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.

[bluegreenearth]

[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

This is the question being investigated: What objective method can we use to determine which interpretation of the Bible is authorized by God?

This is the method you seem to be recommending:

Step 1 - Assert the unverifiable claim that only Catholic theologians are authorized by Jesus to infallibly interpret the word of God (which is strange considering neither the New Testament word of God nor Catholic theologians existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have granted that authorization, but I digress).

Step 2 - If anyone asks how Catholic theologians objectively verified their interpretation of God's word which led to their belief in the claim that Jesus had only granted Catholic theologians authorization to infallibly interpret the word of God, default back to Step 1.

Well, that makes perfect sense. How could I have been so lost and confused before?

[brianbbs67]

Sin is only defined by scripture as breaking the law. No law no sin. Morality is a little different but leads to the same conclusion most times. We are given the rules for now almost 3000 years or more according to some. Why do we refuse to follow them?

[bluegreenearth]

[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’

There are no credible examples of the type you mention for the issue of gay marriage. If a public school textbook stated, "Good people love homosexual marriage and only hateful bigots do not," I would oppose such language the same as you. If a public school conducted an assembly where students were required to attend a homosexual wedding with other homosexual couples and encourage the student's to consider marrying someone of the same gender, I would oppose that activity the same as you. Something tells me, if you are referring to real-world examples, the actual situations are probably nothing like what you've described.

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.

Excellent job on misrepresenting the actual situation. Susie would only be narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, and hurtful if she tried to prohibit the availability of bacon ice cream to others and demonize people who desired that flavor. Someone can say they aren't sexually aroused by people of the same gender without condemning people who are.

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!

This is not a legitimate parallel to homosexuality. People aren't born with an inescapable addiction to smoking cigarettes. Sorry, but that was an epic fail considering the intellectual capability you've demonstrated in previous posts. Very disappointing. I'm sure you'll better next time.

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.

Another epic fail. I really want to believe you are better than this. Ironically, when it comes to incest, I offer you the "unnatural" argument many Christians are fond of because it is actually appropriate to use in this case. You are zero for two. I'll assume you'll do better in the next round.

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.

Are you just being intellectually lazy now? You could have figured out where your comment was not applicable on your own and chosen not to post it. Rape doesn't apply as an analogy because one of the participants has not consented to it. Abortion doesn't apply as an analogy either because the mother didn't consent to having her body utilized by the fetus, and the fetus lacks any consciousness whatsoever to consent or not consent to anything the mother chooses to do with it. Incidentally, this isn't an abortion debate, and I'm not interested in debating abortion. Abortion is an issue more nuanced and complex than what most people make it out to be, and there are no easily identifiable answers.

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?

Not that it really matters, but for the record, I wouldn't personally expect or try to force you to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony. Also, I'm not entirely sure anyone is suggesting every photographer and pastry chef must consent to providing their services to homosexual weddings; only that some sort of reasonable accommodation be provided for both the service provider and the homosexual couple. I'm not entirely sure what that might be, but at least a concerted effort should be made to work something out.

The reason they banned gay conversion therapy is because it was demonstrated to be fraudulent and objectively harmful. There is really nothing else to say about that. Google it if you must.

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.

Let me reword your question in the form of the analogy so that I may understand and respond to it: Why would it be appropriate to institute a prohibition against not wanting to be angry? Well, no one would ever prohibit someone from not wanting to be angry, but a therapy that encouraged people to deny or suppress their anger might be prohibited because of the psychological damage it would cause. People may not want to feel angry, but they learn to manage their anger by first accepting it as a natural emotion. For the same reason, no one would ever prohibit someone from not wanting to have same-sex attraction, but would prohibit a therapy that encouraged people with same-sex attraction to deny or suppress it because of the psychological damage it would cause. Some people may not want to have same-sex attraction, but they learn to manage their homosexuality by first accepting it as a natural part of themselves.

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?

This is obviously happening because there are countless documented cases of LGBTQ victims who have experienced this type of maltreatment from Christians. If you aren't contributing to this abusive conduct, then good for you.

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.

If your friend is violating the marriage "contract" she has with her husband, then she would be wrong by definition. If the marriage "contract' she had with her husband permitted the two of them to sleep with other people under specified conditions they both agreed to, then she wouldn't be wrong. If you were unaware that she and her husband were in an open marriage, you would be wrong for telling her she was 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.

