When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

Morality is concerned with harm. If you do something that causes harm or you do not do something that results in harm then it's a moral matter. If someone is biologically one sex but considers their gender not to align with that sex then...what's the problem?

But surely it needs to be determined what is harm or not. What harm is morally wrong or not. I think this is where the facts and objective reality come in. Otherwise everything can be percieved as being harm and all harm immoral.

Also what happens when preventing the percieved harm to one person causes harm to another. Who is morally right or wrong. How can we determine the truth of the matter.

That's something of a naive statement. My daughter was determined not to push either of her kids (boy and a girl) in one direction or another when it cameto interests. But if she says she's dropping one at rugby training and the other at ballet then you've already made an assumption which kid is going to each

Yes boys play rugby and girls do ballet. But as you said people assumed that. If as gender ideology claims that gender is not based on anything thats objective or real and is fluid then the assumption should be regarded as wrong because there is no objectively fixed way to be.

If thats the case then people should not get concerned about their gender. They would be actually getting upset over an unfounded assumption, a social convention, a fad or trend and nothing thats actually real that it should harm them.

Maybe it would be best to class it as a societal expectation rather than a construction. But the second feeds off the first.

BUt even an 'expectation' seems to imply that its not something real. That expectations could change. If people lived by others expectations and treated that as the measure that will make us happy or sad then this is not a good basis and the person will be forever not living up to expectations.

 

[stevevw]

Of course it doesn't. But we're back to harm. Allowing two people of the same sex to marry does no harm. Genital mutilation of a young girl does.

So what about completely removing genitals from young people. Is that classed as harm.

 

[stevevw]

That's absolutely correct. The idea of what is masculine and what is feminine is definitely social and often dictated by culture. It has nothing to do with what a male is or a female is. There are some universal things that are typically male and typically female, but nothing is a 100% universal. But we are strictly talking about personalities that might contradict a social norms. But in reality who cares?

Who cares if a male likes ballet or a female likes to drive semi trucks. It has nothing to dole if they are a male or female or not, however what locker room or shower they use, what sport they play or what pronoun they use. That is reserved for sex and not personal likes.

Thats why I think Trans/Gender ideology is so damaging because it paints a black and white picture that actually feeds into stereotyping the sexes. The ideology should have no basis for gender and sex because its suppose to be fluid and socially constructed. Yet it appeals to rigid stereotypical traits and behaviours it claims are social constructions which society should be dismantling.

The ideology actually cultivates and promotes stereotypes rather than reducing them and making them invisible.

The fact is some gender behaviour and I would say the majority or at least the foundation of behaviour is based on biology. Its hard wired into the brain. Culture is just a variation on our innate behaviours.

Like other ideas based on this ideological thinking such as CRT it actually creates the very problem it claims to be trying to eradicate from society.

 

[rjs330]

Yes boys play rugby and girls do ballet. But as you said people assumed that.

And there is nothing wrong with that assumption. It's typical for the vast majority of people for certain things. So what if we get it wrong. My son is a big kid. People could easily look at him and ask if he played football cause he's a dude. But he was in theater. Should we all get offended? Nope. I had two daughters who lived to play Barbies. I had one who cared less and played with dinosaurs, dragons and knights instead. So what?

 

[stevevw]

And there is nothing wrong with that assumption. It's typical for the vast majority of people for certain things. So what if we get it wrong. My son is a big kid. People could easily look at him and ask if he played football cause he's a dude. But he was in theater. Should we all get offended? Nope. I had two daughters who lived to play Barbies. I had one who cared less and played with dinosaurs, dragons and knights instead. So what?

It should not matter when someone chooses something different from the norm. But it should matter when it matters in certain situations especially at the extremes. It doesn't matter if a girl wants to play rugby. But it does matter when at the elite level that the genders are seperated because males at this level will dominate and hurt females.

Thats when biology matters and the differences become important. The fact that males will dominate at the top levels is because they are built for it by nature.

That is why a male claiming to be a female in the power lifting can dominate to the point of blowing a women out of the water by 200 pounds and biological females will never win another weight lifting medal in that sport while biological males are allowed to compete.

That is when biology matters. Matters for the Rights and existence of biological women as a unique category of personhood.

 

[oikonomia]

I think you missed my point.

Hello Kylie. Let me see if I get your point, with a question or two.
My God is the man Jesus.

