• 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.

When two worldviews collide.

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am sure you found references to arrests for prayer , therefore , Christianity being made illegal in a supposedly civilised advanced country. The UK . It is the thin end of the wedge. Christian views are increasingly silenced.
Irrelevant. If you are claiming it is happening, then the onus is on you to show it.
The Rwandan genocide is an important case For separating issues.
1/ there was no hint of a religious dimension. You cannot blame it there.

2/ it wasn’t a “ few bad people” deciding to kill , or a despotic dictator. In this case much of the population were involved.
So it is hard to justify the proposition of an “inherent moral code “ or one that predated christianity. This was recent. And clearly - much of the population didn’t have the code of “do not kill”.
The church played a very significant part in the genocide. The Role of the Catholic Church in the Rwandan Genocide and Post-Genocide Reconciliation

And in the most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide, Timothy Longman's Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, the author argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing.
The lovely rhetoric used to incite baby murder was “ the child of a snake, is also a snake”. Some moral code.
Are you suggesting that we blame children for the crimes of their parents?

And could you please post your reply to specific parts of my post immediately after the part you are referring to? It's really confusing when I have to try to figure out which part you are talking about.
3/ Why did it happen?
It was certainly prophesied by “ our lady of kibeho” a few years before as a result of a fall away from God. There is a book of that name. by immaculee ilibagiza , a survivor against all odds.
Are you suggesting that a book published in 2006 had a prophecy of events that happened in 1994?

REALLY?

Anyone can "prophesize" events that happened twelve years ago.
This lady has a habit of correct prophesy: eg at Fatima, with the threat of the soviet Union , long before it was a “thing” , and even prophesying the event that would , and did herald world war II , if men continued offending God.
Are you now suggesting that a woman born in 1972 was able to make a prophecy about the cold war that started 25 years BEFORE she was born?
Later predictions Akita and elsewhere get worse “ fire from the sky” “ nations annihalated “ “ the living will envy the dead“ . Would you say it cannot happen with Putin? ( and a part of the population back him!)
Wait, who is this "akita" you are talking about? You were talking about Immaculee Ilibagiza.
The message attached was ” do not offend God any more , he is already much offended”
My fellow Christian’s May not accept the messenger,
I am sure they concur with that message .
Okay, even if I accept your argument that some person (you have provided confusing and contradictory claims about this alleged person)m did make a prophecy about the Cold War and the Rwandan genocide, this prophecy MUST have been made before the late 1940s.

Surely humanity has done much since then which would have continued to offend God, and yet God has done nothing. So this prophecy seems to be meaningless. Unless you are suggesting the prophecy was meant to say, "Don't offend God anymore, since he's already mad at you, and if you keep offending him, he's going to sit back and continue to do nothing."
A christian is not determined by what they say, it is whether what they do lines up with what they say.
The opposite of “ believe “ is “ disobey” . Faith is obedience to the code, not just verbal assent to it, or so we are told in scripture!
No, the opposite of "believe" is "disbelieve."

And "Disobey" is the opposite of "obey."
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If there is another person in history you think has had more impact on the world besides Jesus Christ, who would you submit is that person?
It doesn't matter to me east or west, north or south. I would like to compare that person to Christ.
Muhammad
Isaac Newton
Confucius
Cai Lun (invented paper)
Gutenberg
Columbus
Einstein
Shakespeare

In any case, I've already posted about how I think that our society already had certain moral positions (like don't kill or steal) and Christianity came and took credit for those ideas. And thus, our society is not based on Christian ideas, since we had them before Christianity was around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,824
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,704,998.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I literally posted videos of people saying it. I also posted a very long informational piece on affirmative care. I've posted articles showing what is happening to kids. I told you to look up other videos and provided other stories and yet you still claim it isn't happening. You posted information on what some guidelines say. But you have not presented any information on what actually happens while we have.
Okay, let me make explicit something I thought was obvious. If you post a video, and I post a peer-reviewed journal article, or a primary document such as a hospital's standards of care, and our posts contradict one another, I am going to take the journal article or the like as holding much more weight. It doesn't matter how many videos you post, or opinion pieces, or the like, while I can find actual research, and actual clinical guidelines and standards of care, which do not say what those videos or the like claim, then I'm not going to believe a thing in those videos. Any twit can put anything on YouTube and say whatever they like; as far as I'm concerned, they're meaningless in establishing anything.
I suppose you haven't listed to any of what I posted.
Not when a quick google is generally enough to find robust evidence that most of what you've said has no real basis in fact.

But I am not sure what your point is though. Are you saying theres no such thing as a guilty conscience when it comes to morality.
No; I am saying our consciences are not an infallible hotline to transcendant moral truth. It is a guide, but a guide which needs to be well-formed and sometimes challenged.

