Home > Topic > discussing

discussing  QUOTES

93 " It's important to remember that having a conversation about us (LGBT) without us will usually be a recycling or preconceived ideas and misconceptions.

Can you imagine a group of male church leaders discussing the role of women in the church without females present. We would call that misogyny. Or church leadership discussing indigenous issues without ever consulting with indigenous people themselves to get insight into what their life experience is really all about. We would call that white supremacy/racism/elitism. The church has done a great deal of talking about us but rarely has spoken with us. So when church leaders discuss LGBT people, relationships and the community without speaking with or spending time getting to know LGBT people it does beg the question why. What is there to fear? Why the exclusion? Is this another evidence of homophobia?

It's time for the church to invite LGBT people into the conversation. For some this is a conversation about their thoughts and beliefs but for us it is about who we are. You can ask questions. What was it like to sit in church and hear the word abomination to describe your orientation. What was it like to get to the point of coming out knowing you might be rejected by those you've loved and a church you've served.? How did you find resolution of your Christian beliefs and your sexuality? In listening you will learn.

That's why it's so important to remember. No conversation about us, without us. "

Anthony Venn-Brown OAM , A Life of Unlearning – a preacher's struggle with his homosexuality, church and faith

96 " Why anyone’s argument for god(s) is fallacious, especially as a causal agent:

Imagine Michael and Jessica are at Jimmy’s house sitting at the kitchen table. Jessica steps outside to take a phone call. When she returns her drink is spilled.

Jessica asks, “How did my drink get knocked over?”

Michael replies, “It was a SnickerDoodle.”

J: “What’s a SnickerDoodle?”

M: “It looks a little like an elephant but it is small, pink, and invisible.”

J: “Is it invisible or pink? It can’t be both.”

M: “Well, it is. You can’t understand what the SnickerDoodle looks like.”

J: “Zip it. SnickerDoodle’s are not real. How did my drink get knocked over?”

M: “Well, it was Jimmy’s cat, but it was because he was chasing the SnickerDoodle, so the SnickerDoodle made him do it.”

J: “Stop with the SnickerDoodle, you weirdo.”

M: “Just kidding, it was Jimmy’s cat, I don’t know why.”

We have no reason to believe that SnickerDoodle’s are real. Without SnickerDoodles being established as possible causes to drinks being knocked down, then there is no point to discussing them as the cause of Jessica’s drink being knocked over. In similar fashion, we have to establish that cats are a possible reason that drinks get knocked down. Okay, we have established that cats are real and capable of doing so. It is now a viable option, but in order for Michael’s story have any plausibility, we not only have to establish that a cat did it, we have to establish that it was Jimmy’s cat, or that Jimmy even has a cat.

Believers cannot get to step one, establishing that any god is even a viable option on the list of possibilities. Then even if gods were proven to be real, you still have to prove that it was your particular god, or that your particular god exists. To argue that your god is real, is like Michael arguing that Jimmy’s SnickerDoodle knocked over Jessica’s drink. Can grown-adults take that argument seriously? Really? "

Michael A. Wood Jr. , Eliot