Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[stevevw]

No, people are generally characterized by their behavior or other salient characteristics, and grouped based on that behavior. In this case we have a group of people who are white, speak English as a native tongue and belong to Evangelical Protestant churches. In the US today they are predominantly cultural conservatives, regarding the culture that produced them as inherently superior to all others. Those are all real, observable facts about them and I can characterize them as a group that way to talk about them. I'm not defining their identities, I am describing them.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you characterizing them based on what you believe they are or what they actually are according to what the group believes about themselves. These are two different things. It seems tome you are describing how you believe and feel about this group.

I would not characterise them as anything but people or humans that happen to believe this or that. Not the other way around by their language, skin color, belief or political views. Thats because people can have different languages, skin colour, and belief and still hold the same views and values.

For example the description you apply to whites also applies to the majority of blacks who happen to be Protestants and hold the same beliefs and traditional conservative values.

According to a survey conducted between November 9, 2019, and June 2, 2020, Pew Research found that 78% of Black American adults have a religious affiliation compared to 72% of American adults generally, and about 75% of Black American adults identify as Christian (66% Protestant Christian, 6% Catholic Christian, and 3% Other Christian) compared to 66% of the general US adult population.[5]

Religion of Black Americans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whether you identify as a white anglo-Protestant is up to you.

Actually I was baptised a Catholic as most as was many people at that time but don't affiliate with any denomination.

For example, let's say that you identify as a white anglo Protestant even though you are not a native English speaker. By my definition you are not a white anglo Protestant, but you possess the other characteristics and like to be grouped as one when religion and politics are discussed. So, for politeness in public, places like work or school, I will accede to your identity, even though I don't affirm it.

That seems strange in a secular society. I thought people did not have to go along with any religions at work. When you say accede that is to agree with the demands of a religion. So if a religious group at work says the organisation should not work on Sunday everyone must go along.

Whereas this should not be allowed unless there is agreement. But if the religious workers request their work to have the day off that may be granted but the rest of the workers still have a right to work.

The problem with this idea that everyone can both uphold different beliefs while at the same time remain neutral and avoid conflict is unreal. We only have to look at the many examples in sport where religious Islanders have refused to don rainbow apparel due to their beliefs. Either the Trans community are offended by the players not going along with the celebration or the religious players are offended by having to do so.

The problem is the State and many corporations who are agents of the State or rather have now bought into politics with work are not neutral. Now politics is mixed with everything private organisations take political and ideological belief positions which will inevitably make those who disagree within that organisation feel uncomfortable and unable to express their beliefs.

In private, I can argue with you about it, but in public where other things are to be done and such confrontations are inappropriate I will just go along with it and treat you as if you were a white anglo-Protestant. It does neither of us any harm.

Are you saying you would treat say a non white anglo saxon like an anglo saxon for the sake of going along.

What do you think about social media. That seems to be a merge of the private and public and this is where most of the inappropriate and confrontational content happens. The problem is this then becomes like a self fulling prophesy in that it transfers intoi real life. Its like the narratives are created in the media and that becomes reality.

In fact now media and social media can win elections, bring down big corps and execs, create movements like MeToo and also create violence on the street as those narratives are acted out.

Of course, and everybody knows it. If, however , people are being treated badly because they are members of some identified group, then they tend to identify as members of that group for redress, despite their individual differences. If gay people existed in society and being gay was taken for granted as just something harmless some people did there would be no "gay pride."

I don't know, I just think its all very subjective. We could identify groups in many different ways and create protests or celebrations to highlight them.

I get that people who feel disadvantaged want to speak out but I don't think making it about identity is a good idea. It should be about all people being the same regardless of identity. That way we don't differentiate in the first place. If a human being does not have certain rights regardless of identity then thats the red flag full stop.

When you start categorising people into victim groups it then becomes a never ending competition as to which identity is most disadvantaged and that is often a subjective determination. One persons disadvantage is another persons right to exist.

I read somewhere that as women have gained independence and more freedoms since Ferminism began males are now falling into similar levels of disadvantaghe women had in the 70's. So it seems as women gained more rights males lost rights. The same is happening with Trans and women where as Trans gain rights womens Rights are being wound back.

Theres always winners and losers when it comes to identity politics.

Yet you do it constantly.

I don't think so. Quite the opposite. I forgotten how many times I have emphasised that we need to respect and uphold the individual and get back to the basic values we built our nations one which is about viewing people as being made in Gods image with natural unalienable rights regardless of race, gender or religion or any other identity.

It is the ideologues that I am pointing out which make race, gender ect at the forefront and responsible for all inequalities and every problem under the sun.

People pointing that out are not promoting this just trying to stop the dangerous ideology. It would be like an atheist who is pointing out to some cult that they think the cult is dangerous and harms people. I would regard that as a person who is actually looking out for people especially women and children and not harming them.

If you think this is not the case then tell me why the majority of people seem to agree with what I am saying and are not as you say "you people", you trouble making people. They are just ordinary people with commonsense who are pointing out an obvious problem with modern day society.

 

[BCP1928]

I am not sure what you mean. Are you characterizing them based on what you believe they are or what they actually are according to what the group believes about themselves. These are two different things. It seems tome you are describing how you believe and feel about this group.

