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]

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.

You never fooled me.

[bluegreenearth]

You never fooled me.

Is there a point you are trying to get across here?

[IaLoaou]

You never fooled me.

Is there a point you are trying to get across here?

If you can't see the point then you are the point.

[bluegreenearth]

If you can't see the point then you are the point.

If you were the point instead of me, I would be able to see the point while you would not. Since I see you as the point, then I cannot also be the point unless we can both be the point. Are we both the point?

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

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.

Yes, I am well aware this occurs. But like I said, a person does not simply get to choose whether he/she is male or female. There is a biological truth that exists. They are free to “identify� however they like, but they can’t make me deny biological truth. Truthfully, to simply not give the individual any more attention then he/she deserves, I would more than likely call the individual whatever he/she asked, but I should not be forced to do. You can’t force someone to support a lie.

This condition is known as Gender Dysphoria

Yes, it is. Just like an anorexic who thinks she is fat suffers from body image dysphoria. It is a psychological problem and we do not accept her disordered view as fact/truth. In fact we acknowledge it as a disorder and encourage her to seek help. In doing so, we don’t call her names, or say she is a bad person, or anything like that. Rather we can lovingly and correctly tell her she needs help without it causing any additional harm she may already be experiencing due to her disorder in the first place. We can via scientific measures assess that she in fact scientifically and medically speaking is not in fact obese. Objective truth exists and should be acknowledged. How she sees herself is not objective – it is in her head. Therefore, the compassionate thing to do is not indulge her in her delusion – that is not helpful.

For this reason, a person like yourself may be unable to take these people's suffering seriously

Not at all. I would take a person suffering with gender dysphoria very seriously. In fact, I wouldn’t deny the science/truth just to be politically correct. Pretending to be the opposite sex does not necessarily bring the individual satisfaction or contentment or even resolve their gender dysphoria.

Quote:
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.

It would be difficult to conclude objective harm in and of itself in thinking one is fat, even if they are not. Or thinking one is a man, when she is a woman, or vice versa.

Clearly, the harm would be measured in what one does with those thoughts/beliefs. And I would certainly suggest the popular recommended treatment of hormone injection and or surgery certainly have long term side effects and consequences.

Quote:
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.

That’s not what your initial comments showed. You initially said a person is free to say same sex relations are not for them, but they are not allowed to say they think they are immoral for everyone. So, you are basically saying they can only share the opinion that you do. Also, I’m not quite sure why thinking/believing same sex relations are good/right is not equally unfalsifiable private opinion. I can refer to science/biology in demonstrating same sex unions are not in man’s best interest.

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.

I couldn’t agree more. People deserve dignity and respect. We owe it to them to not deny facts/science/truth or encourage behaviors that are beneath their dignity and harmful to their long term peace/happiness/fulfillment.

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.

Again, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Quote:
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.

Sorry, but that has simply not yet been scientifically proven. Therefore, I’m afraid that is simply your assertion.

Quote:
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.

Gaaaaaaah . . . so is pedophilia and bestiality and yet we know via reason and observation those things are disordered sexual behavior.

Quote:
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

Right back at ya. You suggest my position is based on my Christian beliefs. It isn’t. If it were, sure you could knock it down by saying you don’t hold the same religious views as me. But that’s not the basis of my argument, so you might actually have to try refuting my argument with actual argument – not dismissal.

Quote:
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?

Do your own investigation and look at when/where/why were changes made. I would love to see the actual research that was conducted that overturned all the previous research regarding homosexuality. I’d like to see what new findings were found. Or were terms just changed in what we call or refer to something? And then I would look into what were the factors causing new terminology to be used? You can use any sources you like. I guess I would prefer you not use pro gay agenda biased think-tanks. Pro gay lobby groups have been a powerful influence in the last 20 years. Thanks.