Despite what the bogus anti-gay propaganda claims, the majority loving monogamous homosexual relationships are healthy and in their best interest. Sure, it wouldn't be in the best interest of heterosexuals or healthy for heterosexuals to have homosexual relationships in most cases because they aren't homosexuals.

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

Signs of progress is hopeful. Nevertheless, there is more to be done to protect LGBTQ people from emotional, psychological, and physical abuse from maladapted Christians. If you are not one of those maladapted Christians, good for you.

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.

Whatever you need to tell yourself. God forbid (pun intended) you ever investigate the possibility that homosexuality is not a sin or dare to challenge established doctrine for the sake maximizing the well-being of a entire demographic of people.

Just for fun, here is my version of what you just posted: Secular Humanistic support can be done in a loving and respectful manner. LGBTQ people can tell the difference from being really loved for who they are and being condescendingly told that God loves them in spite of who they are. No one enveloped in Christians apologtics likes to hear he/she is logically fallacious. But it actually is the opposite of love to ignore unjustified emotional and psychological abuse and really does more harm in the long run.

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.

False equivocation. Without the concept of God, the word "sin" becomes meaningless. Without the existence of God, all the behaviors and actions which do not maximize well-being and minimize harm for the most people will just be labeled as "wrong" or "incorrect" since there would be no God to declare anything sinful. When wrong behaviors and actions are determined by a God's list of prohibitions instead of their impacts to human well-being, the "sin" label becomes attached to them.

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

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


This is the question being investigated: What objective method can we use to determine which interpretation of the Bible is authorized by God?

Again, your statement misses it. You are insisting on taking all the interpretations and giving them all equal consideration. Why? What you should do first is determine who has the right to interpret. And yes, this can be done via faith and reason. We can use some objective method to come to this conclusion. We need to study history, ancient writings, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. Heck, we could eliminate 99% of Christian denominations by simply looking at the historical record. If your church was just founded a few hundred years ago, it would be difficult to prove it was the Church established by Jesus Christ. If your church teaches that which contradicts the records we have of early church teaching, then it would be difficult to prove your church is the Church established by Jesus Christ.

This is the method you seem to be recommending:

Step 1 - Assert the unverifiable claim that only Catholic theologians are authorized by Jesus to infallibly interpret the word of God (which is strange considering neither the New Testament word of God nor Catholic theologians existed at the time Jesus was supposed to have granted that authorization, but I digress).

Do you know history? The Catholic Church today is the same church Christ established. I have no idea what you mean by it did not exist. Only the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession that can be traced back to Jesus Himself when He put Peter (the first Pope) in charge, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I build my church.� “I give to you the keys to the kingdom� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�


In addition to Scripture, we even have ancient writings from the early church corroborating the primacy of Peter as well as many other Catholic teachings like her teachings on Mary and the Trinity and purgatory. So, yeah with reason one can use objective means to find Christ’s Church.

Step 2 - If anyone asks how Catholic theologians objectively verified their interpretation of God's word which led to their belief in the claim that Jesus had only granted Catholic theologians authorization to infallibly interpret the word of God, default back to Step 1.

No, follow the historical record. Study all we can know from what we have regarding ancient writings, ancient texts, yes writings from Sacred Scripture, and look at what actually occurred. Was a church founded over 2000 years ago? Are there records of people claiming to be the first Christians following Peter and the Apostles, listening to Peter and the Apostles? Taking their matters to the Church? Having the Church be the final say if there was division? Is there record of this same group going out and spreading the teachings of Christ, some of them even dying for their faith? You will find the answers to all those questions as a matter of public record. So, not only do we have written records showing Jesus established and intended an authoritative church, we also have history showing that IS exactly what occurred. And this history shows the unbroken line of succession which is the Catholic Church.

But sure, let’s do it your way . . . let’s let Jimmy Kimmel pick up the Bible and tell us what it means and carefully consider his take on it. That’s reasonable.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

No, follow the historical record. Study all we can know from what we have regarding ancient writings, ancient texts, yes writings from Sacred Scripture, and look at what actually occurred. Was a church founded over 2000 years ago? Are there records of people claiming to be the first Christians following Peter and the Apostles, listening to Peter and the Apostles? Taking their matters to the Church? Having the Church be the final say if there was division? Is there record of this same group going out and spreading the teachings of Christ, some of them even dying for their faith? You will find the answers to all those questions as a matter of public record. So, not only do we have written records showing Jesus established and intended an authoritative church, we also have history showing that IS exactly what occurred. And this history shows the unbroken line of succession which is the Catholic Church.