Christians often say that Christianity provided humanity with the concepts of don't kill, steal, treat other people badly, and looking after each other. I disagree with that. I think it's far more likely that those ideas were around long before Christianity and Christianity merely adopted them. And then, with the spread of Christianity, it was able to claim that it had invented those concepts.

Do you mean at Mt. Sinai when Moses came down with ten commandments, one being "You shall not murder" according to Exodus 20:13, that was centuries before the Christian Gospel? I would agree that the record of that being a divine command before Christian Gospel.

Yes. Some people would say that giving up everything you own to help others is the only way to live morally. Others would not. Some would say that the death penalty could never be moral. Some would say that the death penalty for certain crimes is quite moral.

Since I am an atheist, I don't care what other people claim is God's truth.

Some also say "All truth is God's truth."
Say "2 + 2 = 4". They would say all truth is God's truth. That mathematical statement also is God's truth.

Some say that the law of gravity is true not just in the physics labratory but everywhere. They would say
all truth belongs to God.

Again "All have sinned and fallen short or the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). While someone might say
that that may be true inside a "church" building with stain glass windows it isn't truly true everywhere.

I believe "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is true all over the earth.
This is like the law of gravity is true outside of just the physics laboratory but all throughout the universe.
Or "2+2=4" is true outside of the arithmetic classroom but true throughout the entire universe.

I bring out Romans 2:23 because though we may have msny disagreements on the what to do
in a number of moral situations, all of us have offended both God's law and our own consciences somewhere.

Whoever we are if our lives our held up to comparison with Jesus Christ, ALL , regardless of ethical differences in opinion,
have missed the mark of both moral purity and moral rightness somewhere/s along the path of our lives.

You see, the New Testament shows not only a man who was righteous and good, but gloriously so.
Jesus, who claimed and acted like the Son of God, was morally righteous with splendour, glory, excelling to a marvelous degree.
We all fall short of the glory of God. He fully expressed the manifest splendour of God being not only good but
gloriously good.

I got subdued by the gentle yet absolutely right one that I needed Him as a Savior.
I got conquerored in my conscience by His presence - an invisible yet most real awareness of His being ALIVE and AVAILABLE.

You seem determined to look at everything through the lens of your faith. You must understand that other people do not do that.

Speaking for myself, I know quite well that others see through another lens. I did also myself for many years.
You are trying to see all things through a lens also - the lens of atheism. One of us has to be seeing through a wrong lens.

Do you agree that one of us has to be seeing through a faulty lens?
Have you ever of your own initiative picked up say the New Testament and read it for yourself to see for yourself
what Jesus taught and how He lived?

I ask this because I have found the bible has a perculiar effect on some people.
With some people it seems the LESS they actually read it, the MORE they fancy themselves as an expert on its contents.

Is there a one Gospel, like Matthew, Mark, or Luke or John which you have read through?

This just is not true. Are people trying to make it illegal to be Christian?

That would be against the teaching of Jesus.
That is to try to rid the world of unbelievers in Christ.

See this parable.

Another parable He set before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field.
But while the men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares in the midst of the wheat and went away.
And when the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the tares appeared also.

And the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where then did the tares come from? And he said to them, An enemy has done this. And the slaves said to him, Do you want us then to go and collect them?

But he said, No, lest while collecting the tares, you uproot the wheat along with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Collect first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them up, but the wheat gather into my barn. (Matt. 13:24-30)

The parable shows Jesus "the master" instructing his servants not to attempt to rid the world of those who either imitate believing in the Son of God or outright opposing Him. He says they may make mistake as to who is His and who is not. Like the tares may so resemble
real wheat that they cannot tell the difference.

This final seperation will be done, according to Christ, infallibly by God's angels at the consummation of the age. This is His own interpretation of His parable when He was asked by His perplexed disciples.

And the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
And the enemy who sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the consummation of the age; and the reapers are angels.

Therefore just as the tares are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the consummation of the age.
The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness,

And will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt. 13:38-43)

Remember, telling people that they can't push their faith onto others is not the same thing as telling them that they can't hold that faith themselves.

I as a lover of Jesus have read from Him that I should not push the faith onto others.
Now He did teach to compel them. But the supernatural transaction that must occur withint each
man's innermost spiritual being is something impossible to force upon anyone.

