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.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 20 by bluegreenearth]

Okay... post read (not dismissed) and point understood. You know, just to set your mind at ease and get that out of the way...

Points of order concerning your example:

• 1. We may -- may -- know that neither explanation is entirely correct, but we also know that there is, nevertheless, a correct explanation.
  
  2. Humanly speaking, this is impossible, but what if, in your example, there is a helper who was around at the time of the writing -- and was even the person who superintended the writing of the document (the writer was not actually the source of what he put on paper) -- and is still around today to advise on the correct meaning?
  
  3. Following from the previous two points, what if some in either group and/or some outside either group of historians has access to this helper, who then provides them with correct understanding?

With regard to biblical understanding and discernment, points two and three above describe the work of the Holy Spirit.

Grace and peace to you, BGE.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 20 by bluegreenearth]

• 1. We may -- may -- know that neither explanation is entirely correct, but we also know that there is, nevertheless, a correct explanation.
  
  2. Humanly speaking, this is impossible, but what if, in your example, there is a helper who was around at the time of the writing -- and was even the person who superintended the writing of the document (the writer was not actually the source of what he put on paper) -- and is still around today to advise on the correct meaning?
  
  3. Following from the previous two points, what if some in either group and/or some outside either group of historians has access to this helper, who then provides them with correct understanding?

With regard to biblical understanding and discernment, points two and three above describe the work of the Holy Spirit.

Attempting to answer these sorts of questions will only corrupt your conclusion with confirmation bias. What you need to supply is a description of something that would falsify your hypothesis and a demonstration that your hypothesis survived the test designed to falsify it. However, any test you might imagine that would falsify the supernatural claims from the Bible cannot be reasonably conducted by anyone at this time. We cannot travel back in time to witness the claimed events, and we cannot reproduce the claimed events under controlled conditions. The reason for this is because some historical claims and all supernatural claims are unfalsifiable. They can be neither proved or disproved.

Even the most reliably supported historical claim about a supernatural event retains the possibility of being false. Likewise, the least reliable supernatural claim retains the possibility of being true. This brings the entire discussion back to my original point; intellectual honesty demands that we remain open to the possibility that our personal beliefs about the unfalsifiable supernatural content of the Bible has every chance of being incorrect. Of course, one of our personal beliefs has every chance of being true, but we have no way of knowing which belief it is regardless of how much evidence exists to support it.

The reason this concept must be embraced and the main reason I debate with Christians is because beliefs inform actions, and actions have objective consequences which are demonstrable in the reality we all experience unlike the supernatural claims from the Bible. So, when we can confirm an action will cause objective harm, the belief justifying the deployment of that action better be demonstrably verifiable. Does dogmatic belief in the unverifiable supernatural claims of an ancient text justify taking an action that has been previously demonstrated to cause objectively verifiable harm? Are you prepared to take that risk? I am not prepared to take that risk. Would you approve of someone else taking an action that would cause you objective harm based on their unfalsifiable belief in the supernatural claims of the Bible? I would not approve. In fact, I think you would respond to that person in exactly the same manner as I have responded to you.

I wouldn't bother debating the Christian belief at all if it informed actions that were always objectively beneficial to the well-being of the most people, but this is sadly not the outcome we observe. Some Christian beliefs or at least some beliefs motivated by Christianity are informing actions with objective consequences that are irrefutably harmful despite the best of intentions. In many cases, the actions taken by Christians in compliance with their unverifiable but non-negotiable religious beliefs not only bring additional harm to an already difficult situation but introduce harm where none would otherwise exist.

I would certainly think more than twice before acting in a way I know will cause harm; especially if the only justification I had was faith in an unverifiable and extraordinary supernatural belief regardless of the quantity and quality of evidence supporting it. This is because I value and respect the well-being of other people who I know objectively exist more than I value and respect a pre-scientific extraordinary idea of a God that cannot be known to exist or not exist.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like or whatever you feel the evidence best supports because it is none of my business as long as it doesn't compel you to act in a way that causes harm to me or other people. However, when you or other Christians take unjustifiable actions to impose your beliefs in ways that cause objective harm to others, it becomes my business and the business of all who do not share your unverifiable beliefs.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 22 by bluegreenearth]

Yeah, so -- and I knew this is where this was all coming to -- you think being against homosexual marriage is "imposing my beliefs in such a way that it causes harm to others." If so, I disagree wholeheartedly. Other than, "Darn, I can't marry this person that I love" or "Darn, those two people love each other and can't get married" -- which at the end of the day is nothing more than disappointment in both cases -- there is no "harm." If homosexual marriage were against the law, homosexuals would still be perfectly free to practice homosexuality -- and thus express their love or have love expressed to them any way they want by whomever they wish to their heart's content. So again, just disappointment at not being able to get married. Not to trivialize disappointment, because it is real, but, still, just disappointment. I feel sure you will disagree with that, but it is what it is.

