• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Thoughts on transgender issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟240,710.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Respect goes both ways--it's respectful if people refer to others as their preferred pronouns, but it is also respectful to not force anyone to do so and to understand when someone doesn't do so based on personal beliefs and ideologies.
How does preferred pronouns work? If I'm speaking to you and you are a biological woman, I will not be using male nor female pronouns when talking to you, the only pronouns I will use will be you/your not he/she. The only time I might refer to you as a she is if I am talking about you to someone else at which time you won't know to be offended because you aren't a part of the conversation.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Stuck on a ship.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
18,728
17,480
MI - Michigan
✟763,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Tell me - if Jesus was to walk in today's streets, would He heal a trans...

If Jesus was to walk in today’s streets, would His followers recognize him and follow His Teachings, or would they arrest him and condemn Him to die?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,931
21,091
Orlando, Florida
✟1,581,241.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, we see and will continue to see this with homosexuality. It's not a choice and yet people are hounded, battered and murdered for it.

The main problem we have is forcing our opinion or beliefs on others, expecting conformity

"Expecting conformity" is part of the authoritarian mindset that typically is correlated with religion in western cultures. Christianity tends to produce this type of mindset, it's part of how it operates.

In truth what Christians think of gay or trans people, in the aggregate, won't have much consequences for much longer because the western world is most certainly going to become much more secular in upcoming decades, with fewer people adhering to the Christian religion and its moral edicts. Christians would be wise not to feel entitled to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, as a result, nor should they confuse tolerance of the practice of their religion with affirmation or approval.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 11, 2019
807
684
A place
✟76,988.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
distress is a key component of gender dysphoria. specifically distress at mismatch between their gender identity and their physical gender/appearance. Plastic surgery alters the appearance to match the gender identity and there by removes the cause of the distress.

and my point is that being transsexual isn't a mental illness because the distress is fixed by plastic surgery.

I'm sorry, but you keep shifting goalposts. I've already stated my point on the difference with transgender brains and the classification of GD as a disorder and how anxiety/depression(often coupled with GD)are also disorders. I will not keep repeating myself.

do you fear beign harassed or loosing your job for sharing your opinions on African American's?

This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. And what exactly is my 'opinion' on African Americans? Admitting that there are statistics indicating higher levels of violence in their community, that we should work to take care of so black people aren't placed under a stigma and police officers don't have to deal with vague accusations of being racist? Oh my, what an awful opinion; I want to solve problems and not simply side with the loudest voice. Send me to the gallows.

false. the first really the only criteria for something to be a mental disorder is observable dysfunction on several ares, work/school, social interaction, interpersonal life, self care and so on and that dysfunction is the result of the mental illness.

So...a a mental disorder is observable dysfunction caused by mental illness? How does this refute my point, exactly?

Also consider that a lot of mental illnesses are hereditary and that often times they can be caused by biological issues such as thyroid problems or a chemical imbalance, to name a few.

epigenetics contributes as much if not more to any inborn trait than genetics itself.

as for the study you are referring to. if memory serves that study looked at a small handful of linked traits. it certainly isn't exhaustive and there is some question about the linkage of the traits to homosexuality.

Even if epigenetics play a hand in the forming of sexual orientation, the information we have on the topic is so little and weak that it isn't even worth bringing up as a valid argument. All we know is that even if it is somewhat genetic, it is only a slight predisposition towards one thing over another. That also doesn't even mean that all gay people are gay because of a 'gay gene', as there are certainly psychological factors that can contribute just as much to the forming of one's sexual preferences.

how did you move from "corporations by cashing in on merch sales during pride month and attempting to gain viewership for media by being extra 'inclusive' with its cast." to this?

Another false dichotomy; I never said my main point was about corporations using LGBT agenda to fuel merch sales and to garner attention to media. I said it was about the LGBT community being used as a political tool AND the other things I mentioned.

wow.

this is so sick and twisted i don't even know how or where to start.

If you're saying that its sick and twisted that anyone would ever form an alliance with pedophiles, then yes I agree. If you're referring to me bringing it up in general, then you are contributing to the problem.

Here's an interesting read;
Gay Activists in Germany Silent on Alliance with Pedophiles in 1980s - DER SPIEGEL - International

no i don't see any reasonable person can get such an impression. you aren't saying ti directly but you are sure working hard to make a false connection between a minority and people who harm children.

There is not a false connection; pedophiles are absolutely trying to ride off the coattails of the LGBT community using many of the same pro-LGBT arguments to the point where they now feel comfortable starting a movement for it, have a new self identifying term called a 'MAP'(minor-attracted-person), and are attempting to 'normalize' this behavior when the LGBT community should've shunned them from the very beginning.