I am attempting to describe what I observe. If they express their feelings about themselves, that will also be part of my observation. I have no way to test whether they actually feel that way about themselves the way they say. I am certainly not going to challenge them about it.

I would not characterise them as anything but people or humans that happen to believe this or that. Not the other way around by their language, skin color, belief or political views. Thats because people can have different languages, skin colour, and belief and still hold the same views and values.

For example the description you apply to whites also applies to the majority of blacks who happen to be Protestants and hold the same beliefs and traditional conservative values.

No, they don't. Not in detail. You should look into it. Where do they stand, for example, on hot button Christian issues like gun control or global warming?

According to a survey conducted between November 9, 2019, and June 2, 2020, Pew Research found that 78% of Black American adults have a religious affiliation compared to 72% of American adults generally, and about 75% of Black American adults identify as Christian (66% Protestant Christian, 6% Catholic Christian, and 3% Other Christian) compared to 66% of the general US adult population.[5]

Religion of Black Americans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Actually I was baptised a Catholic as most as was many people at that time but don't affiliate with any denomination.

My apologies. I had somehow got the idea that you were involved with the Salvation Army who are, theologically, Holiness Methodists, a fundamentalist Evangelical sect.

That seems strange in a secular society. I thought people did not have to go along with any religions at work. When you say accede that is to agree with the demands of a religion. So if a religious group at work says the organisation should not work on Sunday everyone must go along.

You may think so but that's not what I meant. In any case, Christians may not make religious demands on non-Christians

Whereas this should not be allowed unless there is agreement. But if the religious workers request their work to have the day off that may be granted but the rest of the workers still have a right to work.

The problem with this idea that everyone can both uphold different beliefs while at the same time remain neutral and avoid conflict is unreal. We only have to look at the many examples in sport where religious Islanders have refused to don rainbow apparel due to their beliefs. Either the Trans community are offended by the players not going along with the celebration or the religious players are offended by having to do so.

Yes, there are so many different points of view. And it is also pretty clear that many religious people feel that it is an infringement of their religious rights to have to tolerate their presence in society. I don't have a solution for you, but LGBT people will continue to exist like they always have whether we find a solution or not.

The problem is the State and many corporations who are agents of the State or rather have now bought into politics with work are not neutral. Now politics is mixed with everything private organisations take political and ideological belief positions which will inevitably make those who disagree within that organisation feel uncomfortable and unable to express their beliefs.

Are you saying you would treat say a non white anglo saxon like an anglo saxon for the sake of going along.

What do you think about social media. That seems to be a merge of the private and public and this is where most of the inappropriate and confrontational content happens. The problem is this then becomes like a self fulling prophesy in that it transfers intoi real life. Its like the narratives are created in the media and that becomes reality.

In fact now media and social media can win elections, bring down big corps and execs, create movements like MeToo and also create violence on the street as those narratives are acted out.

I don't know, I just think its all very subjective. We could identify groups in many different ways and create protests or celebrations to highlight them.

I get that people who feel disadvantaged want to speak out but I don't think making it about identity is a good idea. It should be about all people being the same regardless of identity. That way we don't differentiate in the first place. If a human being does not have certain rights regardless of identity then thats the red flag full stop.

If people were the same regardless of identity, what would be the point? Identity group activism doesn't start with the activism, it starts with egregious treatment of the identity group.

When you start categorising people into victim groups it then becomes a never ending competition as to which identity is most disadvantaged and that is often a subjective determination. One persons disadvantage is another persons right to exist.

I read somewhere that as women have gained independence and more freedoms since Ferminism began males are now falling into similar levels of disadvantaghe women had in the 70's. So it seems as women gained more rights males lost rights. The same is happening with Trans and women where as Trans gain rights womens Rights are being wound back.

Theres always winners and losers when it comes to identity politics.

I don't think so. Quite the opposite. I forgotten how many times I have emphasised that we need to respect and uphold the individual and get back to the basic values we built our nations one which is about viewing people as being made in Gods image with natural unalienable rights regardless of race, gender or religion or any other identity.

It is the ideologues that I am pointing out which make race, gender ect at the forefront and responsible for all inequalities and every problem under the sun.

Which would not be necessary if all people were treated the same.

People pointing that out are not promoting this just trying to stop the dangerous ideology. It would be like an atheist who is pointing out to some cult that they think the cult is dangerous and harms people. I would regard that as a person who is actually looking out for people especially women and children and not harming them.

If you think this is not the case then tell me why the majority of people seem to agree with what I am saying and are not as you say "you people", you trouble making people.

I guess we'll see in November, but right now your "majority" consists, last time I looked, of 24% of the eligible voters.

They are just ordinary people with commonsense who are pointing out an obvious problem with modern day society.

Well, since the problem is theirs, I wish them luck in solving it.

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

As a Christian, my faith is in God and in His plan for all that are His. DJT might be what this country needs in order to turn it from the hard left it has taken over the last three plus years. But DJT is not the be-all or end-all. That would be Jesus Christ. Watch and be ready for our redemption draws nigh. Amen, amen.

 

[stevevw]

I am attempting to describe what I observe. If they express their feelings about themselves, that will also be part of my observation. I have no way to test whether they actually feel that way about themselves the way they say. I am certainly not going to challenge them about it.

If they are expressing their feelings about themselves then that is their subjective take on things. But the problem comes when some want to make their subjective feelings about themselves and the world apply to others. That is Identity politics.