But you know, this is a moot point anyway, is it not? As far as I know, homosexual marriage is legal (assuming we're talking about the United States of America), right? And my position now is, those "beliefs" have been imposed on me as a Christian and a citizen of this country, which is what you're supposedly so against. But that's not your business, right? Or am I hitting on a bit of inconsistency in your ideology?

But to be consistent with the first paragraph above, no, I don't really think the beliefs of the advocates (homosexual or otherwise) of homosexual marriage have been somehow imposed on me, really. I am disappointed that the country I am a citizen of has decided to legalize and sanction homosexual marriage; in the long run, I feel sure that it will cause harm to us all -- even homosexuals themselves -- because it will cause harm to this country and society as a whole. But hey, it's the law of the land now, and we have to live with it. We are on the proverbial slippery slope, and the downward descent of society continues (it began long before homosexual marriage was any kind of real issue).

Grace and peace to you.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 22 by bluegreenearth]

Yeah, so -- and I knew this is where this was all coming to -- you think being against homosexual marriage is "imposing my beliefs in such a way that it causes harm to others." If so, I disagree wholeheartedly. Other than, "Darn, I can't marry this person that I love" or "Darn, those two people love each other and can't get married" -- which at the end of the day is nothing more than disappointment in both cases -- there is no "harm." If homosexual marriage were against the law, homosexuals would still be perfectly free to practice homosexuality -- and thus express their love or have love expressed to them any way they want by whomever they wish to their heart's content. So again, just disappointment at not being able to get married. Not to trivialize disappointment, because it is real, but, still, just disappointment. I feel sure you will disagree with that, but it is what it is.

You may not have deliberately meant to trivialize the consequences, but there it is. If the consequences boiled down to mere disappointment, I wouldn't be bothered enough to debate this issue. Here is what the actual data demonstrates. The maladaptive behaviors of Christians and other religious groups are directly responsible for the emotional, psychological, and often physical abuse experienced by the LGBTQ community regardless of whether these Christians' intentions were loving or not. This is not my personal opinion but an objective fact documented in peer reviewed journals (Here is one example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/). So, yes, there is real harm being committed here where none would otherwise exist.

But you know, this is a moot point anyway, is it not? As far as I know, homosexual marriage is legal (assuming we're talking about the United States of America), right? And my position now is, those "beliefs" have been imposed on me as a Christian and a citizen of this country, which is what you're supposedly so against. But that's not your business, right? Or am I hitting on a bit of inconsistency in your ideology?

There is nothing inconsistent in my ideology (that I'm aware of) because legalized gay marriage does not impose upon your right to not marry someone of the same gender. Some Christians are disgusted by the idea of two men or two women being married to each other, but that is a matter of personal preference and not a matter of morality since consenting actions between two adults of the same gender impose nothing on anyone outside that relationship. Sure, there are ideas other people condone that I find disgusting. I am disgusted by the idea of worshiping a God that would require the horrible sacrifice of a relatively harmless apocalyptic preacher in order to absolve humanity of sin which God arranged for them to unfairly inherit despite the fact that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity would more likely just forgive people who seek repentance from sin without all that drama. However, I would never emotionally, psychologically, or physically abuse Christians who embrace such an immoral concept or object to their right to worship it. Conversely, actively demonizing homosexuality and discouraging homosexuals from seeking a loving monogamous relationship with the people they love is tragically harmful for everyone according to the consensus of experts who investigate this issue. Who am I to argue against the professionals that know more and better than me?

But to be consistent with the first paragraph above, no, I don't really think the beliefs of the advocates (homosexual or otherwise) of homosexual marriage have been somehow imposed on me, really. I am disappointed that the country I am a citizen of has decided to legalize and sanction homosexual marriage; in the long run, I feel sure that it will cause harm to us all -- even homosexuals themselves -- because it will cause harm to this country and society as a whole. But hey, it's the law of the land now, and we have to live with it. We are on the proverbial slippery slope, and the downward descent of society continues (it began long before homosexual marriage was any kind of real issue.

The problem with your prediction is that it is unfalsifiable. Even though all the data objectively demonstrates that supporting the LGBTQ community contributes to improved well-being for society as a whole, you can always make the unsupported claim that sanctioned homosexuality will eventually cause harm. In 10 or 20 years when the data continues to demonstrate improved societal well-being, you can just repeat the unsupported claim that legalized gay marriage will one day be blamed for the downward descent of our culture. After 150 years of improved well-being, your great grandchildren (if they are perpetuating your Christian beliefs) can dust off your claim that support for LGBTQ rights will eventually lead to destruction even if it appears to be an objective good at the moment. In 500 years, if society happens to collapse for some economic reasons, future Christians (if they are still around) will probably find a way to blame their troubles on the ancient liberals who chose to treat the LGBTQ community with dignity and respect even though it would really have nothing at all to do with the situation.

