Alicia Johnston: LGBTQ Theology — Adventist Voices

[morrcahn]

@NY_G_Pa

Further, Jesus doesn’t seem to have any issues with schisms in “his” church, as these have been happening since the first century BCE, while he, personally, has done nothing whatsoever, to prevent them.

Seems to me like you are comparing oppression and inequality to a relatively trivial quibble over doctrine? Otherwise I must be misunderstanding you.

@NY_G_Pa

I would suggest, however, that you not hold your breath while you’re waiting for the Holy Spirit to come down and bless your newly formed LGBTQ get-togethers by saying “This Non-Homophobic Denomination is the one I like best.”

Clearly bad faith and condescending statement. Forgive my sarcasm, but great work there.

@NY_G_Pa

Not because it would be wrong to assemble as such, but simply because no such group has been able to prove that it absolutely resembles the church to which christ aspired as there is no way to prove, based on something other than hearsay, that christ intended to start a new religion, in the first place!

An appeal to ignorance with, “you can’t prove it because there is no way to prove it.” Okay.
Also, this is a pretty direct condemnation of the LGBTQ+ community and their affirmation in the church by very clearly implying affirming them would mean starting a new religion. Not sure if that’s what you intended. However, you must not understand the difference between a religion and a denomination or you’re continuing the long tradition of exclusionary practices.

[morrcahn]

@Harry_Allen

Are you suggesting, if one believes the practice of homosexuality is outside of God’s will, empathy for the experiences of people from the LGBTQ+ community and an understanding of related history should move them to reverse that conclusion?

Really?

Haha, it’s pretty basic. Considering you seem to find this difficult to believe, it’s indicative to me that empathy has never persuaded you against your current understanding of a given idea, never persuaded you to reevaluate the root of your beliefs in or understanding of something.
That’s when you pick up a book, without expectations and all these but, but, but, if rules, and read it with an open mind. As far as I can tell, that’s the best way to bypass one’s bias. Then you can use your evident critical thinking skills to evaluate the argument as a whole.
Personally, I would not trust a scholar or anyone to make informed decisions when they necessitate a simplified, lacking-in-nuance, explanation of a heavily nuanced and complex situation/idea. To each their own, though.

[morrcahn]

@Harry_Allen

You’re bear-hugging a common talking point — the ill of comparing homosexuality to something authentically offensive, in order to make a larger point — and being needlessly picayune.

Select any act — offensive and/or detrimental to a given body’s activities — you like.

• Replace “embezzlement” with “stopping to pick pretty flowers by the side of the road,” and make the offended group “Team F1 race car drivers.”

• Replace “embezzlement” with “parkour,” and make the group “an award-winning society of classic still-life painters.”

“needlessly picayune”
To reiterate what I’ve already said, you made a false equivalency (again and again). Every example you used is a choice. A desire for same-sex marriage is the same as a desire for different-sex marriage, and neither desires are choices.
If you want to make a point about, well, anything, don’t use logical fallacies to support it. It makes a point and argument weak when someone finds it expedient to use logical fallacies because it doesn’t matter to them.

The bulk of the problem you are trying to highlight is mitigated, I would suggest, by three things:
(1) Recognizing that sexual orientation and identity is as much a choice as it is for a cisgender straight person. I.e., it’s not a choice.
(2) Exercising empathy for someone whose worldview and lived experience is different than our own.
(3) Most importantly, cisgender straight people should mind there own business.

Alas, when a group of people—Christians–have been taught they must control and harass other people with their subjective “truths,” while simultaneously believing their current understanding of their scriptures is unflawed, these things can generally not be achieved.