TransAge

[SilverBear]

Yes, Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of God and His truth is understood by illiterate peasants through to the elite of the elite erudite scholars. Also yes, the method of the transmission of the text prevents corruption:

You're making the mistake of thinking that because we interpret what the truth is therefore it necessarily follows that the truth is subjective. No, the truth exists independent of us whether we believe in it or not.

Which is why everyone's biblical interpretations are spot on the same.

Or let me guess YOUR biblical interoperations are the TRUTH and anyone who doesn't interpret exactly the way you do is... wrong

Using inductive reasoning (which there is no justification for outside of God because we can't examine the future) I can be certain that rocks will continue to exist after I die.

·Inductive reasoning is a method of logical thinking that combines observations with experiential information...what you just did isn't inductive reasoning

My belief or non belief in them does not change the fact that they exist. Just because there is subjective interpretation about morals it does not mean that morality is subjective.

Rocks are physical objects the can be directly observed and are independent of yours or anyone's belief
Morals are abstract concepts that cannot be observed and exits because they are believed to exist.

Disagreement on belief about what the truth (or correct morality) is =/= that truth (or morality) is subjective, if it was the case there's no point in discussing any disagreements at all as we're both "true/correct".

nonsense

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, is what allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. If you're starting from a point that it is true that morals are relative then you have no reason to be arguing here at all because the behaviour of the other person is right according to them.

you should really try to learn something about a topic before expounding on it.

The very act of reasoning towards any sort of moral conclusion that is 'correct' requires a non relative standard in order to be 'correct'. There is no 'right in this particular case' or 'wrong that particular case' without a universal standard for morality.

[/QUOTE]
the relativists challenge: So what if it is just us? It being just us doesn't change anything.

Otherwise it's just interpretation drawn from feeling and can be dismissed as such and or invalidated/countered by my own personal preferences or feelings because both would be equally right due to the proposed relative nature of morals.

which is my point about biblical interpretations

I suppose you also don't use this reasoning for science or your own existence? At the end of the day it's just your personal interpretation that you yourself exist or that I exist.

I think therefore I am

The slavery in the Bible is completely and utterly different than the slavery under the Roman Empire in the example I gave. The fact that you think this is an argument betrays the fact you've never seriously examined it even once. The 'slavery' which is in essence a kind of indentured servitude due to the unique unprecedented measure in the ancient world of slaves being freed every 7 years or in the year of jubilee (the year at the end of seven cycles of shmita), allowed a people who were exposed to famines and all sorts of calamities to give their service to a master who would look after them, feed them and watch out for their safety (Leviticus 25:39).

you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. Exodus 21:2

If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:4-6

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:7

 

[2PhiloVoid]

since when do you have to be to get the idea that personal interpretations are....personal?

Personal interpretations come in different qualities and qualifications. They're not equal. So trying to qualify someone's viewpoint as merely "personal" doesn't cut any of its potential truth that might instead reside within on a more objective level.

Of course, if you have an education, you already know this.

 

[SilverBear]

Personal interpretations come in different qualities and qualifications. They're not equal. So trying to qualify someone's viewpoint as merely "personal" doesn't cut any of its potential truth that might instead reside within on a more objective level.

Of course, if you have an education, you already know this.

Of course, if you were paying attention and actually reading what was being posted you might notice that there are those saying that the moral authority they are putting forward suffers from the same issue that they are so eager to use to dismiss different points of view. Both are reliant on personal interpretants and if you are going to dismiss one side for having such interpertatons at its core then you muct logically dismiss your own position for having such interpertatons at its core

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course, if you were paying attention and actually reading what was being posted you might notice that there are those saying that the moral authority they are putting forward suffers from the same issue that they are so eager to use to dismiss different points of view. Both are reliant on personal interpretants and if you are going to dismiss one side for having such interpertatons at its core then you muct logically dismiss your own position for having such interpertatons at its core

I was paying attention, specifically to what you wrote in post #40.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Yes this is a sincere and real question.

I mean, I’d you can’t answer if or why human rights supersede faith, I can’t help you. And I’d you subscribe to a belief where that isn’t the case of it’s even a question, I *really* can’t help you.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why it can't be like before, that instead of paying attention to this people, people would laugh and dismiss them.

Is society laughing at and dismissing all the filth being promoted by the LBGTQ crowd? Or are they flying their flag, and worrying about what words they use for fear that they may end up getting sued?