I, on the other hand, will freely abandon my ideology if it were to ever become falsified by unbiased evidence. If supporting the LGBTQ community is one day demonstrated to be objectively harmful to the well-being of most people, I will adopt the best course of action that maximizes well-being for the most people.

In the mean time, I can understand why you would find logically fallacious apologetic arguments appealing and acceptable from within the Christian worldview. Nevertheless, I will warn that there are behaviors and actions occurring within your church and other Christian churches that are directly responsible for causing objective harm to Christians as well as non-Christians outside the church. Where such harms have been identified, I encourage you and other Christians to recognize the irresponsibility and immorality of endorsing the use of faith as a justification for perpetuating maladaptive behaviors and actions which are detrimental to everyone's well-being. In anticipation of your potential objection to my use of the term "maladaptive behaviors and actions," I will only suggest that I am at a loss to find more appropriate language to describe what I clearly observe from many in the Christian community. Please take no personal offense.

[PinSeeker]

Okay, then...

The maladaptive behaviors of Christians and other religious groups are directly responsible for the emotional, psychological, and often physical abuse experienced by the LGBTQ community regardless of whether these Christians' intentions were loving or not. This is not my personal opinion but an objective fact documented in peer reviewed journals (Here is one example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/). So, yes, there is real harm being committed here where none would otherwise exist.

In the same way, Christians -- and not just Christians but Jews and Muslims and people of other faiths and many folks who wouldn't consider themselves religious at all -- suffer from the same types of abuse at the hands of those advocating homosexual marriage (explanation below; we are made to be facilitators, condoners, and even endorsers of sin). If you want to accuse me of trivialization, then I'll throw that right back at you.

There is nothing inconsistent in my ideology (that I'm aware of)...

Right, that you're aware of. See above. Now you are (or should be).

...legalized gay marriage does not impose upon your right to not marry someone of the same gender.

But it causes me as a citizen of this country, a representative Republic, to condone, facilitate, and even endorse sin against my will. That causes me (and many other people, religious and otherwise, as I said) great emotional anguish. It may be unintentional, but it is what it is.

Some Christians are disgusted by the idea of two men or two women being married to each other, but that is a matter of personal preference and not a matter of morality since consenting actions between two adults of the same gender impose nothing on anyone outside that relationship.

Christians are disgusted by any type of sexual sin, and any type of sin in general. At least they should be. And as I said, Christians are disgusted with their own sin, whatever it may be. One great day sin will be no more; everlasting joy will be on our heads, and all sorrow and sighing will flee away, as Isaiah says. For now, we crusade against it in any form, but not against the people who sin (which would be everybody who walks this planet, Christians themselves included).

Sure, there are ideas other people condone that I find disgusting. I am disgusted by the idea of worshiping a God that would require the horrible sacrifice of a relatively harmless apocalyptic preacher in order to absolve humanity of sin which God arranged for them to unfairly inherit despite the fact that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity would more likely just forgive people who seek repentance from sin without all that drama.

This is complete nonsense. God requires no sacrifice, except that which was already made 2000 years ago: Himself, because He had to give Himself to satisfy His own justice. Thanks be to God for that. Yeah, no offense, but what you say here is just complete nonsense.

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.

Conversely, actively demonizing homosexuality and discouraging homosexuals from seeking a loving monogamous relationship with the people they love is tragically harmful for everyone according to the consensus of experts who investigate this issue.

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.

Who am I to argue against the professionals that know more and better than me?

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

The problem with your prediction is that it is unfalsifiable. Even though all the data objectively demonstrates that supporting the LGBTQ community contributes to improved well-being for society as a whole, you can always make the unsupported claim that sanctioned homosexuality will eventually cause harm.

But it's causing harm now. In society, in persons individually. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't make it "unsupported."

Hey, here's one that you'll scoff at, I'm sure, but I'll throw it out there just for "fun." If marriage is now legally between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, why can it not be three? Or five? Or forty-six? Yes, there is movement to get polygamy declared legal. Does polygamy disgust you? If so, why? Why can't three/five/forty-six people who love each other deeply get married?

I, on the other hand, will freely abandon my ideology if it were to ever become falsified by unbiased evidence.

Well, then you should have already done so.

...I will warn that there are behaviors and actions occurring within your church and other Christian churches that are directly responsible for causing objective harm to Christians as well as non-Christians outside the church. Where such harms have been identified, I encourage you and other Christians to recognize the irresponsibility and immorality of endorsing the use of faith as a justification for perpetuating maladaptive behaviors and actions which are detrimental to everyone's well-being. In anticipation of your potential objection to my use of the term "maladaptive behaviors and actions," I will only suggest that I am at a loss to find more appropriate language to describe what I clearly observe from many in the Christian community. Please take no personal offense.

