When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

God's truth must be discerned. Not everyone is either male or female. Conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female, occur in 0.018% of the population. DSD (Intersex)
And not all people get married.

But we don't change a fact or truth because of a very small exception. We haven't done this in any other area so why gender and sex. In the same way not all people getting marriage doesn't change Gods Truth about marriage and besides its not really about Marriage as in legality or a piece of paper but about the sacredness of the relationship between man and women spiritually and physically, the standards we set for those relationships ie monogamy, commitment and being faithful ect. That is completely different to the secular worldview.

Gods Truth can be decerned by how it harmonises with the nature and reality. We can measure this and there are practical reasons why Gods Truth stands.

But if you look at secular ideas of gender, sex and marriage ect it doesn't always cohere with all aspects of life and there is often counter evidence that its not conducive with nature and reality. So modern thinking says we can overcome all that because humans can reconstruct nature and reality. We know where that gets us.

 

[stevevw]

Well, I can pray it doesn;'t get widespread and for not for long. But If the Lord allows it, what to do? There will be lot's of suffering. We are gonna be put to the test, or the lord will return. We need to help each other all we can. Some or many may become in dire staights.

I see this as just another example and step away from God. People would have thought the same when they made easy divorce laws, secularized marriage and changed its definition, allowed abortion ect. It is to be expected if we are fallen and have free will. All I know is the more society steps away from God the closer is the time when Gods kingdom will come. That may be a long time who knows but it seems closer because the Christain worldview is coming more into conflict with the world.

But I think some of these ideas may die out because its not just about Gods Truth or maybe that we all know Gods Truth deep down but often because some of these ideas like a man can be a women just don't work in practice and people see its untruth. Still a lot gets through because most people don't fully see the reality of whats happening. Especially when its tied to nobel causes in which most people want to support. The truth can get mixed with lies.

That's why its important to educate people on the beliefs and assumptions this ideology is based on such as Critical Theory and Post Modernism and Structualism. Todays thinking is an evolution of thinking over a long time which has slowly been drifting away from Gods Truths to Human Truths. But I believe Gods Truth will come through in the end. But as Christains we have stick together and hold steadfast to those Truths in trying times.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I can accept that people have these ideas and beliefs and I can accept that as adults people can choose to do what they think is right for them. But don't force the rest of society to go along for the ride.

I think that acceptance is all that is really asked for.

 

[ralliann]

I think that acceptance is all that is really asked for.

Then why support loss of living to those whom disagree? That is not acceptance.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Then why support loss of living to those whom disagree? That is not acceptance.

What do you mean? Loss of living?

 

[ralliann]

What do you mean? Loss of living?

Job loss, the way we make a living.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Job loss, the way we make a living.

ok, take this training and comply or leave.

Call me a "she" even though I look like a man and let me use the "woman's" room.

It seems to me that in a pluralist society we have to look for middle ground, compromise we can all live with.

 

[ralliann]

ok, take this training and comply or leave.

Call me a "she" even though I look like a man and let me use the "woman's" room.

It seems to me that in a pluralist society we have to look for middle ground, compromise we can all live with.

As a pluralist society Christians also exist. There is no middle ground with you on that. As I said, Loss of living to not comply is no middle ground. So, let's just leave it there at that. I understand, you believe we should lose our living, I do not. So we both know each others position, and can just leave it at that.

 

[Whyayeman]

As a pluralist society Christians also exist.

And they are entitled to respect. I think the thing that you are missing is that respect for others is the core; everybody is entitled to respect. And that means Christians have the same duty to respect others.

Employees are entitled to have the respect of colleagues and have a reciprocal duty. You have consistently reserved the right to demand respect from others but also to withhold it from certain colleagues. Such an employee needs retraining or relocation. Personally I would be reluctant to sack an otherwise good employee.

 

[ralliann]

And they are entitled to respect. I think the thing that you are missing is that respect for others is the core; everybody is entitled to respect. And that means Christians have the same duty to respect others.

Employees are entitled to have the respect of colleagues and have a reciprocal duty. You have consistently reserved the right to demand respect from others but also to withhold it from certain colleagues. Such an employee needs retraining or relocation. Personally I would be reluctant to sack an otherwise good employee.

As I said, we already know where each stands. You believe i should lose my livelihood if I do not show demonstrate respect for what others believe etc. You believe this is acceptance and respect to me, and I also should show/demonstrate respect for that too. Got it. I do no not agree that is plurualistic, nor respect. So we understand each other on the matter, so let's just let it rest..