Otherwise, I'd love to simply dismiss a guy who dresses up like a woman and walks into a locker room where young girls are undressing. But the problem is that laws are now being passed to officially allow such things to happen. So we can't be dismissive. We have to pay close attention.

 

[SilverBear]

Is society laughing at and dismissing all the filth being promoted by the LBGTQ crowd?

Lets see:
the Accord Alliance advocates equal access to health care
COLAGE has worked for years implementing anti-bullying school programs
GLAAD promotes many things including state legislation for accurate reporting of hate crimes
GLMA fights legislation allowing anti gay discrimination by hospitals and insurance companies.
The Human Rights campaign advocates human rights...
the Matthew Shepherd Foundation promotes anti-violence organizations

Wow talk about filth

 

[Aldebaran]

Lets see:
the Accord Alliance advocates equal access to health care
COLAGE has worked for years implementing anti-bullying school programs
GLAAD promotes many things including state legislation for accurate reporting of hate crimes
GLMA fights legislation allowing anti gay discrimination by hospitals and insurance companies.
The Human Rights campaign advocates human rights...
the Matthew Shepherd Foundation promotes anti-violence organizations

Wow talk about filth

I see your cherry-picking (and citing redundant laws that duplicate ones already in existence), and I raise you a number of drag-queens who insist upon exploiting children in school.

 

[dzheremi]

I mean, I’d you can’t answer if or why human rights supersede faith, I can’t help you. And I’d you subscribe to a belief where that isn’t the case of it’s even a question, I *really* can’t help you.

So why be a Christian, then? If secular rights claims win out by virtue of their supposedly not being 'faith-based' (aside: I'd argue there's a great deal of faith on display in the idea that we can promote the abolition of biological sex and advocate for the removal of healthy body parts and not expect the resulting generation of kids and young adults who are a part of this great realignment to be royally screwed up as a result, but I guess since it's not Christianity in particular, all of that specific faith-based societal engineering gets a pass), then why have faith at all?

So much for "Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world", I guess.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

So why be a Christian, then? If secular rights claims win out by virtue of their supposedly not being 'faith-based' (aside: I'd argue there's a great deal of faith on display in the idea that we can promote the abolition of biological sex and advocate for the removal of healthy body parts and not expect the resulting generation of kids and young adults who are a part of this great realignment to be royally screwed up as a result, but I guess since it's not Christianity in particular, all of that specific faith-based societal engineering gets a pass), then why have faith at all?

So much for "Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world", I guess.

I guess that’s only an answer you can give yourself. I have no problem being Christian while also understanding that a core tenant of our principles as a country include secular need over religious doctrine.

If your version of the faith has an objection to the science behind gender identity and requires adherents remain the sex dictated by their reproductive organs, super. I hope you make choices consistent with that. But your choice based on your religion applies only to you and those who choose your beliefs. Those who don’t choose your beliefs are not subject to your rules.

 

[dzheremi]

If your version of the faith has an objection to the science behind gender identity and requires adherents remain the sex dictated by their reproductive organs, super. I hope you make choices consistent with that. But your choice based on your religion applies only to you and those who choose your beliefs. Those who don’t choose your beliefs are not subject to your rules.

What on earth are you talking about? My religion does not determine my sex chromosomes, and neither does anyone else's. This is a nonsense reply if I've ever seen one. If you don't have an answer to the question, you can just say that.

 

[SilverBear]

I see your cherry-picking (and citing redundant laws that duplicate ones already in existence), and I raise you a number of drag-queens who insist upon exploiting children in school.

you have anything that isn't imaginary?

 

[SilverBear]

So why be a Christian, then? If secular rights claims win out by virtue of their supposedly not being 'faith-based' (aside: I'd argue there's a great deal of faith on display in the idea that we can promote the abolition of biological sex and advocate for the removal of healthy body parts

who exactly is doing this?

 

[dzheremi]

who exactly is doing this?

Arguing for secular rights claims over faith? Tropical Wilds did that in post #47.