If you re-read what I said, I made sure to be clear I am not claiming LGBT people are all pedophiles. What I was proposing is that the community needs to work as hard on setting clear moral boundaries and clearing up any misinformation(instead of simply deflecting it or claiming 'false accusations')as they do with preaching acceptance. It is quite easy for someone to read about the history of the LGBT community and what kind of people try to associate with it, that anyone could genuinely be a pedophile in that community or try to take the 'whatever makes you happy' ideology too far.

Either way, the slippery slope 'fallacy' in this case became true; LGBT acceptance has successfully given birth to a pro-pedophilia movement, even if it was unintentional. Now they need to work to disassociate with it.

the majority of known HIV cases are found in women and children under the age of 14.

HIV is extremely common in people of African decent. does that fact justify racism?

Wrong.

HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2017, adult and adolescent gay and bisexual men made up 70% (27,000) of the 38,739 new HIV diagnoses in the United States (US) and dependent areas.d"


You made a claim that there was false allegations by the 'religious right' about gay people being pedophiles and diseased, among other things; so I came back with factual evidence about LGBT's early ties to pedophiles(which by the way was not an isolated incident in germany)and that gay people do indeed have a sexually-transmitted-disease problem. I was simply playing devil's advocate and refuting your false claim.

None of that has to do with racism, by the way. Even if being gay is genetic, one can argue that you don't 'need' to act on sexual urges; but you can't just suddenly stop being black. Race and sexuality have no correlation and is an extremely unfair comparison.


Shall we talk about the long standing claims of the religious right that homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years? that homosexuals on average contract a sexual transmitted disease over 80 time in their life? That homosexuals have higher rates of cancer? That they are mentally ?

Not all of the 'right' is religious. I suggest you sort out your issues with religion before you debate on this topic any further.

so a generation ago when segregation was the law the black people who protested such treatment were hateful?

I'm almost disgusted by your insinuation that refusing someone non-essential services because your religion is against their ideology/not calling someone their preferred pronouns is anywhere near the same level as being segregated based on race and denied basic human rights.

tell us again how homosexuals are aligned with pedophiles

Except I never said they 'are'. I said they 'were', hesitantly, at one point; and that they need to clear up their past so people don't class pedophiles, who are actively trying to get into their community, as LGBT.

in whos opinion?

Who do you think?

its a standard trope among racist to view black people as inferior both physically and mentally. So...it's relevant

1. Nothing was mentioned about 'inferiority' 2. The only difference(besides what I wrote above)is that black people do not inherently have disorders; however, other disorders are almost always present when someone is diagnosed with GD(anxiety, by your own statement)and the entire LGBT community is absolutely riddled with disorders, for whatever reason.

No. It's not relevant.


This is the last time I'm replying to you. You do not want to learn, you simply want to reaffirm to yourself that the 'religious far-right' is out to get all of the LGBT community(among other minorities)and that the LGBT can do no harm; or that is what you portray, at least. If you are not interested in an honest discussion where differences are put aside in favor of finding solutions that work for BOTH, not just one, sides--then I have no interest in talking with you whatsoever. I can only tolerate so much hate-laced rhetoric before interacting becomes meaningless.

God bless you.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,984
10,608
79
Auckland
✟457,305.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If Jesus was to walk in today’s streets, would His followers recognize him and follow His Teachings, or would they arrest him and condemn Him to die?

Good question but could you answer mine first?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 11, 2019
807
684
A place
✟76,988.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Expecting conformity" is part of the authoritarian mindset that typically is correlated with religion in western cultures. Christianity tends to produce this type of mindset, it's part of how it operates.

In truth what Christians think of gay or trans people, in the aggregate, won't have much consequences for much longer because the western world is most certainly going to become much more secular in upcoming decades, with fewer people adhering to the Christian religion and its moral edicts. Christians would be wise not to feel entitled to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, as a result, nor should they confuse tolerance of the practice of their religion with affirmation or approval.

Please--if you're here because you're interested in fueling an 'us vs them' narrative and painting religion, specifically Christianity, as some kind of 'entitled evil entity', feel free to leave the thread. I started this to have an open-minded discussion and to learn so that the gap can be bridged between the groups. I'm not interested in furthering the pointless feud held between the two sides.

Gay people will always exist.

Religious people will absolutely always exist, and Islam, for example, is especially on the rise; not the decline.