The new birth is something that the the world can neither give or take away.
Each man must "RECEIVE" in willingness to have a new life imparted into them by God.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,
Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12,13)

"You aren't allowed to be a Christian" = religious persecution.

"You aren't allowed to force others to be Christian" = not religious persecution.

You are right.
I think there are a number of interests you have in life that you delved into.
Though others may have been involved and left a negative impression, for some reason
their bad examples didn't discourage you from looking into those things more carefully for yourself.

In my early Christian life I had a prayer which my Father was faithful to answer.
Early in my spiritual journey with Jesus, I prayed "Father lead me to those who will not discourage my faith but encourage my faith."

I had plenty of examples who furnished ground for me to discount the whole matter.
But I could not deny I had positive examples and role models of Christians who were Christ like.
God was faithful to my request to put me with those who could help my faith rather than hinder it.

 

[Bradskii]

Isn't that the argument you are making? It's all about the individual?

It's about you. You say it would harm you, '...employees are harmed...' so you'd refuse. That's plain enough.

 

[Bradskii]

It should not matter when someone chooses something different from the norm. But it should matter when it matters in certain situations especially at the extremes. It doesn't matter if a girl wants to play rugby. But it does matter when at the elite level that the genders are seperated because males at this level will dominate and hurt females.

In which case it doesn't matter as regards Mary from accounts.

 

[Bradskii]

But surely it needs to be determined what is harm or not.

That's not difficult.

 

[Bradskii]

So what about completely removing genitals from young people. Is that classed as harm.

Individual cases need to be examined individually.

 

[stevevw]

In which case it doesn't matter as regards Mary from accounts.

So long as its the best person for the job and Mary wasn't chosen because she is a women. But there is some evidence that once again at the extreme, that is the best at math are males. But males vary on math more than females so males will also have higher representation at doing poor at math.

But if you were to find the best qualified persons at the most extreme jobs that involve math say at Nasa you will find males have a higher representation. This is partly to do with their ability to think in quantitative and visuospatial terms compared to women.

 

[stevevw]

That's not difficult.

It seems to be difficult as we are seeing disputes over many issues as to what is harm or not. In fact quite often what one side thinks is good policy or practice to reduce harms is seen as harm by the other side and vice versa.

So how is this dispute settled. How do we determine which side is right.

 

[stevevw]

Individual cases need to be examined individually.

Therefore individual cases need to be examined for the practice of genital mutilation.

We actually judge genital mutilation from a culture wide practice rather than an individual one. The same with the practice of removing genitals as a practice for treating people with gender dysphoria.

 

[Kylie]

Hello Kylie. Let me see if I get your point, with a question or two.
My God is the man Jesus.

Do you mean at Mt. Sinai when Moses came down with ten commandments, one being "You shall not murder" according to Exodus 20:13, that was centuries before the Christian Gospel? I would agree that the record of that being a divine command before Christian Gospel.

No, I am saying that the concept of "killing someone = bad" was around long before religion as we know it, and certainly before Christianity and Judaism.

Some also say "All truth is God's truth."
Say "2 + 2 = 4". They would say all truth is God's truth. That mathematical statement also is God's truth.

I am an atheist, so I would not.

If you are expecting me to base my worldview on the existence of God, then this discussion isn't going to work.

Speaking for myself, I know quite well that others see through another lens. I did also myself for many years.
You are trying to see all things through a lens also - the lens of atheism. One of us has to be seeing through a wrong lens.

You make it sound like my worldview is one based on me not wanting there to be a God. It is not.

My worldview is one based on the idea that "reality = real." If something has some measurable effect on reality, then it is real. If something can be measured, and if it is repeatable - that is, if you and I can measure it and we both get the same answer - then it is real.

Do you agree that one of us has to be seeing through a faulty lens?

Yes. That's why I don't just go with whatever agrees with some particular worldview. I go with what can be objectively verified.

Have you ever of your own initiative picked up say the New Testament and read it for yourself to see for yourself
what Jesus taught and how He lived?

Yes.

I ask this because I have found the bible has a perculiar effect on some people.
With some people it seems the LESS they actually read it, the MORE they fancy themselves as an expert on its contents.

I've seen Christians like that too.

Is there a one Gospel, like Matthew, Mark, or Luke or John which you have read through?

As I said, I have read the entire thing.

That would be against the teaching of Jesus.
That is to try to rid the world of unbelievers in Christ.

See this parable.