 

[SilverBear]

Arguing for secular rights claims over faith? Tropical Wilds did that in post #47.

so you acknowledge that no one is promoting the abolition of biological sex or advocating for the removal of healthy body parts...thank you

 

[dzheremi]

so you acknowledge that no one is promoting the abolition of biological sex or advocating for the removal of healthy body parts...thank you

No, what I was wanting to clarify by my response was whether or not you were asking if anyone here had argued for any of the things I mentioned, which the poster in question had. Outside of CF, people are most definitely arguing for the abolition of biological sex (it's a myth, don'tchaknow) and the amputation of healthy body parts:

Here's an article on the supposed 'myth' of biological sex from Forbes, not exactly a fringe publication. (Synopsis: Because there are various syndromes and other factors that may make assignment of biological sex less clear-cut than many people imagine, apparently that means biological sex itself is a myth. Y'know, sorta like how the fact that there are ambidextrous people means that it's a 'myth' that there are left-handed and right-handed people. If something doesn't describe 100% of people, 100% of the time, then it's obviously a 'myth' and cannot possibly be used to argue for or against any particular position. I hope the parallel between this kind of thinking and the kind of thinking that many militant secularists display regarding how and why it is that we ought not prioritize our religion over the secular human rights regime is clear. When everything is a matter of 'myth' vs. science, then obviously science should win out, because not everyone believes in your particular 'myth', i.e., the biological reality of male and female people.)

And here's an academic article from The Archives of Sexual Behavior (hosted via the NIH's PubMed site) that argues that the parallels between gender identity disorder and the desire for (non-sexual) limb amputation suggests that people with the latter may be treated in the same way that people with the former are treated (i.e., via surgical amputation).

 

[SilverBear]

No, what I was wanting to clarify by my response was whether or not you were asking if anyone here had argued for any of the things I mentioned, which the poster in question had. Outside of CF, people are most definitely arguing for the abolition of biological sex (it's a myth, don'tchaknow) and the amputation of healthy body parts:

Here's an article on the supposed 'myth' of biological sex from Forbes, not exactly a fringe publication. (Synopsis: Because there are various syndromes and other factors that may make assignment of biological sex less clear-cut than many people imagine, apparently that means biological sex itself is a myth. Y'know, sorta like how the fact that there are ambidextrous people means that it's a 'myth' that there are left-handed and right-handed people. If something doesn't describe 100% of people, 100% of the time, then it's obviously a 'myth' and cannot possibly be used to argue for or against any particular position. I hope the parallel between this kind of thinking and the kind of thinking that many militant secularists display regarding how and why it is that we ought not prioritize our religion over the secular human rights regime is clear. When everything is a matter of 'myth' vs. science, then obviously science should win out, because not everyone believes in your particular 'myth', i.e., the biological reality of male and female people.)

And here's an academic article from The Archives of Sexual Behavior (hosted via the NIH's PubMed site) that argues that the parallels between gender identity disorder and the desire for (non-sexual) limb amputation suggests that people with the latter may be treated in the same way that people with the former are treated (i.e., via surgical amputation).

what the myth of biological sex is saying is that the myth is that biological is an either /or stet up. you are either A or B and nothing ese is possible. its not saying A nd B are a myth just that it ONLY A or B is a myth your left/right handed illustrates that. it is a myth to say people are ONLY right OR left handed when there is obviously other options.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

what the myth of biological sex is saying is that the myth is that biological is an either /or stet up. you are either A or B and nothing ese is possible. its not saying A nd B are a myth just that it ONLY A or B is a myth your left/right handed illustrates that. it is a myth to say people are ONLY right OR left handed when there is obviously other options.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say instead: People are usually born recognizably as either Male or Female, but a few people have exceptional cases that are recocognizably difficult to discern?

Why can't we just say this rather than over-extending labels and multiplying unnatural concepts regarding one's biological sex? Why can't we all just have compassion for folks who are having difficulties and disorders with sexual identity?

 

[Niels]

Just have a category for people objectively over 18 and call it "Adult". We show signs of age at different rates and mental age is a thing. I don't feel subjectively different in my 40s than I did in my 20s, for instance. And considering how people are in my family, I'll probably feel about the same when I'm over 60. Why rush things? Likewise, when I was younger I used to be what some refer to as an old soul. This might remove the awkward asynchronous feeling that young adults sometimes have. People shouldn't be pressured to conform to an arbitrary number. Especially when the stereotypes don't match things like their health, appearance, mindset etc.

 

[Aldebaran]

you have anything that isn't imaginary?

There's always those who imagine that they're the opposite sex, although I wouldn't want to have them.