With that in mind, let's please focus on being respectful and trying to learn about how each other views things instead of attacking each other and fueling the cycle.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0
Oct 11, 2019
807
684
A place
✟76,988.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When we have non-Christians over for dinner, they typically have no problem respectfully bowing their heads and closing their eyes while we say Grace.

I think social etiquette in someone's home is a fairly different scenario. However if it was a casual outing to a restaurant, and the Atheist did not bow their head while you say grace--I'd assume you wouldn't be mad at them, and respect their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,931
21,091
Orlando, Florida
✟1,581,241.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Please--if you're here because you're interested in fueling an 'us vs them' narrative and painting religion, specifically Christianity, as some kind of 'entitled evil entity', feel free to leave the thread. I started this to have an open-minded discussion and to learn so that the gap can be bridged between the groups. I'm not interested in furthering the pointless feud held between the two sides.

Gay people will always exist.

Religious people will absolutely always exist, and Islam, for example, is especially on the rise; not the decline.

With that in mind, let's please focus on being respectful and trying to learn about how each other views things instead of attacking each other and fueling the cycle.

Respect is a two way street.

While your call for tolerance is otherwise laudable, I am afraid it is too little, too late. LGBT persons have been hounded and chased out of your churches, demonized in sermons, or at best, made to feel as objects of mere pity for so long, I don't see how there is reconciliation possible, without speaking a great deal of truth.

I think social etiquette in someone's home is a fairly different scenario. However if it was a casual outing to a restaurant, and the Atheist did not bow their head while you say grace--I'd assume you wouldn't be mad at them, and respect their beliefs.

At the end of his life, Pr. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would not even deliver a sermon in front of an atheist unless he had assurances that the atheist would not be offended.

It seems to me going the extra mile is the right thing to do in such situations. The burden is on people who have faith, not on those that don't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
50
Alma
✟88,272.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
"...distress is a key component of gender dysphoria. specifically distress at mismatch between their gender identity and their physical gender/appearance. Plastic surgery alters the appearance to match the gender identity and there by removes the cause of the distress."

This is something I have never understood. When I look inward at myself, I don't think "I'm a man." Rather I'm just who I am. If I was in a women's body, I might think I'm a bit "butch" in my tastes and preferences, but it wouldn't occur to me to think, "I'm a man trapped in a women's body." In other words, who I am isn't really about gender at all. I'm just me.
be thankful the inner image and the oute reality match and be happy you are good with yourself.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,931
21,091
Orlando, Florida
✟1,581,241.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
This is something I have never understood. When I look inward at myself, I don't think "I'm a man." Rather I'm just who I am.

Of course you don't understand, what you describe is part of cisgender privilege.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 11, 2019
807
684
A place
✟76,988.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Respect is a two way street.

While your call for tolerance is otherwise laudable, I am afraid it is too little, too late. LGBT persons have been hounded and chased out of your churches, demonized in sermons, or at best, made to feel as objects of mere pity for so long, I don't see how there is reconciliation possible, without speaking a great deal of truth.

For one, the church has been at war with itself on the matter of doctrine--among other matters, none of which including the topic of LGBT--for years now, and needs to be worked out. You cannot make definite statements about the church when the church cannot even figure itself out. American churches, for example, differ a great deal from churches in other countries; creationism, for example, is not as popular/pushed in other countries as it is here.

Second, learning to get along is not an option. As I've already stated, both parties will always exist--and if my hunch is correct, the LGBT community will always remain a minority, and will possibly even become less-prevalent naturally over time. Everyone, religious or not, comes to a point in their life when they choose to either hold a grudge or set aside differences and swallow their pride for the greater good of everyone. I'm talking about both sides here.

If we can achieve a balance of respect and create a less ideoligically-invasive environment, the LGBT community needn't worry if they're classified as 'sinners' by a bunch of people they don't even particularly like; and the religious needn't worry if the LGBT community, or anyone else, thinks their religion is ridiculous and restrictive. As nobody is forcing anyone, it is fine.

At the end of his life, Pr. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would not even deliver a sermon in front of an atheist unless he had assurances that the atheist would not be offended.

It seems to me going the extra mile is the right thing to do in such situations. The burden is on people who have faith, not on those that don't.

No, the burden is on anyone imposing any idealogical beliefs on others. My point with the analogy was that should someone tell you 'I do not feel comfortable [fulfilling x or y request] because it goes against my beliefs', no matter how much you personally disagree with those beliefs, you are to respect them if it makes them uncomfortable. This goes for Atheists, Christians, Other religions, LGBT people, etc--just about everything. And no group should have a higher priority over the other.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,931
21,091
Orlando, Florida
✟1,581,241.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
For one, the church has been at war with itself on the matter of doctrine--among other matters, none of which including the topic of LGBT--for years now, and needs to be worked out. You cannot make definite statements about the church when the church cannot even figure itself out. American churches, for example, differ a great deal from churches in other countries; creationism, for example, is not as popular/pushed in other countries as it is here.

