Transitioning teacher at St Francis de Sales episcopal school in Houston

12,391 Views | 220 Replies | Last: 13 days ago by Rongagin71
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Disease and poison are good metaphors for things that take a healthy thing and decay over time. Some values are bad for society. There's nothing wrong with talking about societal decay - but this is an inherently value driven discussion.

But I didn't say anything about anyone's values. Body dysmorphia is a mental illness. It is something that is not present in normal, healthy people. People who suffer from that may have good values, they may be Christians! They might also have terrible values. That's a different discussion.

Body dysmorphia is not a "value". It's not a moral code or philosophy, any more than bulimia or schizophrenia or depression are. It is absurd to structure the discussion in this way. It is also absurd to say that acknowledging this is tantamount to hatred.


Let's say body dysmorphia is "just" a mental illness. Mental illness would be a medical condition to be treated medically. The treatments are very different for each condition you listed because the symptoms, pathophysiology, and long term effects are different. Pretending you can just shove body dysmorphia into a corner and shut it up in the people who have this condition is not medically sound.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

What value are we talking about right now? What value was referred to as a dumpster fire??


If society was treating bulimia and depression the way we are treating gender dysmorphia, the same dumpster fire critique would be leveled.


Quote:

I am telling you, that most of these people hate you because of the way you talk about them
I'm glad we have finally agreed on where the actual hate is.

Affirming a destructive mental illness is not love. Acknowledging it as such is not hate. Mentally ill people do not behave rationally, and I agree that hatred is often a reaction. I'd chalk that up as a secondary effect of the mental illness.


So if a trans person doesn't particularly care for being treated as trash by folks like you that's their fault?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Disease and poison are good metaphors for things that take a healthy thing and decay over time. Some values are bad for society. There's nothing wrong with talking about societal decay - but this is an inherently value driven discussion.

But I didn't say anything about anyone's values. Body dysmorphia is a mental illness. It is something that is not present in normal, healthy people. People who suffer from that may have good values, they may be Christians! They might also have terrible values. That's a different discussion.

Body dysmorphia is not a "value". It's not a moral code or philosophy, any more than bulimia or schizophrenia or depression are. It is absurd to structure the discussion in this way. It is also absurd to say that acknowledging this is tantamount to hatred.


Let's say body dysmorphia is "just" a mental illness. Mental illness would be a medical condition to be treated medically. The treatments are very different for each condition you listed because the symptoms, pathophysiology, and long term effects are different. Pretending you can just shove body dysmorphia into a corner and shut it up in the people who have this condition is not medically sound.


This is a bad faith argument.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nice straw man. Who has advocated for the mentally ill to be shoved into a corner and shut up?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another straw man. Who has advocated for treating the mentally ill like trash?
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

What value are we talking about right now? What value was referred to as a dumpster fire??


If society was treating bulimia and depression the way we are treating gender dysmorphia, the same dumpster fire critique would be leveled.


Quote:

I am telling you, that most of these people hate you because of the way you talk about them
I'm glad we have finally agreed on where the actual hate is.

Affirming a destructive mental illness is not love. Acknowledging it as such is not hate. Mentally ill people do not behave rationally, and I agree that hatred is often a reaction. I'd chalk that up as a secondary effect of the mental illness.


So if a trans person doesn't particularly care for being treated as trash by folks like you that's their fault?


The Catholic faith has taught me that every human is created in the image and likeness of God, in other words anything but trash.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

I don't see how this has anything to do with my message. You're talking about values and insults and I don't know what all. It seems more like what I said was poorly received by you.
I'm arguing against the presentation and packaging of your argument only. That is why you can't see what my post has to do with your message. I made a comment about a term that Quo used and, as far as I can tell, you took that as an opportunity to try to win an argument against me on a point that I'm not defending. Its weird.