Just look at all the threads on this site along the lines of "I think I've committed the unpardonable sin, and am damned for eternity!" Most of the time no such thing is going on.
Really. I think all Cultures converge on basic morals like murder, stealing, rape, child abuse, adultery and violence against others.
Given that rape in marriage wasn't even a crime across Australia until the 1980s, and there's no global consensus about what constitutes child abuse (just as two examples), I think it's pretty demonstrable that it's not that simple.
I don't think its so often and people have a misunderstanding perhaps because of stereotyping Christianity.
Come on, Steve. Surely you're aware there's a whole pseudoscientific industry out there pandering to Christains who want to deny basic science?

I'm not saying it has to be that way, but in real life, it's a significant reality.
When I say "we need an enforced ethical standard" I am not saying it should be Christian ones or any belief about morals including Woke beliefs. I have been saying that it should be based on the Truths we know that work and stand up to reason and rationality and that it just so happens o align with Christian values. Therefore its not by force but by the overall rationality and reasoning of them.
How terribly convenient. Of course, those truths are actually subject to question and debate and far from universally accepted, so...

Not here, not in the US. Also, I didn't see any links despite going back a couple pages so if you could provide them again or give me a post number, I'll look.
Given that I've just got back from a couple of days away and have a bunch of things to deal with (other than arguing on the internet; how dare real life interfere with my hobbies?) I'm going to decline to re-do work I've apparently already done. Feel free to follow it up or not as you wish.
Lol ok...so you're certain about the cross sex hormones and the puberty blockers? You're aware these are used to treat child sex offenders because they kill any possible sexual arousal right? That's what the term "chemical castration" means...that's the other use.
I didn't know that, but it appears that "chemical castration" is basically a medication that drops testosterone levels, and is reversible.
Who is suffering? Children? There's no evidence of any trans suicide epidemic.
I can't find hard figures for actual suicides (rather than suicidality), but even increased levels of suicidality (and other markers of distress) surely are worth taking into account as forms of suffering? Should we only care when people get to the point of actually killing themselves? (It's a bit late, then, isn't it?)
The president of WPATH, a practicing surgeon with more clinical experience treating trans people than almost anyone in the world is on video, saying that puberty blockers render people permanently sexually impaired, impotent, infertile or whatever. I've offered to share this evidence with you....you don't want to see it.
I'll say to you what I said to rjs330; find a reputable source. A video ain't it. Peer-reviewed journal article would be acceptable.
Why are you so certain that gender is a real thing?
I am arguing that sexed brain development (which can be congruent or incongruent with the sexed development of the body) is a thing.
How can the path of least harm involve the possibility of misdiagnosing 100% of children for the benefit of an estimated 1% of children?
There is always the possibility of misdiagnosing someone. Even the refusal to assess anybody carries the possibility of valid diagnoses being missed. The challenge is to make sure that diagnostic criteria, assessment processes, and so on, are as good as possible; not to refuse to have them.
Of anyone who walks into a clinic, before a word is spoken, we can say....

Over 99% aren't trans.

Over 99% aren't experiencing gender dysphoria if they are under 15yo.
The study I posted up thread found that about one third of people referred to a clinic didn't meet diagnostic criteria. So no, you can't say that.
Of those experiencing gender dysphoria, 85% will desist without any treatment or intervention at all by the end of puberty.
Those aren't the numbers I can find (I can find a lower rate), but that many people's dysphoria desists is not in dispute.
Yet somehow, despite the facts, you think a model that assumes the person who says they are trans are in fact trans is a good model. Why?
That's not how I understand the model to operate. As I read the actual protocols, the person and their experiences and so on are carefully assessed, and, crucially, not everyone goes on to treatment. What the model does is not rule out the possibility that they are trans, a priori.
We absolutely shouldn't be making it a part of public school curriculum
We should hide the existence of trans people from school children? How is that going to work when many of them will know a trans person? Isn't it better to give them some social framework, and, in particular, aim to avoid bullying?
When you actually consider that literally none of these medical interventions have any proven long term benefits
I've posted numerous links in the thread showing otherwise.
....if your concern was really about doing the least harm....you should literally pretend trans people don't exist.
I see. And I should refuse to recognise the trans people in my congregation? Refuse to listen to their experiences, and reflect with them on how that shapes their spirituality, prayer life, social engagement, and so on?

Doesn't sound pastorally responsible to me.