Well, perhaps that's part of the problem... and a good reason for us to be wary of being caught in internicene feuds.

If we can achieve a balance of respect and create a less ideoligically-invasive environment, the LGBT community needn't worry if they're classified as 'sinners' by a bunch of people they don't even particularly like; and the religious needn't worry if the LGBT community, or anyone else, thinks their religion is ridiculous and restrictive. As nobody is forcing anyone, it is fine.



No, the burden is on anyone imposing any idealogical beliefs on others. My point with the analogy was that should someone tell you 'I do not feel comfortable [fulfilling x or y request] because it goes against my beliefs', no matter how much you personally disagree with those beliefs, you are to respect them if it makes them uncomfortable. This goes for Atheists, Christians, Other religions, LGBT people, etc--just about everything. And no group should have a higher priority over the other.

Atheists and LGBT people aren't the ones making the imposing claims. Atheism even lacks positive content, it's merely a statement of lack of belief.

I think it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that said the most basic right, is the right to be left alone. That's all those of us who disagree with the Church are insisting on. Christians do not have the natural right to determine the shape or value of our lives.
 
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
50
Alma
✟88,272.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry, but you keep shifting goalposts. I've already stated my point on the difference with transgender brains and the classification of GD as a disorder and how anxiety/depression(often coupled with GD)are also disorders. I will not keep repeating myself.
my position hasn't changed. GD isn't an anxity disorder and never was it had as a component specifying distress about the inner outer mismatch but pretty much all mentall illness include that distress component.

This has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
if you were saying the same things about black people that you are saying here about LGBTs then it is entirely conceivable that you woudl face social consequences.


So...a a mental disorder is observable dysfunction caused by mental illness?
to qualify as a mental disorder it has to produce observable dysfunctions in various aspects or spheres of an individual's life. Psych 101


That also doesn't even mean that all gay people are gay because of a 'gay gene', as there are certainly psychological factors that can contribute just as much to the forming of one's sexual preferences.
there is no evidence to support this


Another false dichotomy; I never said my main point was about corporations using LGBT agenda to fuel merch sales and to garner attention to media. I said it was about the LGBT community being used as a political tool AND the other things I mentioned.
and I asked if the same wasn't true of other minorities.


If you're saying that its sick and twisted that anyone would ever form an alliance with pedophiles, then yes I agree. If you're referring to me bringing it up in general, then you are contributing to the problem.
you bring it up as if it were true. Racists try to associate rape as something black men do and you are doing the same thing

what is interesting is the claim that because a gay magazine published an interview with a pedophile that was in the news at the time it meant that the gay community was allied with pedophiles or as your link states "brazenly promoted sex with children"

Around 1990 USA today published a story on Paul Cameron. Does the fact that they did mean that that publication and it's readers support Cameron's call for the construction of massive death camps for homosexuals that support themselves but charging money for people to come watch gays and lesbians being tortured and killed?

There is not a false connection; pedophiles are absolutely trying to ride off the coattails of the LGBT community using many of the same pro-LGBT arguments to the point where they now feel comfortable starting a movement for it, have a new self identifying term called a 'MAP'(minor-attracted-person), and are attempting to 'normalize' this behavior when the LGBT community should've shunned them from the very beginning.

If you re-read what I said, I made sure to be clear I am not claiming LGBT people are all pedophiles. What I was proposing is that the community needs to work as hard on setting clear moral boundaries and clearing up any misinformation(instead of simply deflecting it or claiming 'false accusations')as they do with preaching acceptance. It is quite easy for someone to read about the history of the LGBT community and what kind of people try to associate with it, that anyone could genuinely be a pedophile in that community or try to take the 'whatever makes you happy' ideology too far.
just...wow

Either way, the slippery slope 'fallacy' in this case became true; LGBT acceptance has successfully given birth to a pro-pedophilia movement, even if it was unintentional. Now they need to work to disassociate with it.
the only reason there is the association is because of anti-gay hate groups


Wrong.

HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2017, adult and adolescent gay and bisexual men made up 70% (27,000) of the 38,739 new HIV diagnoses in the United States (US) and dependent areas.d"
in the United States world wide it primarily affects women and children.

but in the United States HIV disproportionately affects noon-whites and your same report notes that over 70% of individuals in the united states with HIV are non-whites. othat justify racism?