No, they don't. Not in detail. You should look into it. Where do they stand, for example, on hot button Christian issues like gun control or global warming?

I don't think gun control is a hot button Christian issue but rather a political one. I mean ultimately I think everyone would like a world where there were no guns and people respected each other. That would be the ultimate position or should be the position of Christians.

I mean when we look at the various factors as to why some people will support guns or not its much more complex than limiting it down to religious affiliation or race. For example generallt males support guns more than females, conservatives more than liberals, the American West more than the east and many other factors.

So I don't think its fair to label people according to certain group identifications.

My apologies. I had somehow got the idea that you were involved with the Salvation Army who are, theologically, Holiness Methodists, a fundamentalist Evangelical sect.

I have a connection with the Salvos as they helped me out in the past. But I don't affiliate with them. But once again this stereotyping of people according to groups seems wrong. As far as I know of the Salvos they are down to earth and actually put into practice Christs teachings. They are well known for working with the most needy, addicts, the homeless, DV, child abuse victims and with disaster relief.

They certainly don't push a fundementalist agenda as far as I undedrstand.

You may think so but that's not what I meant. In any case, Christians may not make religious demands on non-Christians

Yes thats what I thought. But then no ideological belief should be pushed onto others as well. It doesn't have to be traditional religion. It may be that an organisation pushes its workers to go along with a particular political ideology or belief just as the current State has been doing in the institutions.

Yes, there are so many different points of view. And it is also pretty clear that many religious people feel that it is an infringement of their religious rights to have to tolerate their presence in society. I don't have a solution for you, but LGBT people will continue to exist like they always have whether we find a solution or not.

I don't think religious people don't want others who may believe and live differently to exist or not be tolerated. Christians have lived within secular society for some time with secular ideology infringing on their beliefs. This has been a long held belief that we live in this world but not of this world. That cannot be avoided.

What we are talking about is when other ideologies just like religion did in the past is pushed onto everyone which then threatens not just Christian values but commonsense values. So its really about freedoms the long held right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Like I said Christianity is now being pushed to the fringes even attacked as being hateful when just 20 odd years ago it was widely accepted. Christianity or any religion is not allowed to be enforced by the Constitution. Yet the State is pushing their own version of religion on Christians and others such as conservatives and anyone who disagrees with the new secular ideology.

If people were the same regardless of identity, what would be the point? Identity group activism doesn't start with the activism, it starts with egregious treatment of the identity group.

Your statement is very telling when you say "whats the point if people were the same. As far as human rights people are exactly the same or should be regardless of identity group. Thats the significant deminishing of human value that identity takes away because it then makes the identity the value and not the human.

You then end up with a never ending reduction of which identity groups rights worthy compared to another and a continual conflict between identity groups vying for their rights.

Quite often this comes down to subjective feelings and views as to which identity group is most disadvantaged and theres a repeating cycle of one identity being valued over another. Its actually cultivating descrimination.

Which would not be necessary if all people were treated the same.

Exactly. If people are valued for just being a human being with natural God given rights, the same for everyone as Christ said whether Greek or Jew Slave or free then the value would not be in their identity but in the human itself. You don't qualify because your black or white, male or female, Trans or heterosexual, gay or straight but simply being a human being and made in Gods image.

I guess we'll see in November, but right now your "majority" consists, last time I looked, of 24% of the eligible voters.

24% of eligible voters who disagree with Woke, PC and Identity politics. I don't think so, its something like around 65% if not more.

In fact some surveys are showing that even young people who usually supported the Dems and all the Woke and DEI stuff are falling away from the Dems due to how this ideology is affecting them. They are beginning to see its unreality and that its not producing the new Utopia society ideologues claimed.

Well, since the problem is theirs, I wish them luck in solving it.

See this is part of the problem. That you make out that the majority of people have a problem that they are causing and they have no legitimate concerns.

At the very least we should be saying that both sides are contributing and we need to hear each side out and find some common ground. But to just dismiss other peoples beliefs and concerns as rubbish is not conducive of building bridges.

I think at least the average Christian and Consertvative is willing to sit down and talk it out so long as everything can be up for discussion wthout cancelling or dismissing opposing beliefs. At the end of the day I have nothing to hide and am willing to reason out these issues to find the truth as I am not afraid of the truth.

 

[stevevw]

As a Christian, my faith is in God and in His plan for all that are His. DJT might be what this country needs in order to turn it from the hard left it has taken over the last three plus years. But DJT is not the be-all or end-all. That would be Jesus Christ. Watch and be ready for our redemption draws nigh. Amen, amen.

Can I aske what DJT means.

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

Can I aske what DJT means.

Sure. DJT are the initials of Donald J. Trump.

 

[stevevw]

A good example of this radical ideology and how it is bring the extremes to the middle and is really about attacking and destroying the very nations that have allowed freedoms and thus freedoms itself is the violent protesting we have seen supporting Palestine and Hamas, the burning of the national flag and destroying symbols of the west.

This is all from the same Marxist and CRT ideology that BLM and other ideologues promote. That same narrative has cultivated the division and hate based on identity lines. Even to the point now where people are acting it out on the streets and are willing to call for the extermination of groups they hate.

 

[stevevw]

Sure. DJT are the initials of Donald J. Trump.

LOL here I am thinking it is some acronym for a political ideology.