As for the rest of your comments about objective morality, you can start a separate thread if you like. I'm not all that interested basically because -- been there. done that. What ends up happening is a back and forth of pages and pages of posts with the moral relativist when his eroneous argument is drawn out to its logical conclusion ends up not even bein able to admit something like rape is always wrong.

And due to the fact that there is no reasoning with the relativist. He is convinced there is no such thing as objective morality, but never notes the iron and that his entire argument is itself self refuting.

Joe: Objective moral truth does not exist.
Sue: Is that the objective truth?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 45 by bluegreenearth]

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.

Based on the excerpts you cited, I would suggest tis that Christian’s and your case that 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.

He already got it wrong. First, there are successors to the Apostles. This is part of recorded historical record. And Apostolic succession is most definitely taught in the Bible. I think he’s missing some of his Bible . . .




Matt. 10:1,40 – Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.� Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven.

Acts 20:28 – the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 – Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ’s ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 – the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 – the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word “foundation� proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

Acts 1:15-26 – the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 – a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric�) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.�

Acts 6:6 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 – even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 14:23 – the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.


2 Cor. 1:21-22 – Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.� An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 – Paul uses the word “episcopoi� (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 5:22 – Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.


2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.


1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan�).

2 Cor. 2:17 – Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 – Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 – Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/apost ... uccession/






The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also� (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession


All Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you’ll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was “chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.� After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the ... succession

There is no need whatsoever for successors to the apostles and prophets.

Except that now we have thousands of different denominations all teaching different things—LOL! Yes, the need is more than evident. Unless one likes disunity and never knowing if one is getting it right!

The apostles and prophets were God's chosen ambassadors to deliver "the faith" to mankind and their work has been completed.

Now that is something the Bible does not say!

Find me where Jesus put a limit on His command to the Apostles.

No one today possesses their qualifications.

Nope. Incorrect assertion. As I showed above. proper reading of Sacred Scripture shows Peter was given the keys – the OT often talks about keys for an office that was always to be filled when the previous office holder left. Not to mention that is the most logical conclusion. Not to mention that is exactly what was done. Both Scripture and the historical record show this. The First Christians accepted Apostolic Succession. They turned to the One, Holy, Catholic, Authoritative, and Apostolic Church! They accepted the Bible compiled by the Church. They accepted Church authority.

No one has their spiritual gifts and miraculous powers.

Wrong again. Google spiritual gifts and miracles.

By inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were guided into all truth as Jesus had promised.

Yes, due to the authority of the Church. When disagreements arose (and disagreements will arise, because Sacred Scripture can’t interpret itself), the matter was taken to the Church and the Church decided the matter. That is how we can be guided into all truth. It was true then and it is true today because of Apostolic Succession. Nothing else makes sense.

What to do when two sincere truth seeking Christians claim to be guided by truth, but insisting on two different truths? Christ’s Church has the authority to settle the matter.

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.

And yet men do not agree on this, correct? Can you understand why Christ established One, Holy, Catholic, Authoritative, and Apostolic Church?

No man on earth today has authority to forgive sins.

That’s not what Jesus said, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him�

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).

Well, you can’t really forgive sins, if you aren’t told them. And Jesus didn’t say to all of us, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him� Also, you seem to misunderstand that when a priest forgives sins, it is obviously through the power of Jesus Christ.

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

Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, this is what everyone who doesn’t have any more actually pertaining to the argument ends with. It basically becomes an ad hominen. If you can’t actually refute the argument, let’s just call the one making the argument a false prophet – LOL! <sigh>

[William]

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

The Script: "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: Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, this is what everyone who doesn’t have any more actually pertaining to the argument ends with. It basically becomes an ad hominen. If you can’t actually refute the argument, let’s just call the one making the argument a false prophet – LOL! <sigh>

William: From a purely observational platform it is hard to tell if either argument is The Truth.
Certainly the history of the RCC seems to show a tendency toward support for White Supremacy under the guise of 'Christ' which tends to go against what Jesus is recorded as saying - not only in the bible, but in other writings the RCC reject.