It appears at least one person has completed the process you've described above: http://www.bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm

There is too much detailed content at the provided link (written by a Christian using only Catholic resources) to summarize here, but the conclusion suggests your case is not as solid as you might want to believe.

Here is an excerpt from the Christian's research:

There are no successors to the apostles and prophets. The alleged Catholic doctrine of "apostolic succession" is not taught in the Bible.

There is no need whatsoever for successors to the apostles and prophets. The apostles and prophets were God's chosen ambassadors to deliver "the faith" to mankind and their work has been completed. No one today possesses their qualifications. No one has their spiritual gifts and miraculous powers. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were guided into all truth as Jesus had promised. When we read the things they wrote, we can understand their knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:3-4). All things of the will of Christ are recorded in the written New Testament of Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). It contains all that God has bound upon us and all by which we will be judged in the last day.

No man on earth today has authority to forgive sins. The apostles did not have the authority to arbitrarily say to penitent sinners, "I absolve you," but by the Holy Spirit they revealed to sinners how their sins were to be forgiven or retained. The apostles did not instruct us to confess our sins to a priest. In the New Testament all Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5,9).

We close by calling your attention to the following Scriptures which solemnly warn against false apostles and prophets.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone forth into the world." (1 John 4:1).
"I know thy works and thy labor and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men; but hast tried those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them false." (Rev. 2:2).
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them." (Matt. 7:15-16).
"For they are false prophets, deceitful workers, distinguishing themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light. It is not great thing, then, if his ministers disguise themselves as ministers of justice." (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

There are no credible examples of the type you mention for the issue of gay marriage.

The indoctrination has already begun and will simply get worse.

Massachusetts 2nd-grade teacher reads class 'gay marriage' book; administrator backs her
http://www.bpnews.net/23077/massachuset ... -backs-her


Mom outraged teacher read daughter's class gay-rights book: 'It's not age appropriate'
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-out ... 26968.html

Drag queen admits he’s ‘grooming’ children at story hour events
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch ... our-events


Christian mom forced out of library drag show by cops and harassed by Antifa speaks outhttps://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-mo ... s-out.html


Virginia high school teacher fired for refusing to use transgender student's new pronouns
https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/ ... 80917.html



Indiana Teacher Forced to Resign After Refusing to Use Transgender Pronouns
https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2018/ ... -pronouns/

Quote:
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.


Excellent job on misrepresenting the actual situation. Susie would only be narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, and hurtful if she tried to prohibit the availability of bacon ice cream to others and demonize people who desired that flavor.

No, just like I stated above the norm today is Susie will be called narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, and hurtful simply for saying she personally does not like bacon flavored ice cream. She will be told she shouldn’t say that and that it is rude and hurtful to make such a statement. That’s what is happening.

Quote:
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!


This is not a legitimate parallel to homosexuality. People aren't born with an inescapable addiction to smoking cigarettes.

Nor has there been discovered a gay gene. And even if there was, which there isn’t does that necessarily matter? Science does show there could be some genetic susceptibility to something like alcoholism. Of course, that does not mean we can’t speak out against the harms of alcoholism. Just because someone might have a predisposition to becoming an alcoholic does not mean well, then he shouldn’t fight it – in fact we should celebrate it – after all that’s who he is!

Sorry, but that was an epic fail considering the intellectual capability you've demonstrated in previous posts.

Sorry, but it really wasn’t. It is a good and applicable example. You attempt what many attempt – the ‘ole “well, that comment doesn’t even deserve a response� or let’s just shout “homophobic!� that shuts down the conversation quickly. If we can shut them up, then we do not have to respond to their argument/logic. We just have to call them names. Not only is the born that way argument not scientifically proven, it also is irrelevant. It is just as meaningless as the #loveislove slogan. Since when do we believe #loveislove? Teacher and student get it on #loveislove, man marries 5 wifes #loveislove, I want to marry my dog #loveislove, I’m in love with my brother #loveislove. It is not simply about feelings, even between two or more parties that are willing participants. We hear the chants – you can’t tell me who or what I can love! And yet, we do, as a society all the time – don’t we? And with good reason.