Another parable He set before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field.
But while the men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares in the midst of the wheat and went away.
And when the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the tares appeared also.

And the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where then did the tares come from? And he said to them, An enemy has done this. And the slaves said to him, Do you want us then to go and collect them?

But he said, No, lest while collecting the tares, you uproot the wheat along with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Collect first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them up, but the wheat gather into my barn. (Matt. 13:24-30)

The parable shows Jesus "the master" instructing his servants not to attempt to rid the world of those who either imitate believing in the Son of God or outright opposing Him. He says they may make mistake as to who is His and who is not. Like the tares may so resemble
real wheat that they cannot tell the difference.

This final seperation will be done, according to Christ, infallibly by God's angels at the consummation of the age. This is His own interpretation of His parable when He was asked by His perplexed disciples.

And the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
And the enemy who sowed them is the devil; and the harvest is the consummation of the age; and the reapers are angels.

Therefore just as the tares are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the consummation of the age.
The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness,

And will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt. 13:38-43) \

I didn't ask if it would be against the teachings of Jesus to make it illegal to be a Christian, did I?

Please don't pretend I asked one question and answer that whenm I really asked a completely different question.

I asked, "Is anyone trying to make it illegal to be a Christian?"

In Australia, where SteveW is based, it is NOT illegal to be a Christian.

I as a lover of Jesus have read from Him that I should not push the faith onto others.
Now He did teach to compel them. But the supernatural transaction that must occur withint each
man's innermost spiritual being is something impossible to force upon anyone.

The new birth is something that the the world can neither give or take away.
Each man must "RECEIVE" in willingness to have a new life imparted into them by God.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,
Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12,13)

Okay.

You are right.
I think there are a number of interests you have in life that you delved into.
Though others may have been involved and left a negative impression, for some reason
their bad examples didn't discourage you from looking into those things more carefully for yourself.

In my early Christian life I had a prayer which my Father was faithful to answer.
Early in my spiritual journey with Jesus, I prayed "Father lead me to those who will not discourage my faith but encourage my faith."

I had plenty of examples who furnished ground for me to discount the whole matter.
But I could not deny I had positive examples and role models of Christians who were Christ like.
God was faithful to my request to put me with those who could help my faith rather than hinder it.

Okay.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems to be difficult as we are seeing disputes over many issues as to what is harm or not. In fact quite often what one side thinks is good policy or practice to reduce harms is seen as harm by the other side and vice versa.

So how is this dispute settled. How do we determine which side is right.

Reasonable arguments. Let's say Mary wants to be known as 'she' and 'he' even though she was born a male. Can there possibly be an argument that says 'I will be harmed if I do that'.

 

[Bradskii]

So long as its the best person for the job and Mary wasn't chosen because she is a women. But there is some evidence that once again at the extreme, that is the best at math are males. But males vary on math more than females so males will also have higher representation at doing poor at math.

But if you were to find the best qualified persons at the most extreme jobs that involve math say at Nasa you will find males have a higher representation. This is partly to do with their ability to think in quantitative and visuospatial terms compared to women.

Mary from accounts was used as an example of transgenderism and use of pronouns.

 

[Bradskii]

Therefore individual cases need to be examined for the practice of genital mutilation.

We actually judge genital mutilation from a culture wide practice rather than an individual one. The same with the practice of removing genitals as a practice for treating people with gender dysphoria.

If you think that holding down a young girl and excising part of her genitalia against her will is in any way comparable to a decision make by transgender people to undergo surgery then we have a huge problem.

 

[rjs330]

It's about you. You say it would harm you, '...employees are harmed...' so you'd refuse. That's plain enough.

Sorry the whole "you" thing that's your argument not mine. The "individual" is your thing, not mine.

Sorry your not going to pull me into your projection.

 

[rjs330]

If you think that holding down a young girl and excising part of her genitalia against her will is in any way comparable to a decision make by transgender people to undergo surgery then we have a huge problem.

What if she wants it because believes it's the right thing to do?

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry the whole "you" thing that's your argument not mine. The "individual" is your thing, not mine.

I used the example of Mary from accounts. What would you do? Well, '...employees are harmed...'. So if you're working there, you would refuse to use the pronouns she asks you to because...you think it would harm you. It is about you. It's about what you would do. It's your personal opinion we want. It's your reaction to the situation that tells us how you feel about it.

Why the reticence?