The reason I ask, is that if the current Republican gerrymandering spree is so egregious, should it not also be egregious when Democrats participate in it?
Where are the Democrats who are out a loud about ending all gerrymandering?
I feel like I'm the least queer person alive - undeserving of the label, even.
I had a really awesome moment in a thread on r/Christianity yesterday, and would like to compare/contrast it to a separate conversation under the same top comment.
To be clear, I think both approaches can and should coexist. My view is that it's currently lopsided.
Here is the top comment and the ensuing conversation. Now, I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, but the commenter below that clearly does not:
>“Keep being you” summarizes the problem with theological liberalism. It requires nothing and offers nothing different than the dominant secular culture.
>We should not be like ourselves. I, you, her, and everyone else reading this is a terrible person who deserves to go to hell. Our sins demand punishment. But God so loved us that He has given us new life and raised us from our death.
>We must be born again, and rise from the dead like the skeletons in Ezekiel 37. Not stay dead.
And the top commentors response was,
>I'm sorry to hear you follow such a loveless god.
to which the disagreeing commentor replied with several verses to support their position. What follows is the usual arguments over the meanings of scripture as they apply to the queer community.
But a different conversation happens when I ask the disagreer,
>Do you ever think that it could be possible for someone to be both born again and be queer?
They say,
>I will legitimately admit I believe it could (key word is could) be possible. I know some "queer" Christians who seem to genuinely have the Spirit, people like Trans American in Twitter. They are faithful in the vast majority of doctrine and avoid the vast majority of theological liberalism.
>But I still believe it to be a sin. I still hold out significantly more hope for salvation than many of my other theologically conservative brothers and sisters though.
As you can see, there is a sliver of doubt in their absolute assertion that LGBTQ+ Christians can't be saved.
Then I ask a clarifying question,
>I see. When you say theolocial liberalism and conservatism, are you talking about doctrinal differences like non-trinitatianism, universalism, original sin, penal substitution, etc.?
and their response is
>Yes, stuff like that (as well as liberal LGBTQ doctrines).
>Most LGBTQ Christians I see seem to lean towards things like universalism, denying large parts of the New Testament and the Old Testament as not the word of God, denying original sin, stuff like that.
>I am extraordinarily more comfortable with LGBTQ Christians who otherwise hold to traditional Christian theology. These are the cases that make me really struggle, not the ones where the churches hang pride flags or declare "Jesus is non-binary" or something like that.
>And again, I am going against my church's teachings by even suggesting the possibility some "unrepentant" LGBTQ people might be saved.
So it appears that this commentor assumes that LGBTQ+ Christians do not care about core teachings and the importance of scripture. They are also concerned about what might happen if their church found out they were even entertaining the idea of adopting an affirming theology.
To which I respond,
>I can tell you that in my experience on this sub, most LGBTQ+ Christians, including myself, follow an orthodox (lower-case o) theology. This sight makes a great case within that framework: https://reformationproject.org/case/
>I also appreciate that you take your church's teachings seriously.
and they say,
>I appreciate we are able to engage in a civil discourse.
>I guess all the atheists on this sub might be clouding some of my judgment. I really don't like the "God is a hippie who just wants you to be nice" theology, though.
>I've prayed for you. I wish you well, and God bless you.
As you can see, this was a completely different conversation, one that did not require me to give up on my belief, and did not require the one disagreeing to defend theirs. More importantly, it allowed the them to let down their guard and give honest, authentic answers.
While this may not be possible in every situation, it's clear that when done right, it is effective.
It's my view that this kind of epistemological approach to discussing polarizing topics within our faith is sorely lacking on this sub, and can go a long way towards amicably influencing non-affirming Christians to reconsider their belief.
This is a reframing of a question I asked earlier today. Thank you to whomever suggested it. Upon reflection, it was too contrarian and absurd.
I guess I just don't know where to proceed with polarization being the new norm.
And, if yes, to what extent should it exist?
By "opposition party", I am referring to whichever party does not have the majority of power in all three branches of government at the local, state, and federal level.