Quote:
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.


Another epic fail. I really want to believe you are better than this. Ironically, when it comes to incest, I offer you the "unnatural" argument

What is unnatural about incest? How can I help who I fall in love with?

Quote:
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.


Rape doesn't apply as an analogy because one of the participants has not consented to it.

But it’s never simply about consent. A mother and son can consent to have sex, is that cool? A couple having an affair clearly consent. Even an animal can accept or reject a human beings action to copulate. So, clearly consent is not the issue of whether something is right or wrong. Two ill informed people often consent to immoral behavior – the fact that they consent doesn’t make the behavior right or good.

Abortion doesn't apply as an analogy either because the mother didn't consent to having her body utilized by the fetus

Did she not know how babies are made? If we are true to science we ought to know that if one engages in the sexual act, the natural consequence is possible creation of a new life. Once a new human being is created (who by the way has an entirely separate and unique DNA than his/her mother), the woman’s rights end and the baby’s right’s begin simply be being a human being.

The reason they banned gay conversion therapy is because it was demonstrated to be fraudulent and objectively harmful.

Not according to many ex gays who are grateful they had the freedom to receive the necessary help to rid them of the enslavement they found themselves in. Some said they would often seek help only to be told, “You’re gay. Just accept it� or “You can’t change. You were born that way� They knew being gay was not who they were. And living a gay lifestyle was not bringing them the happiness they deserved.

Quote:
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.


Let me reword your question in the form of the analogy so that I may understand and respond to it: Why would it be appropriate to institute a prohibition against not wanting to be angry?

UUmmm . . . there is exactly what you are suggesting. Anger management is a real thing. Many people seek therapy for it. They recognize their anger is causing them a lot of problems and they want to rid themselves of it. Sounds pretty smart to me.

It is certainly understandable why people get angry and that people get angry. It’s also understandable why people have sexual desires and that people have sexual desires. Of course, although we can’t always or completely eliminate anger from our lives, it actually would be to our benefit to be in control of it and direct it to good. The very same thing could be said regarding sexual attraction. We often can’t help these feelings, but we can direct them to their proper ends. Promiscuity, adultery, homosexual acts are not ordered ends.

no one would ever prohibit someone from not wanting to have same-sex attraction

Well, as I’m sure you know it is difficult to prohibit sexual feelings. But I also would think you would not have a problem trying to “prohibit� someone from not wanting to have sexual attraction to small children. I’m sure you would actually consider that good that that person desires to try to eliminate or rid himself of such desires. I would think he should be permitted to seek help to help him with this and not be told, “Well, that’s just the way you are. There isn’t anything we can do about.�

Quote:
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.


If your friend is violating the marriage "contract" she has with her husband, then she would be wrong by definition. If the marriage "contract' she had with her husband permitted the two of them to sleep with other people under specified conditions they both agreed to, then she wouldn't be wrong. If you were unaware that she and her husband were in an open marriage, you would be wrong for telling her she was wrong.

<sigh> Proof you are a proponent of the illogical moral relativism. You do not think right and wrong exist and that man can somehow determine his own moral truth. That is an illogical thought – not to mention contrary to how people actually live their lives. We all live acknowledging some things are right and some things are wrong and that that is something all men can know.

Quote:
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.


Despite what the bogus anti-gay propaganda claims, the majority loving monogamous homosexual relationships are healthy and in their best interest.

You deny the science/facts/truth. You deny the statistics for the LGBTQ Community in regards to mental and physical health.

Just for fun, here is my version of what you just posted: Secular Humanistic support can be done in a loving and respectful manner. LGBTQ people can tell the difference from being really loved for who they are and being condescendingly told that God loves them in spite of who they are. No one enveloped in Christians apologtics likes to hear he/she is logically fallacious. But it actually is the opposite of love to ignore unjustified emotional and psychological abuse and really does more harm in the long run.

No one is ignoring any abuse experienced by our beautiful same sex attracted individuals. Their struggles are real. They need love. Sometimes love involves telling a person what they don’t always want to hear. It’s easy to adopt a “live and let live� or “whatever makes you happy� attitude, but that’s not caring and concern – that is actually not caring.