You made a claim that there was false allegations by the 'religious right' about gay people being pedophiles and diseased, among other things; so I came back with factual evidence about LGBT's early ties to pedophiles(which by the way was not an isolated incident in germany)and that gay people do indeed have a sexually-transmitted-disease problem. I was simply playing devil's advocate and refuting your false claim.
and you were wrong in both cases

None of that has to do with racism, by the way. Even if being gay is genetic, one can argue that you don't 'need' to act on sexual urges; but you can't just suddenly stop being black. Race and sexuality have no correlation and is an extremely unfair comparison.
a nd racists claim that black people don't have try to pretend to be equal to whites. Racists will be happy to say they don't have any problems with African American's that "know their place"




I'm almost disgusted by your insinuation that refusing someone non-essential services because your religion is against their ideology/not calling someone their preferred pronouns is anywhere near the same level as being segregated based on race and denied basic human rights.
segregation refused "non-essential" services to blacks

LGBT's are fighting against laws that allow for discrimination by businesses and this according to you makes them "hateful". Again were the black people who fought against the same discrimination also hateful?


Except I never said they 'are'.
"factual evidence about LGBT's early ties to pedophiles"

and present tense: "And of course, since the LGBT community hasn't set up stricter guidelines for what they consider to be morally 'correct', pedophiles are popping out of the woodwork"

No. It's not relevant.
it is, you just don't like it

This is the last time I'm replying to you. You do not want to learn, you simply want to reaffirm to yourself that the 'religious far-right' is out to get all of the LGBT community(among other minorities)and that the LGBT can do no harm; or that is what you portray, at least. If you are not interested in an honest discussion where differences are put aside in favor of finding solutions that work for BOTH, not just one, sides--then I have no interest in talking with you whatsoever. I can only tolerate so much hate-laced rhetoric before interacting becomes meaningless.

God bless you.
interestingly enough can also tolerate only so much hate laced rhetoric
 
Upvote 0
Oct 11, 2019
807
684
A place
✟76,988.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, perhaps that's part of the problem... and a good reason for us to be wary of being caught in internicene feuds.

I agree. That's why I'm saying it's more beneficial to work out a way where we can peacefully coexist while the church goes though...whatever awful phase it's going through right now.

Atheists and LGBT people aren't the ones making the imposing claims. Atheism even lacks positive content, it's merely a statement of lack of belief.

I think it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that said the most basic right, is the right to be left alone. That's all those of us who disagree with the Church are insisting on. Christians do not have the natural right to determine the shape or value of our lives.

I think you might be missing the point I was making from the get-go. The idea of what I was saying agrees with the sentiment of 'the right to be left alone'--but that it should be acknowledged on all sides, not just the unreligious ones. If I, as a Christian, do not wish to call someone by their preferred pronouns or if I decide that I don't agree with the LGBT, or any other, position, then I have the right to do so as long as I am not inciting violence or advocating mistreatment of said individuals. Of course, this is the same with Atheists or the LGBT community; if someone decides to tell me that my religion is trash and has no place in society, of course I consider that rude, but they have the right to say it and I'm not going to publicly shame them over it.

I agree that Christians should not be legally or socially imposing anything on those unaffiliated with their religion, however, as a devout Christian I(and even my recently converted boyfriend)can attest to the fact that even just identifying as 'Christian' tends to cause people to write off our points as religious drivel even if it isn't part of our faith.

I understand Christianity is in dire need of fixing its relations with those around us, and I think the best way to do so is to educate the church more on these things and firstly get over this 'holy high horse' phase mainline evangelicals have thrown us into. In my view, I've started to compartmentalize my religious beliefs, my moral ethics and philosophical views so that if I am putting forward an argument for something being good or bad/right or wrong, I do not ever use scripture or religious dogma to back up my points. I try to find science and even usage of philosophy and history to determine things. This is a practice, I believe, that a lot of believers should pick up; even Paul himself was well acquainted with the nonreligious philosophical influences of his time, and even referenced one at one point. There is always a benefit to learning.

So all I would ask from you and other unaffiliated groups is that when a Christian makes a point about something unless he or she purposefully brings up their religion as a talking point please do not assume that it is only being said because they're religious and disregard what they're saying; or that such a view is exclusive to religious people. Also, to acknowledge that a good amount of our morals and ethics come from religion--this is a byproduct of culture after all, and that some things may always have a 'religious' stigma even when not being argued on behalf of religion.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.