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There is no middle ground with you on that

But on this issue and how to practically live it out in society there is.

 

[ralliann]

But on this issue and how to practically live it out in society there is.

You can continue to rehash the same issue by use of language, it does not change the issues. Practically live, To conform by practice. You know this. You are not ignorant, you have demonstrated that here. Come on now. You want me to Practice what you believe I should practice, or lose my living. I don't see that as respect of pluralism at all. You say it is. We do understand each other and disagree. To continue isn't going to change anything despite changing how we phrase it.

 

[timothyu]

I think that acceptance is all that is really asked for.

Perhaps then something other than an in your face agenda might have better results.

 

[ralliann]

And they are entitled to respect. I think the thing that you are missing is that respect for others is the core; everybody is entitled to respect. And that means Christians have the same duty to respect others.

Employees are entitled to have the respect of colleagues and have a reciprocal duty.

Amen. It would be great if that were the goal for both.

You have consistently reserved the right to demand respect from others but also to withhold it from certain colleagues. Such an employee needs retraining or relocation. Personally I would be reluctant to sack an otherwise good employee.

I expect the same yes.

 

[jayem]

All I know is the more society steps away from God the closer is the time when Gods kingdom will come. That may be a long time who knows but it seems closer because the Christain worldview is coming more into conflict with the world.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you must know that more than one “Christian worldview” exists. The Episcopal Church in the US supports same-sex marriage, and performs such weddings in their chapels. They also fully accept transgender persons as parishioners, and have no problem with medical/surgical gender affirmation treatment. The United Church of Christ, since the late 60s, supports reproductive rights for women, including terminating a pregnancy. You shouldn’t overlook that Christianity has a much broader range of doctrines and beliefs than just yours.

 

[ralliann]

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you must know that more than one “Christian worldview” exists. The Episcopal Church in the US supports same-sex marriage, and performs such weddings in their chapels. They also fully accept transgender persons as parishioners, and have no problem with medical/surgical gender affirmation treatment. The United Church of Christ, since the late 60s, supports reproductive rights for women, including terminating a pregnancy. You shouldn’t overlook that Christianity has a much broader range of doctrines and beliefs than just yours.

It does not make his statement false. The religious rulers in Christs day were sorely wrong too. Each will have their own views of what the faith teaches.

 

[jayem]

It does not make his statement false. The religious rulers in Christs day were sorely wrong too. Each will have their own views of what the faith teaches.

How do you know who is wrong and who is correct?

 

[ralliann]

How do you know who is wrong and who is correct?

Well this one is obvious.

 

[stevevw]

You are wrong there. Humanist ideas were challenging the Christian orthodoxy from the Renaissance. The Enlightenment has been advancing ever since, with orthodox Christians resisting every new idea and challenging every scientific and rational dialogue since Galileo.

I was thinking more along moral and social norms lines. Certainly the Churchs absolute power was challenged as being authorative in all domains of life including how we should gain knowledege but I think it still had hold over society when it came to morals even when the Church was subject to the Monarchy and later the State to some extent.

We only have to look at some of the social norms and moral laws over history to find a consistent influence. For example in the 14th century, premarital sex was prohibited and considered a sin and this was still the case pre 1960 in most Western nations regardless of Enligtened thinking. This was similar for a number of moral issues like adultery, homosexuality, SSM aned abortion.

The Church had absolute rule up to around the 1500's but still shared rule with the Monarchs up until Enlightenment. Enligtenment had a profound effect on how people thought about everything but still Christain values had sway on laws and especially social norms. The Romantic period that followed Enlightenment reignited the Church or at least belief in God and a more pure religion.

I think Enlightenment began the process of rationalizing morality which had its own problems but I don;t think the pioneers were wanting to get ride of God as the basis for society. We see that in the US Declaration that all are created in Gods image with natural inalienable rights. But certainly Enlightenment led to branches that contested God as the basis of morality altogether.

I think we have seen the culmination of this progressive thinking during the 20th century and especially from the 60's as these ideas like liberation, Humanism, Individualism and Materialism worked together to result in cultural revolutions.

Then came Postmodernism ( the idea that there are no Grand truths and truth is self referential) and then the academics with Critical theory designed to tear down the status quo due to oppressor/oppressee relationships Which has evolved into Wokism the idea that Identity is the only truth and denying identity is denying Human Rights.