No you are incorrect. These studies have all been reviewed by many and been found to be lacking in their methodology and so are not reliable.
I see. And your source for this claim? Peer-reviewed journal article preferred; if it's a video, don't bother. (Also, don't bother with a link to an opinion site by an institute with the purpose "to keep America and its great cities prosperous, safe, and free.")
It's time to get off the trans train and stop the support of harming children who if left alone and merely received psychological support to live within their own bodies would desist.
But this is not true for everyone. What about those for whom it is not true?
It is imperative that the real Church of God take advantage of every lawful means (preaching God's Word, prayer, political activism, etc.) to seek the dominance of the Christian worldview at all levels of society. If the Christian worldview does not dominate, then another will if the Church fails in its godly duties. When a person casts his or her vote, they are seeking the dominance of their worldview. In addition, one must not confuse the nation as a whole with idividual Christians in terms of biblical requirements. Thus, to work to gain dominance of the Christian worldview in the nations is not contrary in any way to the love of Christ.
This is exactly the attitude I'm arguing against. Our mission is not to dominate all levels of society with a Christian worldview. That is not the purpose for which God sends us. And in fact, when we do try to do that, we undermine our actual mission, since we cannot dominate others, and then expect them to believe that our domination is in some sense, good news!
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,098
7,220
70
Midwest
✟369,091.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thus, to work to gain dominance of the Christian worldview in the nations is not contrary in any way to the love of Christ.
And even there we have different visions of what a Christian worldview is. I am so glad you make mention "the love of Christ" because that, service and care for the vulnerable seem to me to be the foundation of a Christian worldview.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
There is no basis whatsoever for the creation of more than two genders. Biology, physiology, and genetics are very clear. There is male and female. XX and XY. Inventing new "sciences" based on preferences and imaginary traits does not cut it. At best this is all a mass, cultural wide delusion. At worst, a psychotic cult whose deviants are truly dangerously detached from reality.
You will be told that gender is separate from sex. It's not the same thing. However, my question has always been, how do we know that? It can't be scientifically proven. It can't be falsified. It can't be proven through any biological means. In fact if you try and define gender you can't do it without biological sex as a part of the definition. Under every circumstance if you were to insert biological sex instead of gender in every instance you would not be able to tell the difference. And the entire ideology of gender theory came from a sick twisted pedophile who tried to test his theory and utterly failed leading to the death of two people. It's no different that Hitler staying the Arian race was superior and failing in theory and yet everyone still believes it. And then turns around and says we'll just because it's Hitler it doesn't mean his theory is wrong.

Lastly if the transgender folks were not trying to actually do everything in their power to transform into the opposite biological sex you might have an argument. But the fact they are, puts the lie to the idea that sex and gender are different. They are taking drugs to alter their body to be like the opposite biological sex, doing surgery to alter their bodies to be like the opposite biological sex if they can afford it, they are demanding to participate in all the opposite biological sex events and use the opposite biological sex bathrooms and locker room and showers. It's a shell game they are trying to play when they try and tell you it's different.

Now that is not to say that some people think they are or should be the opposite sex. There are people who think they are tigers or other such things. That should be handled as a psychological issue and the counseling should be to help the person accept and live with the biology/body they were born with. It can be done. It is being done. There are several organizations and many clinicians doing just that.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Okay, let me make explicit something I thought was obvious. If you post a video, and I post a peer-reviewed journal article, or a primary document such as a hospital's standards of care, and our posts contradict one another, I am going to take the journal article or the like as holding much more weight. It doesn't matter how many videos you post, or opinion pieces, or the like, while I can find actual research, and actual clinical guidelines and standards of care, which do not say what those videos or the like claim, then I'm not going to believe a thing in those videos. Any twit can put anything on YouTube and say whatever they like; as far as I'm concerned, they're
In other words ignore anything that proves that you are incorrect. Including clinicians who are actually involved in care. Also ignore anything that Sweden, France, the UK and Finland are doing. Ignore the facts of what is really going on. It's been proven to you that you are completely out of touch as to what is happening in the real world and instead listening to transactivists instead. Wpaths new SOC 8 are completely off the rails and yet you still put your faith in a transactivist organization.

Ignore the failures of the supposed research. Ignore the British Medical Journal, ignore the research reviews done by other countries that found the current research to be completely faulty and at best inconclusive.

I think you've turned into an activist. Especially if you are trusting and following activists.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Not when a quick google is generally enough to find robust evidence that most of what you've said has no real basis in fact.
No a quick Google search shows nothing more than faulty or at best inconclusive research. Oh they say it's research but the best reviews of it will tell you how bad it is. You need to broaden your horizons. I think you are actually afraid to do it. Funny thing is I've actually read the pro-trans research and then researched some more and discovered how bad it really is. It seems you have only read the pro-trans research. It's called confirmation bias and you have it in spades.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
am arguing that sexed brain development (which can be congruent or incongruent with the sexed development of the body) is a thing.
If that is so, then prove that. Show the research that proves all transgender people have a sexed brain that has developed to be incongruent the body. The research you linked to proves no such thing.

You do know that the claim is they "feel" like they are the opposite sex. So you need to prove the validity of that feeling.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
say to you what I said to rjs330; find a reputable source. A video ain't it. Peer-reviewed journal article would be acceptable.
So actual clinicians and endocrinologists are not good enough for you? And neither are the reviews in the BMJ or the reviews done by the UK, Sweden, Finland and other countries? It sounds like your country is also reviewing the information and is starting to move their direction also. So apparently it's not so out of line after all. You really are starting to sound to an ideologue who refuses to consider the evidence that counters their ideology.