Without the concept of God, the word "sin" becomes meaningless.

Again, we are talking about semantics. You can use whatever word you want to describe that which is wrong/bad. We don’t need a God to know there are things that are wrong/bad/not in man’s best interest. It is written in the world we live in and something all men can know.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 45 by bluegreenearth]

RightReason wrote:


[Replying to bluegreenearth]

No, follow the historical record. Study all we can know from what we have regarding ancient writings, ancient texts, yes writings from Sacred Scripture, and look at what actually occurred. Was a church founded over 2000 years ago? Are there records of people claiming to be the first Christians following Peter and the Apostles, listening to Peter and the Apostles? Taking their matters to the Church? Having the Church be the final say if there was division? Is there record of this same group going out and spreading the teachings of Christ, some of them even dying for their faith? You will find the answers to all those questions as a matter of public record. So, not only do we have written records showing Jesus established and intended an authoritative church, we also have history showing that IS exactly what occurred. And this history shows the unbroken line of succession which is the Catholic Church.


It appears at least one person has completed the process you've described above: http://www.bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm

There is too much detailed content at the provided link (written by a Christian using only Catholic resources) to summarize here, but the conclusion suggests your case is not as solid as you might want to believe.

Here is an excerpt from the Christian's research:

There are no successors to the apostles and prophets. The alleged Catholic doctrine of "apostolic succession" is not taught in the Bible.

There is no need whatsoever for successors to the apostles and prophets. The apostles and prophets were God's chosen ambassadors to deliver "the faith" to mankind and their work has been completed. No one today possesses their qualifications. No one has their spiritual gifts and miraculous powers. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were guided into all truth as Jesus had promised. When we read the things they wrote, we can understand their knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:3-4). All things of the will of Christ are recorded in the written New Testament of Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). It contains all that God has bound upon us and all by which we will be judged in the last day.

No man on earth today has authority to forgive sins. The apostles did not have the authority to arbitrarily say to penitent sinners, "I absolve you," but by the Holy Spirit they revealed to sinners how their sins were to be forgiven or retained. The apostles did not instruct us to confess our sins to a priest. In the New Testament all Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5,9).

We close by calling your attention to the following Scriptures which solemnly warn against false apostles and prophets.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone forth into the world." (1 John 4:1).
"I know thy works and thy labor and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men; but hast tried those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them false." (Rev. 2:2).
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them." (Matt. 7:15-16).
"For they are false prophets, deceitful workers, distinguishing themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light. It is not great thing, then, if his ministers disguise themselves as ministers of justice." (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

I’ll get back to this when I get a chance, but it’s nice to see you at least dropped the false accusation you attempted earlier in suggesting there is no objective method we can use to determine which interpretation of the Bible is authorized by God? Now you have moved on to attempting to discredit the authority of the Church – that’s actually awesome – it’s a start! And it’s the right start. Because that is what we need to ask first in order to know which interpretation should we listen to. Good job!

Like I said, I’ll have to look at this more later. I’m heading out the door, but initial glance looks like the Christian you chose to quote is pretty much giving his opinion that the Catholic Church is not the real deal. I seem to be looking at an awful lot of assertions and not a whole lot of historical fact. He seems to be giving the typical Protestant propaganda about going directly to God, etc. All of which I will kindly debunk soon.

Peace.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Massachusetts 2nd-grade teacher reads class 'gay marriage' book; administrator backs her
http://www.bpnews.net/23077/massachuset ... -backs-her

A lot depends on context. If the book simply described gay marriage in terms of diversity and not in terms of placing a value judgement on it, then there isn't anything wrong with what the teacher did. If the book was read as part of a lesson on diversity, then it would have been dishonest exclude gay marriage from the curriculum as though it didn't exist. However, if there was a concerted effort on the part of the teacher to attach a moral value to gay marriage in the lesson (i.e. gay marriage is morally good or gay marriage is morally bad), then the teacher will have crossed the line.

Mom outraged teacher read daughter's class gay-rights book: 'It's not age appropriate'
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-out ... 26968.html

There is something to be said for age appropriateness. As such, the validity of the mom's concern will depend on the exact content of the book. From what I can figure from the article, the mom had a valid reason to complain. However, the teacher's poor judgement in choosing the appropriate material for the lesson does not negate the appropriateness of the lesson's intent.