Let me state this as clearly as I can. For this thread - I have zero interest in debating whether or not body dysmorphia is good or bad. Or whether it should be affirmed or treat as an illness. Zero interest. What I am saying is that the way Christians talk about these people has the affect of turning them off from Christianity. \

You can defend terms like dumpster fire, poisonous, diseased, and whatever you want. But if the Christian goal is to help these people with 'mental illness', I'm saying that you all are failing spectacularly. Maybe consider a change in tactic?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jkag89 said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

What value are we talking about right now? What value was referred to as a dumpster fire??


If society was treating bulimia and depression the way we are treating gender dysmorphia, the same dumpster fire critique would be leveled.


Quote:

I am telling you, that most of these people hate you because of the way you talk about them
I'm glad we have finally agreed on where the actual hate is.

Affirming a destructive mental illness is not love. Acknowledging it as such is not hate. Mentally ill people do not behave rationally, and I agree that hatred is often a reaction. I'd chalk that up as a secondary effect of the mental illness.


So if a trans person doesn't particularly care for being treated as trash by folks like you that's their fault?


The Catholic faith has taught me that every human is created in the image and likeness of God, in other words anything but trash.


Okay, but how does that translate to behavior?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Another straw man. Who has advocated for treating the mentally ill like trash?


That's the result of the rhetoric and behavior of treating it as just a variant of "mental illness."
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Another straw man. Who has advocated for treating the mentally ill like trash?


That's the result of the rhetoric and behavior of treating it as just a variant of "mental illness."


It's actually not because we prefer they spend years with a therapist working through it, given that most identify with their biological sex ultimately. The ones that don't we have a conversation about later. Either way, you're not here for a debate. This is just rage posting for dopamine hits.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The bigger issue here appears to be reading comprehension. The term dumpster fire was never directed toward a person.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Nice straw man. Who has advocated for the mentally ill to be shoved into a corner and shut up?


"Zero tolerance" was highly upvoted earlier this thread. Along with posts calling for transgender people to not be allowed around kids, calling any acceptance of them an example of a "dumpster fire of a society," among others.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

Another straw man. Who has advocated for treating the mentally ill like trash?


That's the result of the rhetoric and behavior of treating it as just a variant of "mental illness."


It's actually not because we prefer they spend years with a therapist working through it, given that most identify with their biological sex ultimately. The ones that don't we have a conversation about later. Either way, you're not here for a debate. This is just rage posting for dopamine hits.


They do spend years in therapy and undergoing medical evaluation. Most don't change their identity unless you have some new high-quality research. And what would that conversation look like for those who don't fall in-line?
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

jkag89 said:

Sapper Redux said:

Zobel said:

What value are we talking about right now? What value was referred to as a dumpster fire??


If society was treating bulimia and depression the way we are treating gender dysmorphia, the same dumpster fire critique would be leveled.


Quote:

I am telling you, that most of these people hate you because of the way you talk about them
I'm glad we have finally agreed on where the actual hate is.

Affirming a destructive mental illness is not love. Acknowledging it as such is not hate. Mentally ill people do not behave rationally, and I agree that hatred is often a reaction. I'd chalk that up as a secondary effect of the mental illness.


So if a trans person doesn't particularly care for being treated as trash by folks like you that's their fault?


The Catholic faith has taught me that every human is created in the image and likeness of God, in other words anything but trash.


Okay, but how does that translate to behavior?
I'm human, I fail. Just because you believe that it is my faith that is the stumbling block in treating those of the LGBTQ+ as such does not make it so.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

The bigger issue here appears to be reading comprehension. The term dumpster fire was never directed toward a person.
Thanks for that correction that has no bearing on my commentary. Did you find spelling mistakes in my posts also?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it seems to be your primary point, that someone called someone dumpster fire. when we say that didnt happen, you say its not relevant?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some mental conditions should invalidate you from being considered fit to teach children. Do you agree with that statement?
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmendeler said:

NoahAg said:

schmendeler said:

I disagree with this premise/framing, but what if being trans is a mental illness, and the only treatment is for them to transition? It seems like the religious response is for them to just suck it up, which pretty clearly leads to increased depression and or suicide. I don't see much compassion given that reality.
Now apply that logic to anorexia:

90 lbs anorexic: "Look at me! I'm disgusting and fat!"
Your reasoning: "Oh, you're right, have this celery stick and run 10 miles. I'll affirm your transitioning."