Here's what the BMJ had to say.



Endicrine Society employed the GRADE system (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) and judged the quality of evidence for all recommendations on adolescents as “low” or “very low.”

Guyatt, who co-developed GRADE, found “serious problems” with the Endocrine Society guidelines, noting that the systematic reviews didn’t look at the effect of the interventions on gender dysphoria itself, arguably “the most important outcome.” He also noted that the Endocrine Society had at times paired strong recommendations—phrased as “we recommend”—with weak evidence. In the adolescent section, the weaker phrasing “we suggest” is used for pubertal hormone suppression when children “first exhibit physical changes of puberty”; however, the stronger phrasing is used to “recommend” GnRHa treatment.
“GRADE discourages strong recommendations with low or very low quality evidence except under very specific circumstances,” Guyatt told The BMJ. Those exceptions are “very few and far between,” and when used in guidance, their rationale should be made explicit, Guyatt said. In an emailed response, the Endocrine Society referenced the GRADE system’s five exceptions, but did not specify which it was applying.
Helfand examined the recently updated WPATH Standards of Care and noted that it “incorporated elements of an evidence based guideline.” For one, WPATH commissioned a team at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland to conduct systematic reviews.3435 However, WPATH’s recommendations lack a grading system to indicate the quality of the evidence—one of several deficiencies. Both Guyatt and Helfand noted that a trustworthy guideline would be transparent about all commissioned systematic reviews: how many were done and what the results were. But Helfand remarked that neither was made clear in the WPATH guidelines and also noted several instances in which the strength of evidence presented to justify a recommendation was “at odds with what their own systematic reviewers found.”
For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.

But you trust the Wpath way?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
But this is not true for everyone. What about those for whom it is not true?
It's true for 99%. And we don't have any idea about the 1% because its not being done by the majority of the clinics. In fact the Wpath SOCs do not even require it or even recommend it anymore. So if they are following the guidelines as you say, it's not happening. Unless you happen to actually find a therapist who will do this and not follow the affirming model.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
There is a cross over between things people believe to be immoral and things people believe to be dangerous and harmful.
I am totally unconcerned about whether things are immoral. I certainly don't want a government forcing someone's moral beliefs onto others.

I am however concerned about things that are dangerous and harmful. I do want society to be safe. I don't care if society is "moral", couldn't care less.

Yes, bulling is dangerous and harmful. So I oppose it and support rules and laws against it.

But just in case you are confussed about the difference between immoral vs harmful. We could say that cheating on your spouse is something that a lot of people consider to be immoral. It isn't dangerous or harmful therefore I don't want a law against it. I am unconcerned about whether it moral or not. Coudn't care less.


definition of hate speech?
Perhaps saying stuff derogatory of a group of people. Perhaps even promoting for others to treat a certain group of people badly, perhaps promoting laws to constrain or restrict certain groups of people.

I don't mind when people disagree with me. If I say pepsi is better than coke and someone else says coke is better than pepsi, I'm not going to claim that they are spewing hate speech, that is utter nonsense.


Many Christians want to make abortion illegal. Many Christians want to have gay Marriage be illegal.

I have no idea what you you guys term to be wokism. You seem to use it as some umbrella term for lots of things.
This entire post is about moral relativism and creating laws to uphold moral values. It's just that you want laws created uphold YOUR moral values. Anti bullying laws are a complete moral value as is hate speech because harm is subjective.

I've had the same conversation with other socially left leaning folks and the harm done to children by the trans activists. They want to argue that harm is subjective and can't be defined so we can't base laws around it. What harm is really happening to women they say. We can't make laws against harm. Yet, typically the leftist can't translate that into other things. So harm is totally based on their ideology. And so is yours. It's a judgement based totally on the perception of an individual or group.

What is hate speech? It's an opinion or a disagreement with an ideology or idea. That's how it's used. It's a moral judgement. And you want to outlaw it. You think it's wrong to disparage someone or a group. That's a moral judgement.

Bullying is a moral judgement. You think it's wrong to bully someone. That's a moral judgement because you think it harms people's feelings which are completely subjective.

Slavery is a moral issue.

Yes Christians want abortion illegal because it actually does physical harm to a human being. It doesn't just hurt their feelings.

And opposing gay marriage is a moral judgement just like opposing the view that of Christians on the matter is a moral judgement.

So lets face it. You do support laws regarding moral issues. You just support the ones for the moral issues YOU support. Here is what one diversity site says wokism is.

