perfectly normal and even healthy to feel angry sometimes. I explain to him that suppressing his anger is unhealthy and there are both safe and dangerous ways for him to express and release his anger. I support him when he chooses safe ways to express his anger and offer discipline when he chooses dangerous ways to express his anger. It would be maladaptive if were to institute a prohibition against anger or discipline my child for being angry. It would be maladaptive to suggest it is abnormal to feel angry or that expressing anger in healthy ways is an abomination. It would be maladaptive for me to tell my child that he must deny his angry feelings or resist from expressing them in healthy ways lest he be damned to a lifetime of torture in my basement. I think I've made my point here.

I engage in no "maladaptive" behavior or action. Refusal to accept sin as right or good is not "maladaptive" in any way. Hey, if somebody doesn't like something I'm doing -- even hates it -- my reaction is either, "Hey, maybe I ought to rethink what I'm doing" or "I don't really care if that person hates what I'm doing or not" -- or both.

If you regularly communicate condemnation of LGBTQ people, their sexual orientation, or their identity as sinful to members of your family, church, or the community, then you are exhibiting maladaptive behavior. Documented emotional and psychological trauma is experienced by closeted and open LGBTQ adolescents living in religious homes where they frequently hear at least one parent or church leader communicate that LGBTQ people are living in sin, are abnormal, and are an abomination. This has serious negative impacts to their self-esteem, self-worth, and overall mental health.

It may be easy for you to dismiss someone else's disapproval, but impressionable LGBTQ adolescents don't always have the luxury of independence that you enjoy. They are often encouraged as young children to admire and idolize their parents and church leaders. Then, when many of these LGBTQ adolescents begin to discover their identity, the toxic messaging they've received from their parents and church leaders causes them to feel undeserved shame for failing to be born with heteronormative thoughts and desires. Therefore, they cannot simply dismiss the people they've depended upon, admired, and idolized throughout their lives.

Oh, but they're not unverifiable. Seek and you will find. All Christians become Christians that way. But that's your opinion, and that's fine with me.

No. It is not just my opinion. What you've described is called "confirmation bias" and is the antithesis of objectively verified knowledge. Look it up.

So, it disgusts you that someone would lay down his/her life for the sake of others? Is that not the greatest act of selflessness and love possible? I say it is, anyway...

Even so, how could that possibly cause "unjustifiable harm" to you or anybody else? That's just laughable.

The entire point was that it doesn't cause me or anyone else "unjustifiable" harm any more than legalized gay marriage causes you or anyone else "unjustifiable" harm. I'm saying your freedom to worship a disgusting concept and my freedom to not worship it is a sufficient justification for the discomfort (harm) I experience whenever a Christian tries to convince me to condone and accept their disgusting concept.

Yes, really. This is you and me, BGE. And I know what I feel, and I see and hear what's going on in the Christian community all around me. So why would you not take me at my word? You know, because you seem so eager to take the word of any member of the LGBTO community...

I'm not just taking their word. I rely upon the consensus of experts in the field who professionally research this issue. When you can empirically demonstrate that support for the LGBTQ community is causing a disproportionate amount of objectively verifiable emotional and psychological harm to the Christian community, I'll take your comment more seriously.

Mere opinion.

Not opinion. It is based on a falsifiable hypothesis that survives every test designed to disprove it and is supported by empirical data. When you disprove the consensus of experts, I'll start paying attention.

BGE, I -- Christian that I am -- support all people, including those of the LGBTO community. All Christians do! They just don't support the specific behaviors represented by that acronym within that community. It is entirely possible to support the person but not the sin... to love the person but hate the behavior he or she engages in. To not be able make or refuse to accept that distinction is just blind acceptance and pure stubbornness. My goodness.

I already explained why the

"hate the sin, not the sinner"

trope doesn't excuse the objectively verifiable harm the "sinner" experiences as a direct consequence of Christians "hating sin."