We are trying to avoid death, not increase it.


How does that make sense given the explosion of people now claiming to be trans since the acceptance movement kicked off
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmendeler said:

I disagree with this premise/framing, but what if being trans is a mental illness, and the only treatment is for them to transition? It seems like the religious response is for them to just suck it up, which pretty clearly leads to increased depression and or suicide. I don't see much compassion given that reality.


This argument seems like holding people hostage by threatening self harm. Would be the same as if I had to start sleeping around on my wife because the only other option was for me to kill myself. The same argument is used when saying women will use a rusty hanger in an alley if they're not allowed legalized abortion. What if they just didn't do this things?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

schmendeler said:

NoahAg said:

schmendeler said:

I disagree with this premise/framing, but what if being trans is a mental illness, and the only treatment is for them to transition? It seems like the religious response is for them to just suck it up, which pretty clearly leads to increased depression and or suicide. I don't see much compassion given that reality.
Now apply that logic to anorexia:

90 lbs anorexic: "Look at me! I'm disgusting and fat!"
Your reasoning: "Oh, you're right, have this celery stick and run 10 miles. I'll affirm your transitioning."


We are trying to avoid death, not increase it.


How does that make sense given the explosion of people now claiming to be trans since the acceptance movement kicked off


I suspect the vast majority of the people are genuine and they represent a relatively stable fraction of the population that has always been trans but were never allowed to express it.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

Quo Vadis? said:

schmendeler said:

NoahAg said:

schmendeler said:

I disagree with this premise/framing, but what if being trans is a mental illness, and the only treatment is for them to transition? It seems like the religious response is for them to just suck it up, which pretty clearly leads to increased depression and or suicide. I don't see much compassion given that reality.
Now apply that logic to anorexia:

90 lbs anorexic: "Look at me! I'm disgusting and fat!"
Your reasoning: "Oh, you're right, have this celery stick and run 10 miles. I'll affirm your transitioning."


We are trying to avoid death, not increase it.


How does that make sense given the explosion of people now claiming to be trans since the acceptance movement kicked off


I suspect the vast majority of the people are genuine and they represent a relatively stable fraction of the population that has always been trans but were never allowed to express it.


Why?
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
End of the day to bring this back to the topic of a Christian school, some people are just not qualified to be an instructor due to a difference in value system. Some people may not like it, but that in and of itself is not hateful. And my job as a father is pretty simple in the eyes of God:

Ephesians 6:4
4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Proverbs 22:6
6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

On the flip side, I for one am more than happy to open our church doors to anyone coming from any background. We are all fallen people and need Jesus. I would imagine every Christian on this thread would agree. And for what it's worth, I truly am sorry for the hateful Christians that are out there.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

End of the day to bring this back to the topic of a Christian school, some people are just not qualified to be an instructor due to a difference in value system. Some people may not like it, but that in and of itself is not hateful. And my job as a father is pretty simple in the eyes of God:

Ephesians 6:4
4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Proverbs 22:6
6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

On the flip side, I for one am more than happy to open our church doors to anyone coming from any background. We are all fallen people and need Jesus. I would imagine every Christian on this thread would agree. And for what it's worth, I truly am sorry for the hateful Christians that are out there.

Code of Conduct clauses.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

it seems to be your primary point, that someone called someone dumpster fire. when we say that didnt happen, you say its not relevant?

I feel like I've made my point clearly, but maybe I haven't. Our own personal intentions and meaning is perfectly clear in our own minds when we post, but they don't always translate. I'll attempt one last time with a different tone. Ignore everything I've already posted in this thread and please let me start over. Here goes. . . .

First - It is my understanding that Christians believe they are called to love everyone, that all of mankind is special and important and that we are all made in God's image. While Christians do not believe it is correct to affirm transgenderism, they do feel it is correct to love and support and accept (not affirm) people struggling with gender / body dysphoria. If it is a mental illness, then these people should be treated with love and compassion and with the best of intentions toward helping these people.

