TLBGQIA+ People and "Christian" "Truth"

[Haven]

In another thread, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian said:

The gay agenda [sic] is incompatible with the reality of Christian truth.

By stating this, he is suggesting that Christian beliefs are a "reality" and that Christianity is "true." He's also stating that Christian beliefs are inherently anti-LGBT+. He says these things while offering absolutely no evidence or argument to support them. So, I've decided to start this thread for that purpose.

Debate questions:

1) Is Christianity (defined with the Princeton definition) true (that is, does it correspond to reality)? If so, what evidence supports its truth?

2) If you answered "yes" to (1), is there any evidence that Christianity is homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, or otherwise opposed to TLBGQIA+ people and rights?

3) Is a non- anti-TLGBQIA+ Christianity coherent and internally consistent?

4) Are dignity and equality for LGBTQIA+ people compatible with Christianity?

[Goat]

In another thread, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian said:

The gay agenda [sic] is incompatible with the reality of Christian truth.

By stating this, he is suggesting that Christian beliefs are a "reality" and that Christianity is "true." He's also stating that Christian beliefs are inherently anti-LGBT+. He says these things while offering absolutely no evidence or argument to support them. So, I've decided to start this thread for that purpose.

Debate questions:

1) Is Christianity (defined with the Princeton definition) true (that is, does it correspond to reality)? If so, what evidence supports its truth?

2) If you answered "yes" to (1), is there any evidence that Christianity is homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, or otherwise opposed to TLBGQIA+ people and rights?

3) Is a non- anti-TLGBQIA+ Christianity coherent and internally consistent?

4) Are dignity and equality for LGBTQIA+ people compatible with Christianity?

'Truth' is subjective, as opposed to 'truth', which is just a recitation of facts.
"Reality" can often just be opinion.

So, 'Reality of Christian Truth' is just the opinion about an illusion.

As for TLGBQIA, that is getting to be a mouthful, and it separating many of the facets of sexuality into pigeon holes.

How about "NTS" instead? (Non-traditional sexuality). That covers that whole plethora of possibilities as a uniting feature, instead of keeping them separate.

[Haven]

As for TLGBQIA, that is getting to be a mouthful, and it separating many of the facets of sexuality into pigeon holes.

How about "NTS" instead? (Non-traditional sexuality). That covers that whole plethora of possibilities as a uniting feature, instead of keeping them separate.

I agree the alphabet soup is starting to become a mouthful. Some people use GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity) as a shorthand for the TLBG . . . community. NTS wouldn't work because it would exclude transgender and intersex people, who aren't necessarily gay, lesbian, or bisexual (many are heterosexual), but fall outside of the cisnormative gender spectrum.

[Divine Insight]

As for TLGBQIA, that is getting to be a mouthful, and it separating many of the facets of sexuality into pigeon holes.

I agree, it's starting to look like a highly self-segregated community that recognizes every little tiny difference between every individual. They'd do themselves a favor by keeping it short and to the point.

Haven wrote:

Some people use GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity) as a shorthand for the TLBG . . . community

I think that would be a better way to go for the community itself. Keeping things short and sweet can actually be a very favorable and powerful thing to do.

I personally also think they would do well to even allow the terms "Lesbian and Gay" to fade into the background of history over time and do indeed start using entirely new terms like "Gender and Sexual Diversity".

I'm not gay, but if I were I would be all for a "New Look" in terms of political movements. It would actually help the cause in the long term I think.

Just my views for whatever they're worth.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to Haven]



Your OP is what is called building a Strawman. Er, strawgender-neutral person. Please excuse me for violating yet another gay agenda taboo: heterosexism. (Ah those gay agenda neologisms just stack up. I notice that spell check hasn't caught up with it yet as heterosexism shows misspelling.)

Filtering the premise through the gay lens and then asking for the gay paradigm to be contended against by Christians? Why not ask us to define our reality through Voodoo practices as defined by voodoo worshipers?

Matthew Vines does the same thing. He demands that we see the world through the gay paradigm as exposed here:

One other aspect of Vines’s consideration of the Bible should be noted. He acknowledges that he is “not a biblical scholar� (2), but he claims to “have relied on the work of scholars whose expertise is far greater than [his] own� (2-3). But the scholars upon whom he relies do not operate on the assumption that “all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for [his] life� (2). To the contrary, most of his cited scholars are from the far left of modern biblical scholarship or on the fringes of the evangelical world. He does not reveal their deeper understandings of Scripture and its authority.