I tend to see the branches of Christendom as the off-spring of the RCC taking off on trajectories which the RCC at one time or another discouraged others from going...but I cannot see any clear evidence that the RCC is The Church that Jesus spoke about, especially when other writings are considered.

It is possible that the RCC and its branches of Christendom are a fraudulent attempt to usurp The Christ, and is allowed to do so because the real is The Kingdom of Heaven where any such fraudulences will eventually be dealt with accordingly.

[RightReason]

[Replying to William]

William: Certainly the history of the RCC seems to show a tendency toward support for White Supremacy under the guise of 'Christ' which tends to go against what Jesus is recorded as saying - not only in the bible, but in other writings the RCC reject.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with White Supremacy.

I tend to see the branches of Christendom as the off-spring of the RCC taking off on trajectories which the RCC at one time or another discouraged others from going...but I cannot see any clear evidence that the RCC is The Church that Jesus spoke about, especially when other writings are considered.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to other writings??? If some church left the original established church, then she by defacto is no longer part of that church. Christ promised He would not leave His Church, but if you leave, then you aren’t in His Church. Christ was clear He wanted One United Church. Scripture told us if there are divisions among you, you should take it to the Church. The Church has the final say. This insures that a person can’t just say they disagree with the Church and start teaching their own thing still claiming to be of Christ’s Church – that would obviously create confusion and disunity. So, if there is some “off shoot� of Christ’s original Church and it teaches something different from Christ’s original Church, then it isn’t Christ’s Church. Whether they realize it or not – they have created a new church – a new church that no longer is authoritative or apostolic.

It is possible that the RCC and its branches of Christendom are a fraudulent attempt to usurp The Christ, and is allowed to do so because the real is The Kingdom of Heaven where any such fraudulences will eventually be dealt with accordingly

Yes, this is possible. However we are always called to have faith and reason. Reason reveals the Catholic Church is Christ’s established Church. One need merely study history. Only the Catholic Church can trace an unbroken line of apostolic succession back to Christ himself. Another little interesting fact to be honest is only the Catholic Church even claims to be the one, true, authoritative Church. Every other Christian denomination denies its own authority. They make comments like we only consider the Bible our authority (even though that itself is an UnBiblical teaching). Or other Christian denominations will say we do not have infallible teaching. Well, if they don’t, then not sure why anyone would be interested in listening to what they had to say. Scripture tells us the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, I’m pretty sure that would mean it needs to be authoritative and true!

[bluegreenearth]

Yes, I am well aware this occurs. But like I said, a person does not simply get to choose whether he/she is male or female. There is a biological truth that exists. They are free to “identify� however they like, but they can’t make me deny biological truth. Truthfully, to simply not give the individual any more attention then he/she deserves, I would more than likely call the individual whatever he/she asked, but I should not be forced to do. You can’t force someone to support a lie.

You are falsely equivocating "biological truth" with the truth of gender identity as previously explained. It has already been demonstrated that biological anatomy and gender identity most often match but not always. Therefore, no one is asking you to deny someone's biological sex. You are being asked to display a little dignity and respect towards people whose inescapable mental awareness of their true gender identity conflicts with their true biological anatomy. The only reason you have a problem understanding this is because you have an inescapable mental awareness of your gender identity which happens to match your anatomy.

Yes, it is. Just like an anorexic who thinks she is fat suffers from body image dysphoria. It is a psychological problem and we do not accept her disordered view as fact/truth. In fact we acknowledge it as a disorder and encourage her to seek help. In doing so, we don’t call her names, or say she is a bad person, or anything like that. Rather we can lovingly and correctly tell her she needs help without it causing any additional harm she may already be experiencing due to her disorder in the first place. We can via scientific measures assess that she in fact scientifically and medically speaking is not in fact obese. Objective truth exists and should be acknowledged. How she sees herself is not objective – it is in her head. Therefore, the compassionate thing to do is not indulge her in her delusion – that is not helpful.