Drag queen admits he’s ‘grooming’ children at story hour events
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch ... our-events

Unlike a public school, children aren't compelled to attend a Drag Queen story hour at the public library. Since the library is a public institution, it must provide for the variety of interests demanded by a diverse population within reason. If parents prefer their children not attend the Drag Queen story hour, then they have the option not to. It isn't like the event wasn't advertised in advance in order to allow parents to make an informed decision. The only caveat would be the age-appropriateness of the material being presented. As long as the Drag Queen story hour didn't contain anything inappropriate for children, then there is no reason for the Library to object.

Christian mom forced out of library drag show by cops and harassed by Antifa speaks outhttps://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-mo ... s-out.html

Same response as earlier.

Virginia high school teacher fired for refusing to use transgender student's new pronouns
https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/ ... 80917.html

I see no valid reason to defend the teacher's behavior in this case. This is precisely the kind of maladaptive behavior I've been referring to. The psychological trauma experienced by that child as direct result of that adult teacher's actions is several orders of magnitude greater than any inconvenience expressed by the teacher for having to respect the child's gender identity.

Indiana Teacher Forced to Resign After Refusing to Use Transgender Pronouns
https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2018/ ... -pronouns/

Same response as earlier.

No, just like I stated above the norm today is Susie will be called narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, and hurtful simply for saying she personally does not like bacon flavored ice cream. She will be told she shouldn’t say that and that it is rude and hurtful to make such a statement. That’s what is happening.

For cases where that precise type of bullying occurs with people who are simply expressing their personal preference without condemning those who don't share that preference, I will agree with your assessment. However, what typically occurs is that people not only declare they aren't sexually attracted to people of the same gender, they also add a value statement to it declaring same-sex attraction to be immoral. It is the part where people try to impose their subjective value judgments on the others that solicits accusations of narrow-mindedness and intolerance. This applies both ways. If someone were simply informing another person that he/she did not posses same-sex attraction and was then immediately accused of being a bigot by that person, then the other person's attempt to impose a subjective value judgement on him/her for not having same-sex attraction would be inappropriate.

Nor has there been discovered a gay gene. And even if there was, which there isn’t does that necessarily matter? Science does show there could be some genetic susceptibility to something like alcoholism. Of course, that does not mean we can’t speak out against the harms of alcoholism. Just because someone might have a predisposition to becoming an alcoholic does not mean well, then he shouldn’t fight it – in fact we should celebrate it – after all that’s who he is!

We don't need the discovery of a gay gene to know homosexuals can't choose their sexual orientation.

People born with a susceptibility to alcoholism do not come out of the womb craving whiskey. It is never the case that a person predisposed to alcoholism whose never consumed alcohol will one day experience an irresistible craving for Vodka shots. We speak out against alcoholism not because the alcohol itself is bad but because of the effects it has on the health of addicts who excessively consume it. This is not a direct parallel to people whose biology is such that they will eventually experience same-sex attraction in the same way heterosexuals eventually experience opposite-sex attraction even if they've never before engaged in any sexual behavior. However, according to your world-view, it is perfectly permissible to celebrate opposite-sex attraction through the institution of marriage but sinful to celebrate same-sex attraction. If God does consider heterosexuality to be holy and homosexuality to be sinful, then God must be arbitrary and capricious given what is known about sexual orientation.

But it’s never simply about consent. A mother and son can consent to have sex, is that cool? A couple having an affair clearly consent. Even an animal can accept or reject a human beings action to copulate. So, clearly consent is not the issue of whether something is right or wrong. Two ill informed people often consent to immoral behavior – the fact that they consent doesn’t make the behavior right or good.

The incest scenario is driven by an emotional or psychological disorder more than just sexual orientation and consent. A person's psychological state is not entirely determined by biology in the same way as sexual orientation is. People's psychology can be deliberately or unintentionally manipulated in such a way that their consent is not a sufficient justification. Consent between a couple having an affair doesn't account for the violation of the existing marriage contracts which requires consent from the spouses as well. In regards to copulation with animals, even if an animal were to somehow indicate consent, the animal doesn't have the cognitive awareness to understand what it is consenting to. So, it is not always about consent as was previously indicated, but consent is an integral component. When two ill-informed people consent to participate in an action that they later discover to be harmful, it doesn't make their behavior immoral; just ill-informed.