“Wokeism” is a term derived from the African American Vernacular English (AAVE) expression “stay woke,” which means to remain aware and vigilant of social and political issues. It has since evolved to describe a broader social and political movement advocating for social justice, equality, and the dismantling of systemic discrimination. The origins of Wokeism can be traced back to the Civil Rights Movement, but it has gained significant momentum in recent years.

Gee, sounds good doesn't it? I mean who doesn't want to fight against discrimination? Yet it also supports social justice and equality. Sounds good right?

Except how wokism is implemented is the issue. Where the rubber meets the road as they say.

Psychology today had this to say.

When Wokism Creates a Wake​

Perhaps the long-overdue correction of wokism is, sometimes, leading to an over-correction of sorts. This can happen when people who are "woke" call out or cancel those they perceive not to be woke (or woke enough). "Canceling" someone occurs when one person says or does something to which others who are woke object and then that person gets roundly shamed and criticized, usually on social media. That person's reputation is sometimes ruined, and he or she might not ever be able to recover from being canceled.

In 2019, in an interview for the Obama Foundation on youth activism, President Obama expressed strong concerns about wokism and the call out/cancel culture that is emerging. “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff,” Obama said. “You should get over that quickly." He went on to explain, “The world is messy; there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.”

That is just one part of the problems of wokism.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Okay, let me make explicit something I thought was obvious. If you post a video, and I post a peer-reviewed journal article, or a primary document such as a hospital's standards of care, and our posts contradict one another, I am going to take the journal article or the like as holding much more weight. It doesn't matter how many videos you post, or opinion pieces, or the like, while I can find actual research, and actual clinical guidelines and standards of care, which do not say what those videos or the like claim, then I'm not going to believe a thing in those videos. Any twit can put anything on YouTube and say whatever they like; as far as I'm concerned, they're meaningless in establishing anything.

What if the video references research?

Not when a quick google is generally enough to find robust evidence that most of what you've said has no real basis in fact.


No; I am saying our consciences are not an infallible hotline to transcendant moral truth. It is a guide, but a guide which needs to be well-formed and sometimes challenged.

Just look at all the threads on this site along the lines of "I think I've committed the unpardonable sin, and am damned for eternity!" Most of the time no such thing is going on.

Given that rape in marriage wasn't even a crime across Australia until the 1980s, and there's no global consensus about what constitutes child abuse (just as two examples), I think it's pretty demonstrable that it's not that simple.

Come on, Steve. Surely you're aware there's a whole pseudoscientific industry out there pandering to Christains who want to deny basic science?

I'm not saying it has to be that way, but in real life, it's a significant reality.

How terribly convenient. Of course, those truths are actually subject to question and debate and far from universally accepted, so...


Given that I've just got back from a couple of days away and have a bunch of things to deal with (other than arguing on the internet; how dare real life interfere with my hobbies?) I'm going to decline to re-do work I've apparently already done. Feel free to follow it up or not as you wish.

I'll just dismiss it.

I didn't know that, but it appears that "chemical castration" is basically a medication that drops testosterone levels, and is reversible.

There's no evidence of that. That's not based on any peer reviewed study.


I can't find hard figures for actual suicides (rather than suicidality),

Whoa whoa whoa...there's no problem in dire need of solutions then.



but even increased levels of suicidality (and other markers of distress) surely are worth taking into account as forms of suffering?

Lots of people are depressed an suicidal. If you're interested in helping the suicidal....you should find out who ends up killing themselves and help them.


Should we only care when people get to the point of actually killing themselves? (It's a bit late, then, isn't it?)

Well there's a rather drastic tendency of the woke to badly prioritize problems.


I'll say to you what I said to rjs330; find a reputable source. A video ain't it. Peer-reviewed journal article would be acceptable.

The Senator in the video mentions 63 systematic reviews that effectively evaluate all the research and analyze the data.

Would you like me to find those systematic reviews?


I am arguing that sexed brain development (which can be congruent or incongruent with the sexed development of the body) is a thing.

It could be, I'm not sure.


There is always the possibility of misdiagnosing someone.

Indeed, I think the reviews mention the high likelihood of different demographics coming from the affirmative care model.

Even the refusal to assess anybody carries the possibility of valid diagnoses being missed.

True, but a much lower possibility than diagnosing incorrectly.

The challenge is to make sure that diagnostic criteria, assessment processes, and so on, are as good as possible; not to refuse to have them.

Well if we weren't talking about drastically altering children's bodies permanently....over a non-fatal issue...I'd normally agree.

The study I posted up thread found that about one third of people referred to a clinic didn't meet diagnostic criteria. So no, you can't say that.

Hey great. We're having another lawsuit for cutting off the breasts of a 13yo girl.

Those aren't the numbers I can find (I can find a lower rate), but that many people's dysphoria desists is not in dispute.

60-90% it's the difficulty of diagnosing correctly that makes the desistence rate difficult to pin down.