Next - It is my claim that many persons who experience gender dysphoria do not feel loved and supported by Christian communities. Moreso than other groups of people, surveys show that this is a group of people leaving religion at extremely high rates. Many stating a feeling of rejection by the community as the primary purpose.

Ergo - I am recommending that Christians consider the possibility that they have a marketing problem. I recognize there is a difference between rejecting the affirmation of transgender ideology and rejecting transgendered people. But, I'm not your target audience here. If it is your intention to love these people, accept (not affirm) them, help them, and bring them back to God, then, if I were in charge of the Christian marketing department, I would be considering different strategies as the current one does not seem to be yielding results. If your target audience (trans people) cannot differentiate a vehement attack by you against transgender ideology from a personal attack against them, then there is a problem of communication. The message is being lost.

And yes, I think language is a part of the marketing problem. While terms like poison and disease may be accurate in your mind as a description for how feelings of gender dysphoria negatively affect a person, I think it is important to understand how the terms feel to your target audience. In particular, I imagine a religious child struggling with this condition. I child who believes they are made special by God, in God's image, but also made with this God-given identity and condition which is described by their religious community as a poison and a threat to society. So we have a child being told by their religious community that they are made by their Creator with this poisonous mental illness and that they must reject their identity impulses while a secular community tells them 'hey, you're fine and we love you just as you are'.

You can take all the exceptions with parts and pieces of what I've posted above. You can say that Christians are all loving and perfect towards trans people. And you can say that the liberals are the villains for indulging this ideology. Whatever objections you have to what I've posted does nothing to change what the perception actually is within these communities. And, as the saying goes 'perception is reality'.

So, all I wish to say in this thread is that if Christians are actually serious about their love and acceptance (not affirmation) and desire to support and help people with this condition - it seems to me that you might consider a change in strategy. Telling them the ideology represented by their gender identity dysphoria is poisonous and wicked and leading toward societal decline and dumpster-firedom seems not to be working well.

Lastly, none of this is meant to be directed at you specifically. Or at Quo. Or anyone else. Please read it as a general concern about the relationship status between Christianity and Trans persons.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Zobel said:

it seems to be your primary point, that someone called someone dumpster fire. when we say that didnt happen, you say its not relevant?

I feel like I've made my point clearly, but maybe I haven't. Our own personal intentions and meaning is perfectly clear in our own minds when we post, but they don't always translate. I'll attempt one last time with a different tone. Ignore everything I've already posted in this thread and please let me start over. Here goes. . . .

First - It is my understanding that Christians believe they are called to love everyone, that all of mankind is special and important and that we are all made in God's image. While Christians do not believe it is correct to affirm transgenderism, they do feel it is correct to love and support and accept (not affirm) people struggling with gender / body dysphoria. If it is a mental illness, then these people should be treated with love and compassion and with the best of intentions toward helping these people.

Next - It is my claim that many persons who experience gender dysphoria do not feel loved and supported by Christian communities. Moreso than other groups of people, surveys show that this is a group of people leaving religion at extremely high rates. Many stating a feeling of rejection by the community as the primary purpose.

Ergo - I am recommending that Christians consider the possibility that they have a marketing problem. I recognize there is a difference between rejecting the affirmation of transgender ideology and rejecting transgendered people. But, I'm not your target audience here. If it is your intention to love these people, accept (not affirm) them, help them, and bring them back to God, then, if I were in charge of the Christian marketing department, I would be considering different strategies as the current one does not seem to be yielding results. If your target audience (trans people) cannot differentiate a vehement attack by you against transgender ideology from a personal attack against them, then there is a problem of communication. The message is being lost.

And yes, I think language is a part of the marketing problem. While terms like poison and disease may be accurate in your mind as a description for how feelings of gender dysphoria negatively affect a person, I think it is important to understand how the terms feel to your target audience. In particular, I imagine a religious child struggling with this condition. I child who believes they are made special by God, in God's image, but also made with this God-given identity and condition which is described by their religious community as a poison and a threat to society. So we have a child being told by their religious community that they are made by their Creator with this poisonous mental illness and that they must reject their identity impulses while a secular community tells them 'hey, you're fine and we love you just as you are'.