No offense taken. I fully acknowledge that there is such a thing as "maladaptive behavior and action," and I don't disagree that we are all -- all, not just Christians or just "religious folk" -- guilty of those from at least from time to time; it's called sin. But what you see as maladaptive falls far short of what such really is. That's the point.

Grace and peace to you in the name of Christ Jesus.

[Tcg]

But it causes me as a citizen of this country, a representative Republic, to condone, facilitate, and even endorse sin against my will.

Nope, unless you think you are required to enter into a homosexual union. In case this hasn't been explained to you, you're not.

That causes me (and many other people, religious and otherwise, as I said) great emotional anguish. It may be unintentional, but it is what it is.

I have difficulty accepting this as a reason to cause true emotional anguish for those who should have the freedom to marry those they love. Again, you aren't required to enter into a homosexual union. Your homophobic emotional reactions are inconsequential in comparison.


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

Okay, then...

The maladaptive behaviors of Christians and other religious groups are directly responsible for the emotional, psychological, and often physical abuse experienced by the LGBTQ community regardless of whether these Christians' intentions were loving or not. This is not my personal opinion but an objective fact documented in peer reviewed journals (Here is one example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/). So, yes, there is real harm being committed here where none would otherwise exist.

In the same way, Christians -- and not just Christians but Jews and Muslims and people of other faiths and many folks who wouldn't consider themselves religious at all -- suffer from the same types of abuse at the hands of those advocating homosexual marriage (explanation below; we are made to be facilitators, condoners, and even endorsers of sin). If you want to accuse me of trivialization, then I'll throw that right back at you.

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? I don't support publicly ridiculing that pastry chef either, but the legalization of gay marriage is not responsible for the harmful behavior exhibited by some people who advocate for it. The best and least harmful solution to such a problem would be to accommodate both the pastry chef and the gay couple by having another more tolerant pastry chef bake the wedding cake. If every pastry chef in that particular bakery was opposed to gay marriage, they should kindly and respectfully refer the couple to another more tolerant bakery.

But it causes me as a citizen of this country, a representative Republic, to condone, facilitate, and even endorse sin against my will. That causes me (and many other people, religious and otherwise, as I said) great emotional anguish. It may be unintentional, but it is what it is.

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

Christians are disgusted by any type of sexual sin, and any type of sin in general. At least they should be. And as I said, Christians are disgusted with their own sin, whatever it may be. One great day sin will be no more; everlasting joy will be on our heads, and all sorrow and sighing will flee away, as Isaiah says. For now, we crusade against it in any form, but not against the people who sin (which would be everybody who walks this planet, Christians themselves included).

You can't excuse maladaptive behaviors and actions by claiming they are only targeting sin and not the people who sin. Your intentions amount to nothing because it is still the people who suffer the consequences of your maladaptive behaviors and actions. Your beliefs in unverifiable supernatural claims are not a sufficient justification for the objectively verifiable harm caused by the actions informed by your beliefs.

This is complete nonsense. God requires no sacrifice, except that which was already made 2000 years ago: Himself, because He had to give Himself to satisfy His own justice. Thanks be to God for that. Yeah, no offense, but what you say here is just complete nonsense.

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.

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? Where is the verified empirical data collected by experts in the field and published in peer reviewed journals that demonstrates how support for the LGBTQ community is objectively causing a disproportionate amount of emotional, psychological, and physical harm to Christians and other religious groups on a massive scale? The reason you accuse me of trivializing your concern is precisely because your concern is trivial compared to what the LGBTQ community experiences.

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.

But it's causing harm now. In society, in persons individually. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't make it "unsupported."

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.

Hey, here's one that you'll scoff at, I'm sure, but I'll throw it out there just for "fun." If marriage is now legally between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, why can it not be three? Or five? Or forty-six? Yes, there is movement to get polygamy declared legal. Does polygamy disgust you? If so, why? Why can't three/five/forty-six people who love each other deeply get married?

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.

No offense taken. I fully acknowledge that there is such a thing as "maladaptive behavior and action," and I don't disagree that we are all -- all, not just Christians or just "religious folk" -- guilty of those from at least from time to time; it's called sin. But what you see as maladaptive falls far short of what such really is. That's the point.

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

[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"

[Tcg]

Pinseeker, It looks like the Homosexual community wants not only to marry but have us say its holy.

I for one am not from the "Homosexual community." I couldn't possibly be any more heterosexual.

I am from the compassionate humans community and support the rights of consenting gay adults to marry the ones they love. It's the same rights I support for consenting adult heterosexuals.


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

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.