That's not how I understand the model to operate. As I read the actual protocols, the person and their experiences and so on are carefully assessed, and, crucially, not everyone goes on to treatment. What the model does is not rule out the possibility that they are trans, a priori.

Ok...if that's what you got....you read it wrong.

Obviously I can't say if Australia isn't more careful than the US.


We should hide the existence of trans people from school children?

Well I wouldn't think it an important thing for children to know. Given that so many of the detransition stories involve children self diagnosing themselves and receiving poor care... it seems like a needless hazard.

How is that going to work when many of them will know a trans person?

We're talking about 0.001% of the population.

A thousand children should pass through the classroom before a trans kid does.


Isn't it better to give them some social framework, and, in particular, aim to avoid bullying?


I thought we were avoiding suicide? I don't see why teaching them about trans people prevents bullying.

I've posted numerous links in the thread showing otherwise.

You're cherry picking info....the systematic reviews show that it's very low quality research.

I see. And I should refuse to recognise the trans people in my congregation?

How big is your congregation?

.
Refuse to listen to their experiences, and reflect with them on how that shapes their spirituality, prayer life, social engagement, and so on?

I don't know what your job requirements are. I was speaking more broadly about society's approach as a whole. How many trans people are in your congregation?



Doesn't sound pastorally responsible to me.

I suppose. Atheist here. Never been to church.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
...and your Christian beliefs.

You believe that God made man and woman. Full stop. No evidence to the contrary will be considered. Even to the nonsensical point of denying the concept of gender.
Hmmm..... re-read my post. Once again didn't say anything about that. Man you are really stuck on that aren't you. Well as long as you are stuck in that you don't have to actually refute any of the arguments against it. All you have to say is, "Well, you are a Christian. Nuff said."
Works for anything. I mean you can dismiss anything anyone says as long as they are a Christian.

Trouble is, it's a really poor argument. What do say to Ana? "Your an atheist. Nuff said." Oops can't to that. How about Padsaike? "Your a Christian nuff said." Except she agrees with you.

So let me get this straight. As long as a person disagrees with you and is a Christian then "Your a Christian, nuff said" is a good argument.

Hmm... I think I might start applying that to you. From now on if we disagree I'm just going to dismiss all of your arguments with "You're an atheist."
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,110
9,048
65
✟429,820.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Well I wouldn't think it an important thing for children to know. Given that so many of the detransition stories involve children self diagnosing themselves and receiving poor care... it seems like a needless hazard.
Question, in this trans education are we giving them the full picture including the desistance rates, regrets and failed surgeries and detransition stories? Hmmm... I doubt we are.
 
Upvote 0

oikonomia

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
2,798
511
75
Orange County, CA
✟90,109.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Muhammad
Isaac Newton
Confucius
Cai Lun (invented paper)
Gutenberg
Columbus
Einstein
Shakespeare

In any case, I've already posted about how I think that our society already had certain moral positions (like don't kill or steal) and Christianity came and took credit for those ideas. And thus, our society is not based on Christian ideas, since we had them before Christianity was around.
I don't think these splendid scientists compare with Jesus of Nazareth.

Muhammed's bloody career and lustful sexual appetite with even a young girl renders him not worthy to compare with Christ.
Though I realize my question was likely to envoke a "ANYBODY except Christ" response, your candidates are not that impressive.

Isaac Newton was brilliant. And his insight was based on his belief that the universe was designed by God.
Since Jesus claimed to be God as a man AND ACTED like it, as nice as Newton was, he is not in the class with Jesus imo.

Confucius, the great ethical teacher, interestingly said that if a man sins against heaven he is likely not to be forgiven.
But yes indeed, Confucius is very infliuencial. Unlike Jesus Confucius is not claimed to be alive. Jesus conquerored death itself in
His victprious resurrection. But a breaking system preventing Chinese society from completely rotting into immorality, certainly I would even say God used the philosophy of Confucius.

All truth is God's truth.
Confucius, because he pointed men to their conscience (which he called the Bright Virtue) was instrumental in arresting the downward slide into sin in the East.

We are surely thankful for whoever invented paper.
Thankfully the Bible can be printed on it so we can read the words of Jesus.
Kudos to Cai Lun and Gutenberg.

Columbus the explorer we may admire. Of course his obsession with finding gold and the misery he brought to indigenus peoples of the new world, I think, put his personality far, far below that of the Son of God. I think Cristopher Columbus would probably have admitted that to you.

Albert Einstien I admire for his contribution. It is too bad he with all his intelligence could not remain faithful to his first wife.

Shakespeare's imagination was wonderful. And his plays are lastingly entertaining and meaningful.
I think if asked himself how he compared to Jesus Christ, I think he would admit that he could not.

But all the people you mentioned were influential.
Great folks all. I am more impressed though with Jesus of Nazareth.
As H.G. Wells said (who was not fundamentalist) - when Jesus opened His mouth His lips embraced the whole world.