I don't think either party or president will make much difference. Its on a path that I think has been set for some time and its bigger than any single person or party. I don't really think any of the leaders know whats really going on. Its all about whats right in front of them which is to either stay in power or get power.

Of course theres the ideological and moral position. But as you say if Christ is the truth then none are on His side as I don't think He would be doing things the way any world government is carrying on at the moment.

 

[BCP1928]

If they are expressing their feelings about themselves then that is their subjective take on things. But the problem comes when some want to make their subjective feelings about themselves and the world apply to others. That is Identity politics.

Nobody is forcing you to have the same subjective feelings about yourself and the world as LGBT people do. Aren't you the one doing that by taking the position that the subjective feelings that LGBT people have about themselves and the rest of the world are "wrong?" Let me know when someone forces you to have the same subjective feelings about yourself as LGBT people have about themselves.

I don't think gun control is a hot button Christian issue but rather a political one. I mean ultimately I think everyone would like a world where there were no guns and people respected each other. That would be the ultimate position or should be the position of Christians.

Not in this country.

Evangelicals are now rejecting 'liberal' teachings of Jesus

Christian devotees of former President Donald Trump are denouncing Bible verses attributed to Jesus as "weak," according to an evangelical leader.

www.newsweek.com

I mean when we look at the various factors as to why some people will support guns or not its much more complex than limiting it down to religious affiliation or race. For example generallt males support guns more than females, conservatives more than liberals, the American West more than the east and many other factors.

That's culture, not religion. Christian nationalists think American culture belongs to them.

So I don't think its fair to label people according to certain group identifications.

No, I let them identify themselves--just like I do with LGBT people.

I have a connection with the Salvos as they helped me out in the past. But I don't affiliate with them. But once again this stereotyping of people according to groups seems wrong. As far as I know of the Salvos they are down to earth and actually put into practice Christs teachings. They are well known for working with the most needy, addicts, the homeless, DV, child abuse victims and with disaster relief.

They certainly don't push a fundementalist agenda as far as I undedrstand.

Right. They are fundamentalist Christians, not fundamentalist Christian nationalists. Just imagine: Christians actually trying to live the Gospel of 'Christ instead of throwing it aside to "own the libs." I don't agree with their fundamentalist theology, but lately they have been getting all of my charitable dollars.

Yes thats what I thought. But then no ideological belief should be pushed onto others as well. It doesn't have to be traditional religion. It may be that an organisation pushes its workers to go along with a particular political ideology or belief just as the current State has been doing in the institutions.

I don't think religious people don't want others who may believe and live differently to exist or not be tolerated. Christians have lived within secular society for some time with secular ideology infringing on their beliefs. This has been a long held belief that we live in this world but not of this world. That cannot be avoided.

What we are talking about is when other ideologies just like religion did in the past is pushed onto everyone which then threatens not just Christian values but commonsense values. So its really about freedoms the long held right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Like I said Christianity is now being pushed to the fringes even attacked as being hateful when just 20 odd years ago it was widely accepted. Christianity or any religion is not allowed to be enforced by the Constitution. Yet the State is pushing their own version of religion on Christians and others such as conservatives and anyone who disagrees with the new secular ideology.

Your statement is very telling when you say "whats the point if people were the same. As far as human rights people are exactly the same or should be regardless of identity group. Thats the significant deminishing of human value that identity takes away because it then makes the identity the value and not the human.

You then end up with a never ending reduction of which identity groups rights worthy compared to another and a continual conflict between identity groups vying for their rights.

Quite often this comes down to subjective feelings and views as to which identity group is most disadvantaged and theres a repeating cycle of one identity being valued over another. Its actually cultivating descrimination.

Exactly. If people are valued for just being a human being with natural God given rights, the same for everyone as Christ said whether Greek or Jew Slave or free then the value would not be in their identity but in the human itself. You don't qualify because your black or white, male or female, Trans or heterosexual, gay or straight but simply being a human being and made in Gods image.

24% of eligible voters who disagree with Woke, PC and Identity politics. I don't think so, its something like around 65% if not more.

They disagree with various aspects of it (that's why they're sometimes called "swing voters" ) but only the hard core take it as a unified ideological movement directed at Christianity by "Marxists.".

In fact some surveys are showing that even young people who usually supported the Dems and all the Woke and DEI stuff are falling away from the Dems due to how this ideology is affecting them. They are beginning to see its unreality and that its not producing the new Utopia society ideologues claimed.

See this is part of the problem. That you make out that the majority of people have a problem that they are causing and they have no legitimate concerns.

At the very least we should be saying that both sides are contributing and we need to hear each side out and find some common ground. But to just dismiss other peoples beliefs and concerns as rubbish is not conducive of building bridges.

I think at least the average Christian and Consertvative is willing to sit down and talk it out so long as everything can be up for discussion wthout cancelling or dismissing opposing beliefs. At the end of the day I have nothing to hide and am willing to reason out these issues to find the truth as I am not afraid of the truth.

No, it's rubbish. I finally came to that conclusion when the Christian faction in Congress decided it was a good idea to show on TV during prime family viewing hours enlarged pictures of Hunter Biden naked engaging in sex with a prostitute Christianity has lost its moral credibility in this country, which is too bad for those Christians who are still trying to witness for the Gospel instead of "Western Christian Culture".