You can take all the exceptions with parts and pieces of what I've posted above. You can say that Christians are all loving and perfect towards trans people. And you can say that the liberals are the villains for indulging this ideology. Whatever objections you have to what I've posted does nothing to change what the perception actually is within these communities. And, as the saying goes 'perception is reality'.

So, all I wish to say in this thread is that if Christians are actually serious about their love and acceptance (not affirmation) and desire to support and help people with this condition - it seems to me that you might consider a change in strategy. Telling them the ideology represented by their gender identity dysphoria is poisonous and wicked and leading toward societal decline and dumpster-firedom seems not to be working well.

Lastly, none of this is meant to be directed at you specifically. Or at Quo. Or anyone else. Please read it as a general concern about the relationship status between Christianity and Trans persons.


Dialogue is the problem but I think your paradigm is outdated. You accept modern framing of sexuality and transgenderism ('god-given' identity) but reject the modern engagement in a culture lacking transcendence: people don't care about the message, just the messenger. What that means is, no matter how Christians phrase what they believe, it won't be heard in the current sphere.

I'll post a quote and the source of a recent article I read:

Quote:

The problem that we face today is that many influential people will be unwilling to speak to anyone who holds historic Christian views on sex and gender. There are many people who think "If you have 10 people and 1 nazi sitting at a dinner table and willingly eating together, you have 11 Nazis,"12 and that Christian views on many issues are as evil as Nazism. These sorts of people will not give you a fair hearing, nor will they engage in a good faith dialogue with you so long as you hold to the historic Christian ethic on sex, gender, abortion, the exclusive truth of the Gospel, and many other issues. This fact has enormous ramifications for how we think about transmitting the gospel to a post-Christian culture.

Once a person has made accepting certain views (and not associating with anyone who strongly opposes those views) a prerequisite for open dialogue, then what they have effectively said is that you must accept, adopt, and stay within the conversational boundaries that they have set in order to be given a hearing. This effect of this is to make the adoption of THEIR conversational boundaries by all parties a prerequisite for having any conversation at all. The person who does this is holding the conversation hostage until you pay the ransom of agreeing to their conversational boundaries at all times. The move here is to use the threat of refusal to engage as a way to hold the conversation hostage until one's own conversational boundaries effectively govern all acceptable social discourse. In this way, a relatively small minority can get a critical mass of people to accept and enforce conversational boundaries that would not have gained traction otherwise. This is attempting to win a debate by shutting out intellectual competition.


This is what is happening. You can argue about wording all you want but that's not where the Christian message is lost today, outside of holdouts who were classical liberals. Sapper's posting is a good example of this.

Our message isn't lost because we can an idea a dumpster fire: it's lost precisely because we're Christians.

https://americanreformer.org/2024/08/the-keller-approach/
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Genuine question: how would you do it?

In my limited experience, it is impossible. This is the problem with making sinful thoughts and feelings part of our IDENTITY. If I tell someone their actions are wrong, but they believe their actions are who they ARE, in what way can you not be a hateful bigot?

You don't find a womanizer that identifies as a womanizer. He's a man that likes to womanize. It's a subtle difference, but it makes it easier to tell this man he is not terrible, but his actions are. I see no way to do this with most anyone in the LGBTQ movement because they claim "born this way" and identify with their action far more than most others we would disagree with. As long as it is a part of one's identity it will be taken as hate, no matter how mildly it is worded.

ETA: it goes both ways. Christians often take an attack on Christianity as a personal attack. People attacking or disagreeing with Christianity will be happy to be your friend if you renounce your faith. So it's not YOU the Christian. It's the action of following God
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Zobel said:

it seems to be your primary point, that someone called someone dumpster fire. when we say that didnt happen, you say its not relevant?