I get your drift - like - "Anybody BUT Jesus, will do."
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟665,511.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Irrelevant. If you are claiming it is happening, then the onus is on you to show it.

The church played a very significant part in the genocide. The Role of the Catholic Church in the Rwandan Genocide and Post-Genocide Reconciliation

And in the most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide, Timothy Longman's Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, the author argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing.

Are you suggesting that we blame children for the crimes of their parents?

And could you please post your reply to specific parts of my post immediately after the part you are referring to? It's really confusing when I have to try to figure out which part you are talking about.

Are you suggesting that a book published in 2006 had a prophecy of events that happened in 1994?

REALLY?

Anyone can "prophesize" events that happened twelve years ago.

Are you now suggesting that a woman born in 1972 was able to make a prophecy about the cold war that started 25 years BEFORE she was born?

Wait, who is this "akita" you are talking about? You were talking about Immaculee Ilibagiza.

Okay, even if I accept your argument that some person (you have provided confusing and contradictory claims about this alleged person)m did make a prophecy about the Cold War and the Rwandan genocide, this prophecy MUST have been made before the late 1940s.

Surely humanity has done much since then which would have continued to offend God, and yet God has done nothing. So this prophecy seems to be meaningless. Unless you are suggesting the prophecy was meant to say, "Don't offend God anymore, since he's already mad at you, and if you keep offending him, he's going to sit back and continue to do nothing."

No, the opposite of "believe" is "disbelieve."

And "Disobey" is the opposite of "obey."
You do love your myths.

The (atheist ) Hutu cut the Tutsi to bits with machetes In an act of hate,
It was indeed prophesied.

Sadly our world loves revisionism , and loves anti catholic hate even more.
Theres always a book on the “ Catholics did it” just as too many books years ago blamed the Jews for everything.

You are so full of revisionist belief you wont let facts in.
I could point at survivors books that show how Protestant pastors joined with Catholics to save people. prejudice won’t let you read them of course, so I won’t even bother with titles.

I well remember the discussion on the shroud: notice the contrast!
Proper scientists analyzed the body dimensions of the man of the shroud , analyzed the population statistics of the middles east, made endless measurements of the shroud. Lots written in the 70s and since.
So that now if you go to Arizona (or look on the web ) you can find a life size mannikin and a dimensional replica of the shroud and the two fit PERFECTLY . measuring were some of the first tests done.
You didn’t even look it up! Scientists “ do their homework” first,

Kylie on the other hand, decided the shroud was fake a priori, , so searched for and read some nonsense on anti shroud wacko sites. Bought a doll ( which are never life size proportion) and “ proved “ the shroud head “didn’t fit” to much clapping of atheists on science forum, who were equally badly read, and cared for science just as little..
Not one of them read the sturp reports, that proved them wrong.

Kylie decides the answer , then looks at only that which supports her.
Then pretends it is a view of science. Ignoring the real science.

The truth is - atheists in Rwanda massacred each other because of no moral code and hate.
they even slaughtered the people hiding in churches. Nasty people these atheist Hutu.
It wasn’t a despot. Or organised army. It was your neighbour who chopped your arms and legs off,
because of hate.


Hundreds of millions killed in atheist genocides
the atheist killing continues in America, half a million babies killed in abortion Each year.

The problem is No moral code. Atheism doesn’t have one. Life has no value.

Will you blame Catholics for those abortions too?
Or are they just a “ right” of people living in a moral vacuum?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Question, in this trans education are we giving them the full picture including the desistance rates, regrets and failed surgeries and detransition stories? Hmmm... I doubt we are.

It definitely doesn't seem that way.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,681
16,367
55
USA
✟411,611.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't think these splendid scientists compare with Jesus of Nazareth.

You said "person in history you think has had more impact on the world besides Jesus".

You didn't say for good. Kylie offered candidates so you could comment on their impact, yet, you judge her candidates on "goodness" and

Muhammed's bloody career and lustful sexual appetite with even a young girl renders him not worthy to compare with Christ.
Though I realize my question was likely to envoke a "ANYBODY except Christ" response, your candidates are not that impressive.