 

[BCP1928]

A good example of this radical ideology and how it is bring the extremes to the middle and is really about attacking and destroying the very nations that have allowed freedoms and thus freedoms itself is the violent protesting we have seen supporting Palestine and Hamas, the burning of the national flag and destroying symbols of the west.

This is all from the same Marxist and CRT ideology that BLM and other ideologues promote. That same narrative has cultivated the division and hate based on identity lines. Even to the point now where people are acting it out on the streets and are willing to call for the extermination of groups they hate.

So it's not possible to demonstrate against Netanyahu's conduct of the war without being a "Marxist?' Talk about forcing subjective identities on people...

 

[jamiec]

I am interested in this as I was speaking to some friends the other day about how especially in the media, Hollywood, Music and entertainment there seems to be this pagan or even Satanic ritualistism going on. Things like wearing these head dresses with goat horns and other pagan symbols. Its always very provocative and sexual as well. Almost a celebration of our animalistic side.

I think I know what is happening. Just like in the days when people defied God they turned to nature, to animals and nature itself like Stone idols. Now that modern society is rejecting God this same belief is coming back. It may seem natural for people to worship nature as god. But primarily when this happens its not really about gods in nature but the self as god, about worship our naturalistic side.

Also in those times people were made gods when theres no transcendent God. As self is god desires and feelings and self experience becomes godlike in status. Therefore comfort, pleasure and all the good feelings are moral and the aweful feeling ones are sin similar to Hedonism

So are we seeing a repeat of the down fall of society like Sodom and Gormorrah or like with how Empires have fallen where morality breaksdown and where the created is worshipped and not the Creator which undermines Gods natural order into entropy and chaos as has happened before except on a much bigger scale.

Society has always been Sodom and Gomorrah. So, no.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody is forcing you to have the same subjective feelings about yourself and the world as LGBT people do.

Tell that to the women who have to comete against biological males and have to share their spaces with men. Or the parents of kids who have trans ideology pushed onto them in schools. Or those who have either been sacked or suffered for simply expressing the fact that a man cannot be a women.

Aren't you the one doing that by taking the position that the subjective feelings that LGBT people have about themselves and the rest of the world are "wrong?"

Saying that a persons subjective feelings and beliefs about themselves may be wrong is not wrong in itself. An anorexic persom may feel they are overweight like someone may feel the opposite sex. Its not wrong to point out that their feelings may be misplaced.

In fact its the right thing to do. Telling them their feelings are fact and a true reflection of reality is in fact harmful and breaching a duty of care by encouraging a delusion that will inevitably cause them more harm than good in the end.

Let me know when someone forces you to have the same subjective feelings about yourself as LGBT people have about themselves.

Its not forcing people to have the same feelings. Its making those feelings a reality in the objective world and then it has a harmful effect on others, on the truth and reality for everyone.

As a society if we allow Trans ideology in schools we not only harm childrens development and psyche we also undermine our institutions by allowing such unreality to permeate. If people are fooled by the ideology on gender and sex they will also be fooled by other unrealities. It creates division and instability within society.

If people are forced to go along with Trans ideology in education, sports, with pronouns, with affirming other peoples feelings about themselves then they have to sacrifice their own feelings and beliefs to do so. If Christians forced schools to affirm Christian values and beliefs there would be an uproar.

Not in this country.

Evangelicals are now rejecting 'liberal' teachings of Jesus

Christian devotees of former President Donald Trump are denouncing Bible verses attributed to Jesus as "weak," according to an evangelical leader.

www.newsweek.com

Thats right, not in the US. Its a different kind of situation that most nations are not in. There are deep cultural factors that can over ride even belief. Thats what happens when you mix religion and politics.

That's culture, not religion. Christian nationalists think American culture belongs to them.

Thats right its culture and not religion. People are allowing their culture to over ride their religious beliefs. A Christian in the west is going to support guns just like a non Christian more than one in the east. That is the defining factor not religious belief but culture.

No, I let them identify themselves--just like I do with LGBT people.

Its fine for people to indeify themseves. But don't let identity become the only reality of what people are. Its divisive. It then becomes blacks verses whites, religious verses non religious, religious factions, political factions, straight verses gay and genders verses each other.

Right. They are fundamentalist Christians, not fundamentalist Christian nationalists. Just imagine: Christians actually trying to live the Gospel of 'Christ instead of throwing it aside to "own the libs." I don't agree with their fundamentalist theology, but lately they have been getting all of my charitable dollars.

I don't think the Salvos are even fundementalists. In helping the needy they don't put any stipulations of doctrine. They just accept people as who they are and help them. Like the Good Samaritan. When I was with them they didn't have any extreme doctrine, just the Bible and Christs teachings.

I agree it would be good if people on both sides seen eye to eye. The problem is we once were like that. Both the Left andf the Right were more God fearing and there was a lot of agreement socially and morally. But that has all changed. Now the Left have abandoned God and the Right are getting all God extreme because they are reacting to the Left.

In the meantime God is still alive and well in the back streets, in the quiet good work of many Christians like the Salvos. But what all this means is that overall much of society has abandoned God whether on the Left or Right and thats not good. That explains why we are seeing so much division and hate in society even to the point of now seeing riots in Britain, around the world breaking out, rising antisemetism, and other radical groups.