I feel like I've made my point clearly, but maybe I haven't. Our own personal intentions and meaning is perfectly clear in our own minds when we post, but they don't always translate. I'll attempt one last time with a different tone. Ignore everything I've already posted in this thread and please let me start over. Here goes. . . .

First - It is my understanding that Christians believe they are called to love everyone, that all of mankind is special and important and that we are all made in God's image. While Christians do not believe it is correct to affirm transgenderism, they do feel it is correct to love and support and accept (not affirm) people struggling with gender / body dysphoria. If it is a mental illness, then these people should be treated with love and compassion and with the best of intentions toward helping these people.

Next - It is my claim that many persons who experience gender dysphoria do not feel loved and supported by Christian communities. Moreso than other groups of people, surveys show that this is a group of people leaving religion at extremely high rates. Many stating a feeling of rejection by the community as the primary purpose.

Ergo - I am recommending that Christians consider the possibility that they have a marketing problem. I recognize there is a difference between rejecting the affirmation of transgender ideology and rejecting transgendered people. But, I'm not your target audience here. If it is your intention to love these people, accept (not affirm) them, help them, and bring them back to God, then, if I were in charge of the Christian marketing department, I would be considering different strategies as the current one does not seem to be yielding results. If your target audience (trans people) cannot differentiate a vehement attack by you against transgender ideology from a personal attack against them, then there is a problem of communication. The message is being lost.

And yes, I think language is a part of the marketing problem. While terms like poison and disease may be accurate in your mind as a description for how feelings of gender dysphoria negatively affect a person, I think it is important to understand how the terms feel to your target audience. In particular, I imagine a religious child struggling with this condition. I child who believes they are made special by God, in God's image, but also made with this God-given identity and condition which is described by their religious community as a poison and a threat to society. So we have a child being told by their religious community that they are made by their Creator with this poisonous mental illness and that they must reject their identity impulses while a secular community tells them 'hey, you're fine and we love you just as you are'.

You can take all the exceptions with parts and pieces of what I've posted above. You can say that Christians are all loving and perfect towards trans people. And you can say that the liberals are the villains for indulging this ideology. Whatever objections you have to what I've posted does nothing to change what the perception actually is within these communities. And, as the saying goes 'perception is reality'.

So, all I wish to say in this thread is that if Christians are actually serious about their love and acceptance (not affirmation) and desire to support and help people with this condition - it seems to me that you might consider a change in strategy. Telling them the ideology represented by their gender identity dysphoria is poisonous and wicked and leading toward societal decline and dumpster-firedom seems not to be working well.

Lastly, none of this is meant to be directed at you specifically. Or at Quo. Or anyone else. Please read it as a general concern about the relationship status between Christianity and Trans persons.


Dialogue is the problem but I think your paradigm is outdated. You accept modern framing of sexuality and transgenderism ('god-given' identity) but reject the modern engagement in a culture lacking transcendence: people don't care about the message, just the messenger. What that means is, no matter how Christians phrase what they believe, it won't be heard in the current sphere.

I'll post a quote and the source of a recent article I read:

Quote:

The problem that we face today is that many influential people will be unwilling to speak to anyone who holds historic Christian views on sex and gender. There are many people who think "If you have 10 people and 1 nazi sitting at a dinner table and willingly eating together, you have 11 Nazis,"12 and that Christian views on many issues are as evil as Nazism. These sorts of people will not give you a fair hearing, nor will they engage in a good faith dialogue with you so long as you hold to the historic Christian ethic on sex, gender, abortion, the exclusive truth of the Gospel, and many other issues. This fact has enormous ramifications for how we think about transmitting the gospel to a post-Christian culture.

Once a person has made accepting certain views (and not associating with anyone who strongly opposes those views) a prerequisite for open dialogue, then what they have effectively said is that you must accept, adopt, and stay within the conversational boundaries that they have set in order to be given a hearing. This effect of this is to make the adoption of THEIR conversational boundaries by all parties a prerequisite for having any conversation at all. The person who does this is holding the conversation hostage until you pay the ransom of agreeing to their conversational boundaries at all times. The move here is to use the threat of refusal to engage as a way to hold the conversation hostage until one's own conversational boundaries effectively govern all acceptable social discourse. In this way, a relatively small minority can get a critical mass of people to accept and enforce conversational boundaries that would not have gained traction otherwise. This is attempting to win a debate by shutting out intellectual competition.