The Authority of Scripture and the Question of Sexual Orientation

Again and again, Vines comes back to sexual orientation as the key issue. “The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue of same-sex orientation,� he insists (130). The concept of sexual orientation “didn’t exist in the ancient world� (102). Amazingly, he then concedes that the Bible’s “six references to same-sex behavior are negative,� but insists, again, that “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation� (130).

Here we face the most tragic aspect of Matthew Vines’s argument. If the modern concept of sexual orientation is to be taken as a brute fact, then the Bible simply cannot be trusted to understand what it means to be human, to reveal what God intends for us sexually, or to define sin in any coherent manner. The modern notion of sexual orientation is, as a matter of fact, exceedingly modern. It is also a concept without any definitive meaning. Effectively, it is used now both culturally and morally to argue about sexual attraction and desire. As a matter of fact, attraction and desire are the only indicators upon which the modern notion of sexual orientation are premised.

When he begins his book, Vines argues that experience should not drive our interpretation of the Bible. But it is his experience of what he calls a gay sexual orientation that drives every word of this book. It is this experiential issue that drives him to relativize text after text and to argue that the Bible really doesn’t speak directly to his sexual identity at all, since the inspired human authors of Scripture were ignorant of the modern gay experience.

- God and the Gay Christian?

A Response to Matthew Vines

R. Albert Mohler Jr., Editor
James M. Hamilton Jr., Contributor; Denny Burk, Contributor; Owen Strachan, Contributor; Heath Lambert, Contributor

Now if you can produce any Christian scriptures that details support for entirely interpreting the scriptures through 21st century gay pride (the gay agenda) then please provide it.

[Goat]

As for TLGBQIA, that is getting to be a mouthful, and it separating many of the facets of sexuality into pigeon holes.

How about "NTS" instead? (Non-traditional sexuality). That covers that whole plethora of possibilities as a uniting feature, instead of keeping them separate.

I agree the alphabet soup is starting to become a mouthful. Some people use GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity) as a shorthand for the TLBG . . . community. NTS wouldn't work because it would exclude transgender and intersex people, who aren't necessarily gay, lesbian, or bisexual (many are heterosexual), but fall outside of the cisnormative gender spectrum.

Transgender and intersex are non-traditional.. but gsd sounds good to me too. It also is inclusive, instead of compartmentalization. A lesbian who lived with me a bit until she could get her own place up here mentioned on issue at the local center is there was conflict between the lesbians and the bi's, particularly among the over 30 crowd. Some of them resented the concept that bi's can just 'choose to blend in' .. and a lot were hurt when a bi left them for a man and 'blended' in to normal life. That is much less prevalent among the younger members, because society has changed and become more accepting, and the younger members have not had the strong negative experiences.

Personally, I don't get trans... but I don't HAVE to get trans, or bi, or gay. I just have to accept people as they are. The one that just confused me the most was the trans christian fundamentalist.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

By stating this, he is suggesting that Christian beliefs are a "reality" and that Christianity is "true."

While 99 is mis-guided in their stance IMO, I don't think the statement of "The gay agenda is incompatible with the reality of Christian truth." means christianity is true like 1+1=2 is true. 99 is free to their opinion, however, it must be said that many christians - that worship the same god - would disagree with 99's statement of truth. By this fact is appears, at least, 99's statement is in question.
Of course the question can then become "They're wrong and I'm right - I'm a REAL christian!" which opens another christian box of discourse and divides the house even further (as is par for the course with a beleif system that has little to no basis in fact).

He's also stating that Christian beliefs are inherently anti-LGBT+.

An opinion not shared with many of 99's brothers and sisters in christ

He says these things while offering absolutely no evidence or argument to support them.

To be fair, 99 did provide scriptural support for their POV (at times, at least). The problem is the bible has been translated and edited far too many times for the true meaning to remain clear without some sort of 'holy spirit intervention' which is nothing more than religiously sanctioned sorcery which, ironically enough, is shunned by christians (unless of course, it's them doing the sorcery).
The bottom line here is that there are (unfortunately) many gay christians and straight supports of gay christianity. 99 on the surface doesn't seem to be one. And that's OK because one's individual walk of faith doesn't hinder on what another person claims are.
So people like 99 can cry foul from the highest mountain top, stop their feet as loud as they want, scream and yell until their tongues dry up.....christainity is evolving enough that those gay people who want to be christians can be. And will be. Regardless of what others say.