They disagree with various aspects of it (that's why they're sometimes called "swing voters" ) but only the hard core take it as a unified ideological movement directed at Christianity by "Marxists.".

The extreme positions of christians (if you can call them that) and Marxists, or Trans activists, Antisemetics, or white supremecists or whoever is the symptom of an underlying divided society. I don't think the growing awareness of how identity politics is damaging society is just political and to do with swing voters.

This is a fight about reality itself and I don't think society has been in such a dire situation. The state of western politics has become radicalised approaching levels of what we have seen in overseas nations which we once thanked God we were not like that. Now we are fast becomeing just like that.

So this is more than politics or religion. This is a fight for reality itself, for truth. As far as I can see the only truth is Gods truth and that is the very thing that society has rejected in recent times. So its not a surprise that we are accending into chaos because when you abandon God you do so at your own peril.

No, it's rubbish. I finally came to that conclusion when the Christian faction in Congress decided it was a good idea to show on TV during prime family viewing hours enlarged pictures of Hunter Biden naked engaging in sex with a prostitute Christianity has lost its moral credibility in this country, which is too bad for those Christians who are still trying to witness for the Gospel instead of "Western Christian Culture".

Showing a naked man associated with drugs for political gain is identity politics and not Christianity. It is a so called Christian politicising something to gain the upper hand politically. Both sides do it.

The problem is your doing the same by saying its a Christian. Your trying to tar Christians with a negative brush. Its all politics and if it was just politics I guess thats whats become the dirty game of politics and alls fair in politics.

But its when identity is brought in that is what goes beyond politics. It makes it personal, it demeans groups. Its elevating group identity as the moral instead of Christianity and religious morals. Its doing the exact same thing as religion but with the new religion of Woke identity. Identity is either worthy or unworthy.

Christians are now the most unworthy and attacked and rideculed because in doing so they can have an impact of the true Christianity which is Chriusts church. So fundementally this is no a spiritual war.

 

[stevevw]

Society has always been Sodom and Gomorrah. So, no.

Ok so its well on the road then. I guess we could say society being the world as opposed to Gods kingdom.

 

[stevevw]

So it's not possible to demonstrate against Netanyahu's conduct of the war without being a "Marxist?' Talk about forcing subjective identities on people...

Yes its possible. Unfortunately the extremists make the loudest noise and are the ones that get noticed all the time. That is why we need to stop exteme voices with facts and reality.

As with identity politics it comes down to narratives and the problem with narratives is that they can easily be faked in a Postmodernist world where there is no truth and objective reality.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes its possible. Unfortunately the extremists make the loudest noise and are the ones that get noticed all the time. That is why we need to stop exteme voices with facts and reality.

As with identity politics it comes down to narratives and the problem with narratives is that they can easily be faked in a Postmodernist world where there is no truth and objective reality.

Back in San Francisco, many years ago, there was a man who lost all his money in a risky business venture. It affected the balance of his mind, and he eventually declared himself to be Emperor of the United States. Somebody gave him a second-hand fancy uniform and he lived the rest of his life as the Emperor. He was popular and well-liked in that role, issuing uplifting proclamations and occasional imperial bonds for small amounts of money. In other words, his delusion was harmless and everybody went along with it.

What would you have done about it if you lived in San Francisco then? What would your response to this man have been?

 

[BCP1928]

Tell that to the women who have to comete against biological males and have to share their spaces with men. Or the parents of kids who have trans ideology pushed onto them in schools. Or those who have either been sacked or suffered for simply expressing the fact that a man cannot be a women.

Saying that a persons subjective feelings and beliefs about themselves may be wrong is not wrong in itself. An anorexic persom may feel they are overweight like someone may feel the opposite sex. Its not wrong to point out that their feelings may be misplaced.

In fact its the right thing to do. Telling them their feelings are fact and a true reflection of reality is in fact harmful and breaching a duty of care by encouraging a delusion that will inevitably cause them more harm than good in the end.

Its not forcing people to have the same feelings. Its making those feelings a reality in the objective world and then it has a harmful effect on others, on the truth and reality for everyone.

It is. That's exactly what you just described. You are telling them they don't really have the feelings they think they have because they don't have the same feelings as everybody else, and that they had better stop thinking they have those feelings and start having the same feelings as everybody else.

As a society if we allow Trans ideology in schools we not only harm childrens development and psyche we also undermine our institutions by allowing such unreality to permeate. If people are fooled by the ideology on gender and sex they will also be fooled by other unrealities. It creates division and instability within society.

What you seem to be saying is that if we acknowledge trans people's feelings as real to them it will cause division and instability in society. I agree, that it causes a division between those who think they should stay int the closet and those who don't.

If people are forced to go along with Trans ideology in education, sports, with pronouns, with affirming other peoples feelings about themselves then they have to sacrifice their own feelings and beliefs to do so. If Christians forced schools to affirm Christian values and beliefs there would be an uproar.

Thats right, not in the US. Its a different kind of situation that most nations are not in. There are deep cultural factors that can over ride even belief. Thats what happens when you mix religion and politics.

Thats right its culture and not religion. People are allowing their culture to over ride their religious beliefs. A Christian in the west is going to support guns just like a non Christian more than one in the east. That is the defining factor not religious belief but culture.