This is what is happening. You can argue about wording all you want but that's not where the Christian message is lost today, outside of holdouts who were classical liberals. Sapper's posting is a good example of this.

Our message isn't lost because we can an idea a dumpster fire: it's lost precisely because we're Christians.

https://americanreformer.org/2024/08/the-keller-approach/


Agree. And thanks for the linked article. Really enjoyed it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Genuine question: how would you do it?

In my limited experience, it is impossible. This is the problem with making sinful thoughts and feelings part of our IDENTITY. If I tell someone their actions are wrong, but they believe their actions are who they ARE, in what way can you not be a hateful bigot?

You don't find a womanizer that identifies as a womanizer. He's a man that likes to womanize. It's a subtle difference, but it makes it easier to tell this man he is not terrible, but his actions are. I see no way to do this with most anyone in the LGBTQ movement because they claim "born this way" and identify with their action far more than most others we would disagree with. As long as it is a part of one's identity it will be taken as hate, no matter how mildly it is worded.

ETA: it goes both ways. Christians often take an attack on Christianity as a personal attack. People attacking or disagreeing with Christianity will be happy to be your friend if you renounce your faith. So it's not YOU the Christian. It's the action of following God


Really good post.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Genuine question: how would you do it?

In my limited experience, it is impossible. This is the problem with making sinful thoughts and feelings part of our IDENTITY. If I tell someone their actions are wrong, but they believe their actions are who they ARE, in what way can you not be a hateful bigot?

You don't find a womanizer that identifies as a womanizer. He's a man that likes to womanize. It's a subtle difference, but it makes it easier to tell this man he is not terrible, but his actions are. I see no way to do this with most anyone in the LGBTQ movement because they claim "born this way" and identify with their action far more than most others we would disagree with. As long as it is a part of one's identity it will be taken as hate, no matter how mildly it is worded.

ETA: it goes both ways. Christians often take an attack on Christianity as a personal attack. People attacking or disagreeing with Christianity will be happy to be your friend if you renounce your faith. So it's not YOU the Christian. It's the action of following God

Before I answer, I would like to ask if you have experienced gender dysphoria. You don't have to answer - its a very personal question. But, you seem confident that it is not a case of 'born this way', and so I wonder how you know this? How do you know how it feels to experience gender dysphoria? For me, I am uncomfortable with the idea of telling another person that their expression of how it feels to be them is simply incorrect. Its like telling someone they are wrong for liking the color green.

How I would do it may be different from how you would do it. There is something beautiful about the Christian description of unbridled and unshakable love from God. The idea of every man, woman, and child being special and important and valuable and loved . . . there are ideas like this in Christianity that are fantastic. If I were Christian and believed, then I think the approach I would take would be one of vehement defense of trans persons against bullying, violence, and discrimination. If every one of God's children is equally loved, then a trans kid being picked on is no less awful than a Christian kid being picked on for their religion. A politician who calls trans people animals and disgusting might as well be saying it about Christians. An attack or insult against a trans kid is an attack against one of God's children. One of the ways we show people we love them is by showing how much we value them. You stick your neck out to defend their basic humanity. We don't give up on them because we think they'll never listen. But we also don't assume the arrogant position that we get to judge them for their sins.

I would expect to see a forum full of Christians starting just as many threads condemning attacks against trans people as threads condemning attacks against Christianity.

I imagine a teenage kid struggling with gender dysphoria in a society where half the people thinks that kids with gender dysphoria as an existential crisis for the country. Its a lot of pressure and a lot of stress. For these children, the decision to accept one position over the other on whatever they are experiencing is a decision that means either abandoning something they feel and believe or being ostracized by their family, their school, their church, and their community. That politicians use this issue as a rallying cry to work up and excite their voting base is gross to me.