Not according to many ex gays who are grateful they had the freedom to receive the necessary help to rid them of the enslavement they found themselves in. Some said they would often seek help only to be told, “You’re gay. Just accept it� or “You can’t change. You were born that way� They knew being gay was not who they were. And living a gay lifestyle was not bringing them the happiness they deserved.

In every therapy practice that was later demonstrated to be fraudulent, there were always people who claimed the treatment was their miracle cure. We see this placebo effect with new-age crystal therapy, homeopathy, and faith healing. Before you point out that no one has banned crystal therapy, homeopathy, faith healing and other such nonsense, it is important to acknowledge that those pseudo-scientific practices have not been demonstrated to cause objective harm to anyone in the majority of cases. There may be just cause to issue a ban on them one day in the future but not at the moment. As for gay conversion therapy, while there were a few patients who reported positive outcomes, it was discovered that a significant majority were not only unchanged by the therapy but psychologically damaged by it. If homeopathic medicine were ever demonstrated to be harmful to a significant number of people who bought into it, then it would have to be banned as well despite the few people who believe it works for them.

I am not asserting a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here because it is a question and not an assertion, but is it possible some of those ex-gays who supported conversion therapy weren't actually gay to begin with? I don't think we can rule-out that possibility. If living a gay lifestyle was not bringing them happiness, then maybe they were just confused or questioning (Q) and not biologically homosexual. It is just a thought.

UUmmm . . . there is exactly what you are suggesting. Anger management is a real thing. Many people seek therapy for it. They recognize their anger is causing them a lot of problems and they want to rid themselves of it. Sounds pretty smart to me.

It is certainly understandable why people get angry and that people get angry. It’s also understandable why people have sexual desires and that people have sexual desires. Of course, although we can’t always or completely eliminate anger from our lives, it actually would be to our benefit to be in control of it and direct it to good. The very same thing could be said regarding sexual attraction. We often can’t help these feelings, but we can direct them to their proper ends. Promiscuity, adultery, homosexual acts are not ordered ends.

Yes, "Anger Management" is a real form of therapy, but the goal is not to deny, suppress, or eliminate anger. Instead, the goal is to develop healthy strategies for "managing" what we do with our anger. The reason we should never try to rid ourselves of the anger emotion is because it serves a useful and necessary function in alarming us of potential threats.

Similarly, sexual desires are not harmful on their own and serve useful and necessary functions. Problems only arise when people act on their sexual desires in ways that are unjustifiably harmful to themselves or other people. If people have an ability to act on their sexual desires in ways that do not cause emotional, psychological, or unjustifiable physical harm to themselves or other people, then I fail to see a justification for arbitrarily instituting sexual restrictions on anyone in any of those circumstances. Of course, I have no objection to instituting prohibitions against sexual activity that does cause emotional, psychological, or unjustifiable physical harmful. Likewise, I have no objection to prohibiting sexual activity when it is motivated by emotional disorders, psychological disorders, or psychological manipulation.

For this reason, we shouldn't condemn sexual desires in the same way that we shouldn't condemn the emotion of anger. Therefore, a person struggling with same-sex attraction should seek "Homosexuality Management Therapy" in the same way a person struggling with the emotion of anger should seek "Anger Management Therapy." An appropriate therapeutic approach will help people struggling with homosexuality to recognize that their sexual orientation on its own is no more harmful than the emotion of anger is on its own. Problems only arise when homosexuals act on their sexual desires in ways that are unjustifiably harmful to themselves or other people. If an individual homosexual experiences physical harm from anal-sex, then maybe that person needs to find a safer and healthier way to act on his same-sex attraction but doesn't necessarily have to stop being gay.