Anorexics feel they are overweight, but rather than see a skinny person when they look at themselves, they claim to know they are seeing a fat person. People with Gender Dysphoria think and feel like they have a particular gender identity, but rather than see the anatomy that matches their gender identity when looking at themselves, they know they are seeing a person with a different biological sex.

Permitting anorexics to care for themselves by embracing their self-image will result in objective harm. Permitting people with gender dysphoria to care for themselves by embracing the gender identity in their self-awareness does not result in objective harm. The only time we see harm associated with gender dysphoria is when they are prevented from receiving proper medical care and feel compelled to take it upon themselves to alter their anatomy instead of having a qualified doctor safely perform the procedure. Also, we cannot scientifically or medically dictate to someone what their gender identity should be in the same way that we can scientifically and medically demonstrate that someone is biologically male or female since gender identity and biological sex are distinguishable.

Not at all. I would take a person suffering with gender dysphoria very seriously. In fact, I wouldn’t deny the science/truth just to be politically correct. Pretending to be the opposite sex does not necessarily bring the individual satisfaction or contentment or even resolve their gender dysphoria.

Since biological sex and gender identity are distinguishable, using the requesting pronoun is not pretending since it would refer to someone's true gender identity. Also, in many cases, treating someone in accordance with their gender identity rather than their biological sex does bring them satisfaction and contentment. In cases where lifestyle changes are insufficient to resolve gender dysphoria, safe and effective medical procedures can be performed to match the person's biological sex with their gender identity. Yes, there will always be an occasional unfortunate person who may expresses regret for having permanently altered her/his body and is the reason why people with gender dysphoria are encouraged to try less drastic treatment options before attempting a surgical approach.

Clearly, the harm would be measured in what one does with those thoughts/beliefs. And I would certainly suggest the popular recommended treatment of hormone injection and or surgery certainly have long term side effects and consequences.

For the majority of transgender people, prior to receiving medical treatment, they had an extremely high risk of committing suicide. Hormone injection and/or surgery is the only reason these people are still with us. I prefer someone live a life of their choosing than end their life because they were unable to cope.

That’s not what your initial comments showed. You initially said a person is free to say same sex relations are not for them, but they are not allowed to say they think they are immoral for everyone. So, you are basically saying they can only share the opinion that you do. Also, I’m not quite sure why thinking/believing same sex relations are good/right is not equally unfalsifiable private opinion. I can refer to science/biology in demonstrating same sex unions are not in man’s best interest.

No, I am not saying they are only allowed to share my opinion. My opinion is that same-sex relations are neither always good or always bad. Same-sex relations are no more a threat to morality than heterosexual relations are as long as no one is being forced into either type of relationship against their will. However, I don't impose that opinion on those who don't share it despite what it looks like. I'm often accused of imposing my opinion when I demonstrate where objective harm is being caused by others imposing their opinion, but preventing other people from causing harm is not an imposition of my opinion.
All I've done and will do is politely and kindly recommend that people keep their unfalsifiable opinions to themselves because doing otherwise is clearly causing objective harm to everyone.

I won't try to tell you or anyone else who doesn't agree that same-sex relations are good and you won't try to tell me or anyone else who disagrees that same-sex relations are bad. I fail to see how this is difficult to understand and accept unless someone is deliberately trying to cause objective harm. If someone were demonstrate to me that imposing my opinion on people was causing objective harm, I may or may not change my opinion but certainly wouldn't continue imposing it on anyone.

I couldn’t agree more. People deserve dignity and respect. We owe it to them to not deny facts/science/truth or encourage behaviors that are beneath their dignity and harmful to their long term peace/happiness/fulfillment.

If you truly believe that, you will keep your unfalsifiable opinions about same-sex relations to yourself.

Sorry, but that has simply not yet been scientifically proven. Therefore, I’m afraid that is simply your assertion.

The claim is falsifiable. Go ahead and falsify it if you can.

Gaaaaaaah . . . so is pedophilia and bestiality and yet we know via reason and observation those things are disordered sexual behavior.

