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.

[IaLoaou]

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

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

The body of Christ is the church.

True or false?

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

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



I see no valid reason to defend the teacher's behavior in this case.

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

The 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.

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

Quote:
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.

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

It is the part where people try to impose their subjective value judgments on the others that solicits accusations of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.

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

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

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.

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

Quote:
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.

Not true and many admit this. There is even debate within the gay community itself about it and why many gays shame or dislike bisexuals. There are some who admit it is a choice. And like I said, even if it isn’t, neither are necessarily other sexual inclinations that we wouldn’t support (pedophilia, bestiality, bizarre fetishes).

People born with a susceptibility to alcoholism do not come out of the womb craving whiskey.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Pedophilia appears to be associated with “cross-wiring� in the brain anatomy responsible for controlling natural social instincts or behaviors.

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

Quote:
<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.

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

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.

Ha, ha, ha. . . I like to see William Lane Craig destroy you if you actually said what you just said to me to him, but I digress . . .

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.

No, just your comment is logically incoherent. God is not subject to the moral law. You misunderstand who God is and quite frankly what morality is.

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.

Wow, you actually got this part right. You are correct. Morality is only for human beings. Again, God is not subject to the moral law. But you misunderstand then what that means/implies.

Propaganda produced by biased Christian think-tanks and websites must be disqualified as science/facts/truth.

Well, it is a good thing then I am referring to actual research and scientific studies and basic statistics regarding the LGBTQ community and substance abuse, depression, suicide, domestic violence, mental health issues, etc.

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.

And the natural moral order.

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.

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

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

Or saving them !


,

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.

As am I – how open are you?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As am I – how open are you?

What is your proposal?

[bluegreenearth]

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

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

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

True or false?

[IaLoaou]

The church is in the kingdom of God.

True or false?

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

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

True or false?

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

[bluegreenearth]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

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

[IaLoaou]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

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

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

[Tcg]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

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

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

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

True or false?

[IaLoaou]

You are in the body of Christ.

True or false?

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

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

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

True or false?

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

[bluegreenearth]

You are a child of the devil.

True or false?

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