Well, as I’m sure you know it is difficult to prohibit sexual feelings. But I also would think you would not have a problem trying to “prohibit� someone from not wanting to have sexual attraction to small children. I’m sure you would actually consider that good that that person desires to try to eliminate or rid himself of such desires. I would think he should be permitted to seek help to help him with this and not be told, “Well, that’s just the way you are. There isn’t anything we can do about.�

Pedophilia appears to be associated with “cross-wiring� in the brain anatomy responsible for controlling natural social instincts or behaviors. Nurturing and protective responses towards children in most adults are manifested as sexual responses in pedophiles. As such, the pedophilia is more like a neurological disorder even though it is sometimes thought of like a sexual orientation. In any case, protecting children from harm is a sufficient enough justification for prohibiting pedophiles from acting on a sexual desire they didn't choose for themselves and the justification for providing therapy to pedophiles. So, it is inaccurate to equate therapy for pedophiles with therapy for homosexuals. Also, unlike gay conversion therapy, the prescribed therapy for pedophiles has not been demonstrated to cause psychological damage of any kind.

<sigh> Proof you are a proponent of the illogical moral relativism. You do not think right and wrong exist and that man can somehow determine his own moral truth. That is an illogical thought – not to mention contrary to how people actually live their lives. We all live acknowledging some things are right and some things are wrong and that that is something all men can know.

Moral relativism (a.k.a subjective morality) is the philosophical position which holds that the distinction between a correct or good behavior and an incorrect or evil behavior is subject to interpretation by either a collection of individuals or a single individual. While this permits the moral value of many actions to vary from group to group or individual to individual, it doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of actions that every individual would equally interpret to be good or evil. So, the existence of actions that might be interpreted in the same way by all of humanity as being good or evil does not function as evidence for the existence of an objective morality. In fact, morality would still be subjective if it were prescribed by a god because the distinction between right and wrong behaviors would be "subject" to that god's interpretation. Therefore, moral actions are either subjective to humanity's arbitrary interpretations or subjective to a god's arbitrary declarations.

I can already hear William Lane Craig retorting, "God doesn't arbitrarily decide what behaviors are moral because morality is part of God's nature!" Well, if that's the case, morality would be objective but beyond God's power to control. Otherwise, morality would be subjective if God had the power to control the morality inherent to his nature in such a way that he could arbitrarily define its properties. So, if you are convinced that morality is objective and grounded in God's nature, then you believe in a God with limited power. Unfortunately, though, this depiction of God contradicts your theology.

In any case, what function would objective morality serve in the nature of a monotheistic creator god? Prior to creating humanity (and angels if you believe in them), God had only himself to interact with. What objectively immoral action could an indestructible and omnipotent God have done to himself when he was all by his lonesome that was prevented by the objective morality inherent to his nature? Did his objective moral nature discourage God from participating in anal sex with himself? Obviously, the concept of a monotheistic creator god with an objectively moral nature is logically incoherent.

It seems the only way an objective morality could exist would be for it to function like a law of physics. For example, the "Law of Gravity" functions the same way on all objects in the universe independent of whether humans exist or not. If humanity were to suddenly disappear from the universe, gravity would still exist because the Law of Gravity is objective. Meanwhile, since morality is inextricably linked to human behavior, it cannot exist without humans. If morality objectively exists in the universe in the same way as gravity, how does it function on non-human objects? Is there a yet to be discovered moral quantum particle that objectively exists, interacts with every object in the universe, but manifests in humanity as an emergent property called human morality? If so, human morality would still be subject to the existence of humans even if it were an emergent property of moral quantum particles that objectively exist.

You deny the science/facts/truth. You deny the statistics for the LGBTQ Community in regards to mental and physical health.

The multitude of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on this topic demonstrates otherwise. Propaganda produced by biased Christian think-tanks and websites must be disqualified as science/facts/truth.

No one is ignoring any abuse experienced by our beautiful same sex attracted individuals. Their struggles are real. They need love. Sometimes love involves telling a person what they don’t always want to hear. It’s easy to adopt a “live and let live� or “whatever makes you happy� attitude, but that’s not caring and concern – that is actually not caring.

No one is suggesting you don't genuinely care. I can infer from your comments that you believe such actions are in accordance with God's love. In fact, I've already explained that the maladaptive behavior of many Christians is often deployed out of love and concern for their LGBTQ victims. The problem is not with the motivation and intent behind maladaptive behavior but the objective outcome of it. I agree that sometimes love involves telling a person what they don't always want to hear and is precisely why I debate this topic with Christians. Many Christians don't always want to hear that their unfalsifiable but non-negotiable doctrines are destroying lives, but I am compelled by love for my fellow humans to inform them of this fact and request they develop some sort of compromise in the interest of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm.

[IaLoaou]

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.

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

[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.