Didn't I debunk this response already or was that from someone else's post?

Right back at ya. You suggest my position is based on my Christian beliefs. It isn’t. If it were, sure you could knock it down by saying you don’t hold the same religious views as me. But that’s not the basis of my argument, so you might actually have to try refuting my argument with actual argument – not dismissal.

You have neither demonstrated that your claim is falsifiable nor described the test which could falsify it. Do that and demonstrate where the claim survives the test designed to falsify it, and I'll give it more consideration.

Do your own investigation and look at when/where/why were changes made. I would love to see the actual research that was conducted that overturned all the previous research regarding homosexuality. I’d like to see what new findings were found. Or were terms just changed in what we call or refer to something? And then I would look into what were the factors causing new terminology to be used? You can use any sources you like. I guess I would prefer you not use pro gay agenda biased think-tanks. Pro gay lobby groups have been a powerful influence in the last 20 years. Thanks.

How easy would it be for someone to label any results from any research that contradicts their anti-homosexual bias as being pro-gay? How easy would it be for someone to label any results from any research that confirms their anti-homosexual perspective as being unbiased? The only way this can work is for you to mitigate for confirmation bias by trying to disprove your own claim (if it is even falsifiable).

I am continuously attempting to disprove my own perspective as this is the only intellectually honest method for acquiring knowledge. It is the reason I exchange thoughts and ideas on this website. I am open to the possibility that someone on here might have an argument and supporting data to alter my worldview; it just hasn't happened yet. When and if I am able to disprove the claim that the toxic rhetoric expounded by many anti-homosexual Christians is causing objective harm where none would otherwise exist, I will change my perspective accordingly.

As for the rest of your comments about objective morality, you can start a separate thread if you like. I'm not all that interested basically because -- been there. done that. What ends up happening is a back and forth of pages and pages of posts with the moral relativist when his eroneous argument is drawn out to its logical conclusion ends up not even bein able to admit something like rape is always wrong.

And due to the fact that there is no reasoning with the relativist. He is convinced there is no such thing as objective morality, but never notes the iron and that his entire argument is itself self refuting.

Joe: Objective moral truth does not exist.
Sue: Is that the objective truth?

There are three categories of truth; metaphysical truth, conceptual truth, and empirical truth. There are objective truths in each category but we can't always know what is objectively true. Objective metaphysical truth is unknowable because every metaphysical claim apart from, "I exist," can be neither proved nor disproved to know what is objectively true because of the unresolvable problem of hard solipsism. As such, even God could not know the objective truth of its own existence as his perception of reality could be an elaborate simulation constructed by an even more powerful God who would also be unable to overcome the problem of hard solipsism which leads to an infinite regress of gods and simulations. Meanwhile, we can know a concept is objectively true when it is supported by implicit empirical data. For instance, the concept of a square is an objective conceptual truth and an square circle is not because we have implicit empirical data to support the claim that squares exist and none for the claim that square circles exist. Objective empirical truth is knowable when it can be directly or indirectly observed.

So, we can rewrite your example in the following way:

Joe: The Christian God's objective moral truth does not exist.
Sue: Is that the metaphysical truth, conceptual truth, or empirical truth?

Joe: It is the conceptual truth.
Sue: Does it have an implicit empirical basis?

Joe: Yes. An objective moral truth could not be subject to anyone's opinion.
A moral truth that is subject to God's opinion contradicts the definition of objective moral truth. Therefore, the concept of an objective moral truth declared by the Christian God describes a logical impossibility.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

I think your D&I will only further complicate matters. Pastors/church leaders seem to have their hands full expounding their own church's doctrine much less all the available views out there. There would be chaos and further confusion.

The underlying problem is that this so-called omniscient, omnipotent, God, could not produce a document that didn't lend itself to thousands of interpretations.

When differences arose in the early church Paul told the congregation that "God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." (1 Cor. 14:33) Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?