So polygamy is cool with you; you're all for opening up the institution of marriage up to any number of people -- um, sorry, consenting adults. Hm. Well, okay. Well why just adults? Why not children? Because that's out there, too. Aren't you discriminating against children? That's a rhetorical question, really; you don't have to waste time and bandwidth answering that...

Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on the concept of marriage in America and shouldn't attempt to prohibit other institutions from permitting polygamous marriages between consenting adults. At the same time, no one is forcing Christian churches to permit polygamous marriages within their walls if it doesn't comply with their doctrine. As for children and animals, their mental development is too premature for them to understand the implications of marriage. As such, their ability to consent to marriage should not be considered independent or valid.

You sin. We all do. I think you should start reconsidering. But I'm not holding my breath...

The existence of sin is unverifiable because it is defined as the behaviors and actions which are prohibited by a God who cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist or not exist. If God doesn't exist, then sin is not a thing. If God does exist, then sin is a thing. If we presume the Christian God exists, then what can we infer from the Bible about sin? Consider the following:

Sins identified in the Old Testament (OT) such as murder, adultery, and perjury reveals that avoidance of those sins produces tangible benefits to the well-being of everyone in the community. Jesus claimed he came not to abolish OT law but to fulfill it; presumably to benefit everyone as well. So, there is a clear correlation between the behaviors that have a negative impact to human well-being and the behaviors God identifies as sins. Therefore, it is reasonable to abductively infer from this that the reason God labels certain behaviors as sins is because they cause unnecessary harm. Otherwise, God's list of prohibited sins would be arbitrary, capricious, and without any identifiable purpose. So, it shouldn’t be unreasonable to expect God's prohibition of homosexual marriage to serve in the interest of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm in the same way. Is this the outcome we observe from the prohibition against homosexuality?

Maybe God prohibits homosexuality because his first prototype was the heterosexual model of humanity and he wanted every human couple to sexually reproduce in order to maximize their well-being? Well, that can't be right because there have always been a sufficient number of heterosexual humans to keep the population growing. In fact, a world where every human couple was reproducing heterosexually would eventually negatively impact human flourishing on account of there being limited resources. So, that couldn't be a reasonable explanation.

Maybe God prohibits homosexuality because it is unnatural? Well, if God is the creator of absolutely everything and everything he creates is natural including humans, then the fact that sexual orientation is predetermined at conception should demonstrate that homosexuality is natural. So, that can't be a reasonable explanation either. Besides, even if it were unnatural, what does unnatural behavior have to do with well-being?

Maybe God prohibits homosexual marriage because homosexuality only emerged as consequence of humans bringing sin into the world? Well, if the first humans are responsible for inventing sin and homosexual desires emerged in a small random population of humans created by God to be entirely heterosexual, then it would make sense for God to prohibit those people from practicing homosexuality. However, this doesn't explain why God would inexplicably design a new model of human that would be born into the subsequent generations not as heterosexual humans with the capacity to experience and resist homosexual desires as a consequence of the sin brought about by the previous model, but as a deliberately designed homosexual human with no capacity to experience and choose heterosexual desires at all. Then, through no fault of their own since they did not design themselves, these homosexual creations are required to not only comply with the same list of prohibitions as their heterosexual counterparts but additional prohibitions designed by God just for them. Yep, that makes sense.

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Legalizing gay marriage doesn't imply the government is condoning and endorsing it any more than the availability of bacon flavored ice cream in the grocery freezer implies that every shopper in the store will purchase and enjoy it.

It does if the public schools text books now include English sentences like, ‘Good people love bacon flavored ice cream and only hateful bigots do not’.

It does if the school brings in bacon flavored ice cream during an assembly showing a bunch of adults eating the bacon ice cream and encouraging the children to give it a try as well’

It simply gives people the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to condone and endorse it.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Little Susie, you don’t have to like bacon ice cream, but if you say you do not like it, we will call you narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, and hurtful.

If you don't want to be gay married, then don't marry someone of your same gender.