Its fine for people to indeify themseves. But don't let identity become the only reality of what people are. Its divisive. It then becomes blacks verses whites, religious verses non religious, religious factions, political factions, straight verses gay and genders verses each other.

I don't think the Salvos are even fundementalists. In helping the needy they don't put any stipulations of doctrine. They just accept people as who they are and help them. Like the Good Samaritan. When I was with them they didn't have any extreme doctrine, just the Bible and Christs teachings.

I agree it would be good if people on both sides seen eye to eye. The problem is we once were like that. Both the Left andf the Right were more God fearing and there was a lot of agreement socially and morally. But that has all changed. Now the Left have abandoned God and the Right are getting all God extreme because they are reacting to the Left.

In the meantime God is still alive and well in the back streets, in the quiet good work of many Christians like the Salvos. But what all this means is that overall much of society has abandoned God whether on the Left or Right and thats not good. That explains why we are seeing so much division and hate in society even to the point of now seeing riots in Britain, around the world breaking out, rising antisemetism, and other radical groups.

The extreme positions of christians (if you can call them that) and Marxists, or Trans activists, Antisemetics, or white supremecists or whoever is the symptom of an underlying divided society. I don't think the growing awareness of how identity politics is damaging society is just political and to do with swing voters.

This is a fight about reality itself and I don't think society has been in such a dire situation. The state of western politics has become radicalised approaching levels of what we have seen in overseas nations which we once thanked God we were not like that. Now we are fast becomeing just like that.

So this is more than politics or religion. This is a fight for reality itself, for truth. As far as I can see the only truth is Gods truth and that is the very thing that society has rejected in recent times. So its not a surprise that we are accending into chaos because when you abandon God you do so at your own peril.

Showing a naked man associated with drugs for political gain is identity politics and not Christianity. It is a so called Christian politicising something to gain the upper hand politically. Both sides do it

The problem is your doing the same by saying its a Christian. Your trying to tar Christians with a negative brush. Its all politics and if it was just politics I guess thats whats become the dirty game of politics and alls fair in politics.

They say it's Christian themselves. They say it's the only true Christianity and want it to be the only legal Christianity in the US.

But its when identity is brought in that is what goes beyond politics. It makes it personal, it demeans groups. Its elevating group identity as the moral instead of Christianity and religious morals. Its doing the exact same thing as religion but with the new religion of Woke identity. Identity is either worthy or unworthy.

Christians are now the most unworthy and attacked and rideculed because in doing so they can have an impact of the true Christianity which is Chriusts church. So fundementally this is no a spiritual war.

And that Christianity is the Christian identity which is being forced on the US by the Republican party.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes its possible. Unfortunately the extremists make the loudest noise and are the ones that get noticed all the time. That is why we need to stop exteme voices with facts and reality.

As with identity politics it comes down to narratives and the problem with narratives is that they can easily be faked in a Postmodernist world where there is no truth and objective reality.

Narratives like drag queens can turn kids gay by reading to them, or that trans woman want you to believe that they actually have female reproductive organs, narratives like that. Here's another one that has appeared on CF lately, that the war in Ukraine is about gay marriage, and that's why Christians should support Russia.

 

[stevevw]

Narratives like drag queens can turn kids gay by reading to them, or that trans woman want you to believe that they actually have female reproductive organs, narratives like that. Here's another one that has appeared on CF lately, that the war in Ukraine is about gay marriage, and that's why Christians should support Russia.

Yes fake news can be used by anyone to push their agenda. The important thing is the truth, the facts and reality of what is actually going on. The more we can engage in this the more it will dispell the unreality of these narratives.

But its hard as we live ina digital age where media is powerful in influencing how people see things. But I think the same media can expose the truth if we dig deep enough behind the headlines.

I think what your suggesting is obvious fake news as the situation even on the surface is much more complex. That in itself is an indication of fake and unreal. Any idea that proposes a single reason should be viewed with suspicion because we know fundementally that its not that simple. So their are other reasons and motives for such a narrative. Usually ideological ones.

 

[stevevw]

It is. That's exactly what you just described. You are telling them they don't really have the feelings they think they have because they don't have the same feelings as everybody else, and that they had better stop thinking they have those feelings and start having the same feelings as everybody else.

Then you don't understand the basic concept about the destinction between the subjective and the objective world that is applied to just about everything from morality to science.

You have created a false representation of what I actually said. You highlighted my own words up until I said "Its making those feelings a reality in the objective world". That is the destinction between the subjective and the objective I was clarifying.

No one says that the inner subjective feelings and beliefs of others is not real to the person (the subject). Its the application of those subjective feelings and beliefs in situations that involve other peoples subjective feelings and beliefs which are different. So there needs to be some objective basis for determining what is truth and real.

Otherwise we will forever be having clashes of different subjective feelings contesting in the same reality space. Thats impossible to apply or impose because there are as many subjective feelings about situations as there are subjects.

So when the subjective feelings of someone causes harm to another what should we do. Allow that harm because its allowing a subjective right. Or investigate what is actually going on. What is the truth and facts about that situation. So we can at least get some coherency and reality as applied to the world and not subjective feelings.

What you seem to be saying is that if we acknowledge trans people's feelings as real to them it will cause division and instability in society. I agree, that it causes a division between those who think they should stay int the closet and those who don't.

See even your framing of the situation is a misrepresentation and more a reflection of your own personal beliefs and assumptions. Your reading stuff into my thoughts that are not there because you assume they are. Its stereotypical.