I hear what you are saying about identity. But, I also think you are creating a distinction because you want a distinction to exist. I think you've created a reason to set LGBTQ persons aside from other sinners so that they can be specially considered unreachable.

This is a society full of sinners (by the Christian definition). Hindus are sinners and sin against God and their religion is very much a part of their identity. As is a person of any other faith or non-faith. Men take pride all the time in their sexual body count. We have a class of ultra-wealthy that adorn themselves in opulent houses and cars and clothes and jewelry and who define themselves through competition with their peers in their search for more wealth and power.

Is a sin that is 'chosen' less bad than a sin that someone believes is who they are? I would argue the exact opposite. I can imagine a God that values people for following their heart and their convictions over a person who knowingly and repeatedly abuses their own convictions. In other words, could an argument be made that premarital sex from a practicing Christian is a worse sin than a sincere person identifying with a different gender and wishing to transition to the gender they believe they were made to be? If God cares about intentions, why would this argument not work?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kurt we start from a very different point.

We believe you are not the thoughts in your mind, nor are they impenetrable to others (such as God and other spirits). You're not a computer running a program or black box that contains all information within it. The idea of 'being yourself' is radically different, identity is not something you choose or distill. It's given.

We are also embodied as Christ was embodied: the physical world informs us about ourselves and we interact with it. Gender dysphoria is a denial of that and a preferencing of the mind. It assumes all discomfort is to be feared and dispensed of, that it does not exist naturally in the world.

Edit: there is some irony in asking if we know how a gender dysphoric person feels, when a gender dysphoric person does not know how being the other sex feels. They cannot experience life as someone who's never struggled with it, nor have they gone through the developmental phases we have. It is a basic fact.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For Catholics citing Dignitas Infinitas as teaching against transgender persons.

Pope Francis wrote:

"Gender ideology is something other than homosexual or transsexual people. Gender ideology makes everyone equal without respect for personal history. I understand the concern about that paragraph in Dignitas Infinita, but it refers not to transgender people but to gender ideology, which nullifies differences. Transgender people must be accepted and integrated into society."
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

For Catholics citing Dignitas Infinitas as teaching against transgender persons.

Pope Francis wrote:

"Gender ideology is something other than homosexual or transsexual people. Gender ideology makes everyone equal without respect for personal history. I understand the concern about that paragraph in Dignitas Infinita, but it refers not to transgender people but to gender ideology, which nullifies differences. Transgender people must be accepted and integrated into society."


Much like with homosexuality it's the act, not the inclination. Dignitas Infinitas is 100% against the transgender ideology

Reminder that he also likened this school of thought to nuclear war
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Doing some catching up and I stumble upon this thread, oh my! As I am sure many of you know that of my 8 kiddos, 1 is transgender and quite happily Catholic.

I'm not opposed to sharing the lessons learned, but please be civil. Without a doubt, transgender persons suffer greatly because they do have a body dysphoria from an early age that comes to a head around the time they begin to go through puberty.

We are learning more, however, the little we now know is that the brain and physical appearances of the body are not in sync. Is this a mental illness? It may very be and then again the more we learn the more it would seem that the brain is the driver in a person's view of themselves. Funny how scripture underlines this, "love others as well as you love yourself" (Mt 22:39)

Two things if I could pass along to any parent, first, know that God has chosen you (mother/father) to walk this path with your child. Never abandon them. You don't have to agree, but don't throw your kid out. Same goes for the Church, that is what the Pope is reminding the flock. We have to welcome them and be there until the end. "Todos!"

Second, you may need to find a safe place to worship. Not all Christians follow the words of Jesus. It is important to keep God in the picture. Precisely because God made us and our bodies are a temple of God. Finding a place where this can be better understood is important.

PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Transgender ideology? I'm not familiar professor.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think people should listen to this podcast about the body and identity, and it will really clear up some of the confusion due to radically different presuppositions...

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IUbiXPThsgv70IlAqq9ws?si=T4-diVkZTruj9RDHew7hww
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.