If you don’t want smoke cigarettes, then don’t, but how dare you tell others that it may cause lung cancer and not be in their best interest!

If you don’t want to have sex with your sister, then don’t have sex with your sister, but not everyone feels the same way you do, so do not ever say that the government should not allow a person to marry his sister.

If you don't want to eat bacon flavored ice cream, then you have at least 31 more flavors to choose from. It is as simple as that.

Sure, if rape or abortion are not your cup of tea, there are plenty of other behaviors you can choose from, but don’t infringe on someone else’s choice.

Agreed. Legalizing homosexual marriage doesn't necessitate that everyone must accept it as right or good

Theoretically, but as we are already seeing – this is simply not true. I can’t say I won’t photograph your gay wedding, or make a cake for your gay wedding. I’m not even allowed to seek therapy that might help me not be gay if it is what I want – that now is banned. Who is the state to say I can’t seek the therapy of my choice?

It would be maladaptive if were to institute a prohibition against anger or discipline my child for being angry.

And why wouldn’t it be maladaptive to institute a prohibition against not wanting to have same sex attraction? That – not what you suggest is now what is happening.

If you regularly communicate condemnation of LGBTQ people, their sexual orientation, or their identity as sinful to members of your family, church, or the community, then you are exhibiting maladaptive behavior.

I agree. Who does that?

Documented emotional and psychological trauma is experienced by closeted and open LGBTQ adolescents living in religious homes where they frequently hear at least one parent or church leader communicate that LGBTQ people are living in sin, are abnormal, and are an abomination. This has serious negative impacts to their self-esteem, self-worth, and overall mental health.

My faith does not condemn the person. We support the individual. We love the individual. But we will call sin sin. If a good friend of mine is having an affair with a married man, I would not think she is evil. Nor would I be mean or rude or heaven forbid violent toward her. But I certainly should be free to let her know what she is doing is wrong.

And you know what else has serious negative impacts on self esteem and mental health? Engaging in behavior that is not healthy/not in our best interest/harmful.

It may be easy for you to dismiss someone else's disapproval, but impressionable LGBTQ adolescents don't always have the luxury of independence that you enjoy. They are often encouraged as young children to admire and idolize their parents and church leaders.

This argument is becoming harder and harder to suggest considering everyone is waving the rainbow flag these days.

I already explained why the
Quote:
"hate the sin, not the sinner"
trope doesn't excuse the objectively verifiable harm the "sinner" experiences as a direct consequence of Christians "hating sin."

It doesn’t have to. Fraternal correction can be done in a loving and respectful manner. Children can tell the difference from being really loved and not. No one enveloped in sin likes to hear he/she is wrong. But it actually is the opposite of love to ignore the matter and really does more harm in the long run.

The existence of sin is unverifiable because it is defined as the behaviors and actions which are prohibited by a God who cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist or not exist.

Wrong. You can use a different word than sin if you want. A synonym would be wrong or disordered behavior. No belief in God necessary to recognize this and yes, it is something that can be objectively demonstrated. And something human beings objectively demonstrate all the time. It’s why we can say, No, you cannot rape. No, you cannot steal. No, a 40 year old cannot have sex with a 16 year old. No, you cannot have sex with your father. No, you cannot marry your dog.

If God doesn't exist, then sin is not a thing.

Nope. Same thing. Different word.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 37 by PinSeeker]

I think you falsely reduce what it is Christians consider the Bible in the first place. We see it as the Word of God that has been entrusted to His Church to interpret.

No, that's pretty much exclusive to Catholicism. Most of us know that God is His own arbiter.

Well, the arbiter said this, “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� “I give to you the keys� The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. “If he refuses to listen, even to the church, consider him a pagan.�

So, again, why do you ignore the arbiter’s own words? Also, you do realize the Church came before the current Bible on yourself today, right? It was she who chose which writings made the cut and which ones did not. If you accept the Bible, you have already accepted and trusted the Church’s authority and interpretation.