As I keep saying the destinction between what is subjective and what is objective, real for that situation independent of subjects needs to be determined.

So I am saying that we can acknowledge the subjective feelings of people whether its Trans, morality, belief in God/s, aliens, NDE, or any experience the subject believes is real for them. But that is completely different as to whether the personal feelings are something real in the world beyond the subject. We don't just say its true and real objectively. We like to check just in case as we know quite often its not a real representation of things.

I am saying its when people take what they personally feel and want others to also go along with them as though the other person must truely believe in what they are feeling. That crosses the line. Its not different to Creationism in schools being forced on others for which the constitution deemed wrong.

So people can feel whatever they want. They can feel they are Ziggy Stardust if they want. So long as this is not forced as being the reality for others. The problem with identity politics and making subjective identity as a real entity is that it sort of enshrines subjective feelings in law. Theres no way to determine on face value whether the identity is something real that we should uphold. Especially over objective reality.

Because it will inevitably end up being a growing list of subjective identities competing for the right to exist in reality and we know that fundementally these will clash and cause division for the simple fact that people are subjectively different.

They say it's Christian themselves. They say it's the only true Christianity and want it to be the only legal Christianity in the US.

LOl and yet they cannot see the folly of their own claim and position. Its like the 'No true Scotsman fallacy'. Then someone will come along and say "actually we are the true Christians' who out trump those who claim to be 'true Christians' ad infinum.

But I do notice that some who want to demean Christianity will purposely tar Christians with these stereotypes as a way to devalue Christianity itself. Or to imply there is no Christianity because its too subjective. That is derived by the idea that fundementally there is no truth when it comes to God or morality.

And that Christianity is the Christian identity which is being forced on the US by the Republican party.

Its a contradiction in itself to say that the Christianity pushed by the 'Repulican party' is the true Christianity if its pushed by a political party and agenda. The two cannot help but be conflated with each other and thus bias, influence and distort peoples views.

We could find another 10 examples of particular versions of Christianity mixed with certain ideologies like Mormons or JW or the Charly Masons of this world who say they hold the only true Christianity.

We can know when that happens that there is one thing for sure, that its not a true representation of Christianity for the simple fact that we have many different versions and they all can't be true. But that doesn't mean that there is no truth. This is just a way to undermine the truth.

 

[BCP1928]

Then you don't understand the basic concept about the destinction between the subjective and the objective world that is applied to just about everything from morality to science.

You have created a false representation of what I actually said. You highlighted my own words up until I said "Its making those feelings a reality in the objective world". That is the destinction between the subjective and the objective I was clarifying.

Then I still don't know what you are talking about. I believe that trans people have feelings about themselves, and that those feelings are real to them. I believe it to be objective reality: that such people with such feelings actually exist. I'm convinced of it. I know a few trans people and have actually talked to them about being trans. I am thoroughly convinced that the trans people I know actually exist and are experiencing the feelings that they claim. I take that to be objectively real about them. Consequently, when I hear or read about other trans people who I don't know I am inclined to accept as objective reality that they actually exist and have the feelings they claim. I suppose that there are people who are only pretending to have trans feelings for some reason, but I don't believe that they are very numerous.

No one says that the inner subjective feelings and beliefs of others is not real to the person (the subject). Its the application of those subjective feelings and beliefs in situations that involve other peoples subjective feelings and beliefs which are different. So there needs to be some objective basis for determining what is truth and real.

Otherwise we will forever be having clashes of different subjective feelings contesting in the same reality space. Thats impossible to apply or impose because there are as many subjective feelings about situations as there are subjects.

So when the subjective feelings of someone causes harm to another what should we do. Allow that harm because its allowing a subjective right. Or investigate what is actually going on. What is the truth and facts about that situation. So we can at least get some coherency and reality as applied to the world and not subjective feelings.

See even your framing of the situation is a misrepresentation and more a reflection of your own personal beliefs and assumptions. Your reading stuff into my thoughts that are not there because you assume they are. Its stereotypical.

As I keep saying the destinction between what is subjective and what is objective, real for that situation independent of subjects needs to be determined.

So I am saying that we can acknowledge the subjective feelings of people whether its Trans, morality, belief in God/s, aliens, NDE, or any experience the subject believes is real for them. But that is completely different as to whether the personal feelings are something real in the world beyond the subject. We don't just say its true and real objectively. We like to check just in case as we know quite often its not a real representation of things.

I am saying its when people take what they personally feel and want others to also go along with them as though the other person must truely believe in what they are feeling. That crosses the line. Its not different to Creationism in schools being forced on others for which the constitution deemed wrong.

Here again I seem to not understand you. Yes, when I interact with a trans person I generally assume that they truly believe in what they're feeling.
I generally take that approach with all people, trans or not.

So people can feel whatever they want. They can feel they are Ziggy Stardust if they want. So long as this is not forced as being the reality for others.

You mean that if I think I am Ziggy Stardust nobody else is allowed to?

The problem with identity politics and making subjective identity as a real entity is that it sort of enshrines subjective feelings in law. Theres no way to determine on face value whether the identity is something real that we should uphold. Especially over objective reality.

What law is there that requires that we have to accept other people's feelings as real to them? I shouldn't think a law would be necessary. Can you give an example?