I know its more complex than this but broadly I think from the time of Christ which was a significant event in Western and human history has impacted humans and has taken a long time to shake off, not that it will ever be completely shaken off. But we are entering what some say is the Anthropocene (the time of Humans). So maybe now humans are replacing God with themselves, to recreate the Utopia that everyone has been yearning for which includes human ideas on morality and how we should order society.

It may be that by the second half of the Twentieth Century something of a tipping point occurred as numbers of people in many countries, including my own, distanced themselves from religious institutions. It seems that many Christians seem to regard themselves as outnumbered these days.

Yes I think that seems to be the case that Christainity dwindling. As well as whats mentioned above this was compounded by the Church behaving badly.

But primarily I don't think that would stop people from believing if they are rational and honest because bad behaviour in some parts of the Church doesn't represent Christain belief (Christs teachings). I think its more about belief, we all have this belief shape hole in us and you can make anything a god. The question is what do we fill the void when we take God (Christainity) out of the picture.

 

[Whyayeman]

I was thinking more along moral and social norms lines. Certainly the Churches absolute power was challenged as far as the Church being the authorative aned dominant in all domains of life including what knowledge was allowed or how we should gain knowledege but I think it still had hold over society when it came to morals even when the Church was subject to the Monarchy and later the State to some extent like it dide up until around the mid 20th century.

We only have to look at some of the social norms and moral laws over history to find a consistent influence. For example in the 14th century, premarital sex was prohibited and considered a sin and this was still the case pre 1960 in most Western nations. This was similar for a number of moral issues like adultery, homosexuality, SSM aned abortion.

The Church had absolute rule up to around the 1400's but still shared rule with the Monarchs up until Enlightenment and some still have some sway today. Enligtenment had a profound effect on how people thought about everything including religious but still Christain values had sway on laws aned especially social norms. The Romantic periof that followed Enlightenment reignited the Church or at least belief in God.

So there has always been this back and forth evolution of how we can know morality post Enlightenment with different theories like Teleology and Deontology or Untanitarism ect but still it seems Christain values influencede Western Ethics when we look at what was socially acceptable or not.

I think Enlightenment began the process of rationalizing morality which had its own problems but I don;t think the pioneers were wanting to get ride of God as the basis for society. We see that in the US Declaration that all are createed in Gods image with natural inalienable rights. But certainly Enlightenment led to branches that contested God as the basis of morality altogether.

But that came in stages and took time to evolve into what we have today so I don't think at any time an alternative to Christain values has been instigated. I think we have seen the culmination of this progressive thinking during the 20th century and especially from the 60's as these ideas like liberation, Humanism, Individualism and Materialism worked together to result in cultural revolutions.

Then came Postmodernism ( the idea that there are no Grand Truths and truth is self referential) and then the academics with Critical theory designed to tear down the status quo deue to oppressor/oppressee relationships Which has evolved into Wokism the idea that Identity is the only truth and denying identity is denying Human Rights.

I know its more complex than this but broadly I think from the time of Christ which was a significant event in Western and human history Christainity grew to become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and later Europe and much of the Western World. Then cam Reformation and Enlightenment which began to lossen the grip of the Church but still the Church influenced much of Western morals.

But its only been from around mid 20th centrury that the Church has not only lost legal and political influence but even as recent as the 1980s that the Church (Christianity) has also lost its hold on social norms and morality for society. You could say that its been an evolution from God who set the standared to Humans, to individuals based on their feelings, experiences ande identity. Much of Enlightenment and what followed regarding morality was about individualism, liberation and relativity.



Yes I think that seems to be the case that Christainity dwindling. As well as whats mentioned above this was compounded by the Church behaving badly.

But primarily I don't think that would stop people from believing if they are rational and honest because bad behaviour in some parts of the Church doesn't represent Christain belief (Christs teachings). I think its more about belief, we all have this belief shape hole in us and you can make anything a god. The question is what do we fill the void when we take God (Christainity) out of the picture.

It is very difficult to discuss seven centuries of European history, bearing in mind the very different strands you have mentioned. Let us get back to the Twentieth Century! I don't think the dwindling influence of the Church can be put down to clerical misbehaviour; most of that came out long after congregations had vanished.

After World War II many new ideas found expression. Humanist philosophies; tolerance of homosexuality, abolition of capital punishment, the notion of universal health care and the welfare state - all gained ground in the years after the War, along with an increasing rejection of traditional authorities. I think it is fair to say that these ideas are further advanced in Europe. What is now taken for granted here is often still seen as controversial in America.