Gender roles in the church in the non-binary world

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Jae said:
In conservative evangelical churches I do believe they would be.



Same.



"Deny" isn't fair. "Struggle" perhaps. Holding their behavior wrong - yes.
Click to expand...


Being intersexed, transgender or gender non-conforming isn't "wrong behavior", it's being the person God made you as, even if you're very much in the minority. In fact the idea that it is "wrong" is suggesting that God is wrong, an attack on the inerrancy of God. That to me is a blasphemous position.
 
Jon71 said:
Being intersexed, transgender or gender non-conforming isn't "wrong behavior", it's being the person God made you as, even if you're very much in the minority. In fact the idea that it is "wrong" is suggesting that God is wrong, an attack on the inerrancy of God. That to me is a blasphemous position.
Click to expand...

Okay. Unless they're wrong in understanding who God has made them to be.
 
Oh brother, by that logic, baby rapists are just being who God made them to be. Anorexics are just being themselves. Wife beaters- thank God for wife beaters, just being who God made them.
 
Tran parental input ... thus some muttering and foddering and considerable chewing abote hoo roué's! Touché ... and what's left is just a mire remnant ... details count?
 
There can absolutely be a difference between who a person is and what a person does.

I have a friend who struggles with same-sex attraction. Some might call him gay. That's who he is. The way he chooses to act is to remain celibate and counsel others who are also so struggling. He could choose the alternate action of choosing to surrender to the attraction and finding a same-sex partner. He does not.
 
That's his choice and he is welcome to it. How one acts on one's sexual feelings should be a personal choice, though, not dictated by society unless it proves a threat to others personal freedom and safety (e.g. rape). Allowing same-sex marriage and ensuring that the human rights of LGBTQ are protected gives people that choice which is why I support them. Freedom of religion means churches can teach whatever they like to their membership, but they cannot be allowed to dictate to those not part of that circle who may hold other religious views.
 
Mendalla said:
That's his choice and he is welcome to it. How one acts on one's sexual feelings should be a personal choice, though, not dictated by society unless it proves a threat to others personal freedom and safety (e.g. rape). Allowing same-sex marriage and ensuring that the human rights of LGBTQ are protected gives people that choice which is why I support them. Freedom of religion means churches can teach whatever they like to their membership, but they cannot be allowed to dictate to those not part of that circle who may hold other religious views.
Click to expand...

And what of those who have sexual feelings of other sorts Mendalla? Should they also have their rights protected? Should they also be allowed to be wed to whomever or whatever they're sexually attracted to? You're opening Pandora's box here.

And why can't religious people work for the betterment of their society along with everyone else.
 
Jae said:
And what of those who have sexual feelings of other sorts Mendalla?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by that. You've used the straw man of people having feelings for inanimate objects before which is rare paraphilia that does minimal harm and comes up rarely enough that it is unlikely to be a big problem. I'd never suggest allowing marriage in those cases, but wouldn't stop them until it reached the point where safety, esp. of others, was being compromised.

Bestiality and pedophilia fall under the "protecting freedom and safety" part (since animals and children have no or a limited ability to consent and can be harmed by being used non-consensually) so need to remain off limits.

Not sure what other options there are that might be a problem.
 
IOW, if they are both human, both adult, and both give active, positive consent, that should be enough.
 
Mendalla said:
Depends what you mean by that. You've used the straw man of people having feelings for inanimate objects before which is rare paraphilia that does minimal harm. I'd never suggest allowing marriage in those cases, but wouldn't stop them until it reached the point where safety, esp. of others, was being compromised.

Bestiality and pedophilia fall under the "protecting freedom and safety" part (since animals and children have no or a limited ability to consent and can be harmed by being used non-consensually) so need to remain off limits.

Not sure what other options there are that might be a problem.
Click to expand...

We need a higher moral code than what ever feels good, whatever gets your loins all excited. Surely we can go beyond that.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question about why people of faith can't work toward the betterment of their societies.
 
Then there is the fundamental rule to screw the other in survival ... a paradox?

Does the love to die for this urge to survive come into play ... or just abstract? Maybe it causes loss of thought for the other as a mental consequence like dilution theory!

It is a complex and compound concern that would baffle one-way perspectives without alternate approaches to the paradox of God as an object of passion and wisdom in one package!
 
Jae said:
Oh, and you didn't answer my question about why people of faith can't work toward the betterment of their societies.
Click to expand...

TRue.
@Mendalla did not answer that question. He also never said that "people of faith can't work toward the betterment of their societies". He did point out that in a pluralistic society one religious point of view can not claim that all of society must follow that set of norms.

There are multiple understandings of what it means to work for the betterment of society...
 
GordW said:
TRue.
@Mendalla did not answer that question. He also never said that "people of faith can't work toward the betterment of their societies". He did point out that in a pluralistic society one religious point of view can not claim that all of society must follow that set of norms.

There are multiple understandings of what it means to work for the betterment of society...
Click to expand...

People of faith have absolutely the same right as everyone else does to be involved in public life, and to rule their involvement by the beliefs that they cherish.
 
Jae said:
People of faith have absolutely the same right as everyone else does to be involved in public life, and to rule their involvement by the beliefs that they cherish.
Click to expand...
ANd nobody has denied that. Despite the persecution complex some North American Christians seem to want to have.
 
WHen exactly? In post #70 (just before you asked your question) he wrote:
Mendalla said:
Freedom of religion means churches can teach whatever they like to their membership, but they cannot be allowed to dictate to those not part of that circle who may hold other religious views.
Click to expand...

Which clearly states that p[people can state their position about what they believe to be the "betterment of society", but points out that they do not have the authority to dictate or enforce that POV on others. So now they have to argue and convince, and in a pluralistic society that convincing needs to include something other than a religious argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top