The conquests of Muhammad are quite impressive. He personally conquered all of Arabia and his followers had conquered much of what we think if as the "Islamic world" from Pakistan to Morocco within 150 years of his death. At 150 years after the death of Jesus, his followers and their religion largely lived anonymously or in fear. 150 years past death, Mohammad clearly had a bigger impact on the world. Even today the religion of Mohammad is similar in size to the religion of Jesus despite the 600 year head start that Christianity had. (150 years after the death of Mohammad, the impact of Jesus was limited to western Europe, the old Roman empire around the Mediterranean, and the near East. No one in the Americas, East or South Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa had even heard of him.)
Isaac Newton was brilliant. And his insight was based on his belief that the universe was designed by God.
Since Jesus claimed to be God as a man AND ACTED like it, as nice as Newton was, he is not in the class with Jesus imo.
Now your basing your impact on Jesus claiming to be god. His influence comes from people *believing* that claim, not the claim itself. Sound like an excuse to dismiss Newton. Newton rewrote most of physics. He certainly has a huge impact on science, but probably not more over all than Jesus. (Newton has a bigger impact on my life, because I actually use Newton's work nearly every day. I don't use any of the teachings of Jesus.)
Confucius, the great ethical teacher, interestingly said that if a man sins against heaven he is likely not to be forgiven.
But yes indeed, Confucius is very infliuencial.
I'm glad you can admit this, since this was the *actual* criteria you proposed.
Unlike Jesus Confucius is not claimed to be alive. Jesus conquerored death itself in
His victprious resurrection. But a breaking system preventing Chinese society from completely rotting into immorality, certainly I would even say God used the philosophy of Confucius.
Again, this is judging others not on their impact, but on the alleged properties of Jesus. It is not relevant.
All truth is God's truth.
Confucius, because he pointed men to their conscience (which he called the Bright Virtue) was instrumental in arresting the downward slide into sin in the East.
Now your claiming all truth for you god. This is not an honest comparison anymore. It is Calvinball.
We are surely thankful for whoever invented paper.
Thankfully the Bible can be printed on it so we can read the words of Jesus.
Kudos to Cai Lun and Gutenberg.
You win some, you lose some. Probably not quite at the Jesus level, but an important individual achievement.
Columbus the explorer we may admire. Of course his obsession with finding gold and the misery he brought to indigenus peoples of the new world, I think, put his personality far, far below that of the Son of God. I think Cristopher Columbus would probably have admitted that to you.
Columbus wasn't that great an explorer. He was a greatly incompetent navigator (so much for "great") accepting a non-standard measurement for the radius of the Earth so he could claim to reach India on the supplies of a Spanish galleon in open sea. That said the impact on world history of Columbus' connection between the New and Old World is almost impossible to assess. It lead to the rise of the Spanish Empire, then other empires in western Europe, the decimation of the population of the Americas, the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was the single largest impact on the spread of Christianity since Constantine. It impacted the whole of the world, not just the parts that became Christian.

Albert Einstien I admire for his contribution. It is too bad he with all his intelligence could not remain faithful to his first wife.
Again, no assessment of impact. Einstein was the most influential physicist since Newton (and it's a personal choice who is more important of the two).
Shakespeare's imagination was wonderful. And his plays are lastingly entertaining and meaningful.
I think if asked himself how he compared to Jesus Christ, I think he would admit that he could not.
Though confined to a single language (English) Shakespeare certainly had a big impact on the way we write and speak. It's not clear that we have any good reason to think we know anything Jesus said, and certainly no record that he wrote anything.
But all the people you mentioned were influential.
Great folks all. I am more impressed though with Jesus of Nazareth.
As H.G. Wells said (who was not fundamentalist) - when Jesus opened His mouth His lips embraced the whole world.

I get it, you started with the presumption that Jesus is most influential and then judge any possible challengers on whether they did the same things Jesus did. (And most Christians aren't fundamentalists, so I don't know why that matters.) This is like (and I leave this one for @Kylie even if you don't get it) ruling Captain Picard to be inferior as he never defeated a Gorn in hand to hand combat.

I get your drift - like - "Anybody BUT Jesus, will do."
I see no reason to think anyone is thinking this way.

The opposite of "only Jesus will do" is not "anybody but Jesus will do".

In terms of "influence/impact on the world" rankings I would rank Kylie's list (+Jesus) as:

1. Columbus
2 (tie) Muhammad/Jesus
3. Confucius
4. Guttenberg and that paper guy
5. Newton/Einstein
6. Shakespeare
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,897
14,168
✟458,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Let me add that a third worldview which tries to reconcile these two. In that world view there is indeed God who created and designed for a purpose. But part of that purpose is human growth and spiritual development. And that requires human empowerment, free will, self determination, much like a child needs to learn to make his or her own decisions and choices, choosing the life that is right for him or her rather than the parents' plan.

When a child is born with a cleft palate or any other physical abnormality, we often have no problem with surgical correction. we take it upon ourselves to change the way God created that child.

A cleft palate is not a manifestation of supposed inner turmoil/discomfort, however. It is not ambiguous as to when or if the treatment for the cleft palate has corrected the abnormality, hence that treatment does not generate the moral or ethical quandries we often see with regard to the treatment of self-identified trans people (particularly minors).

I don't disagree with what I take to be your overall point (i.e., we seem to have no problem changing how God has created people in these cases, so it's unwise to make a blanket statement about changing what God has made in the case of trans-identifying people), but I don't believe that any visible medical condition that you could list would be a very good analogue for trans-ness.
 
Upvote 0