When two worldviews collide.

[ralliann]

No, again, you are missing my point.

I am saying that people who dissented from the mainstream view on this point, were not therefore considered to be "not Christian," no matter how much their behaviour or ideas were condemned.

So the LGBTQ is also Christianity and always has been considered such?
I do not think this is so. I will go ask in the Orthodox forums, and catholic forums if this is found in the fathers or Church history. You have not provided anything for your claims.

 

[Paidiske]

So the LGBTQ is also Christianity and always has been considered such?

My point - which you seem to keep missing - is this: disagreeing with the mainstream position on sexuality was not something that separated one from being a Christian. The idea that some people put forward now, that having different ideas about sexuality means you're "not a real Christian," was not historically the case, even if the ideas about sexuality themselves didn't find a place inside mainstream Christianity.

Not believing that Christ was God, meant you weren't a real Christian. Believing that God might be open to a wider view of sexuality than had come to be the accepted norm, you were still a real Christian, even if people saw you as misguided or wrong on that point.

 

[ralliann]

My point - which you seem to keep missing - is this: disagreeing with the mainstream position on sexuality was not something that separated one from being a Christian. The idea that some people put forward now, that having different ideas about sexuality means you're "not a real Christian," was not historically the case, even if the ideas about sexuality themselves didn't find a place inside mainstream Christianity.

Not believing that Christ was God, meant you weren't a real Christian. Believing that God might be open to a wider view of sexuality than had come to be the accepted norm, you were still a real Christian, even if people saw you as misguided or wrong on that point.

All I have asked you to do is provide proof for this. I do not believe this is true. As for what I am understanding of you......You are supporting lgbtq, as Christian too! I am aware that being homosexual was not condemned. Celebacy instead. So, I do not think you are accurately reflecting any discussions historically. Especially since you are using it to historically justify the forms it is today. I believe I could ask Father Matt, in the Eastern Orthodox, and get an educated answer. And the Oriental Orthodox forum probably has people there as well. The Catholic forum does too. If not they can certainly find out. I do not believe any of those groups approve at all, that it is Christianity.

 

[Paidiske]

All I have asked you to do is provide proof for this.

You're asking me to prove a general negative, which is impossible. How about you show me a historical quote that disproves my point?

As for what I am understanding of you......You are supporting lgbtq, as Christian too!

Depends what you mean by support. I am not expressing any approval for sexual behaviour outside a marriage between one man and one woman. However, I am expressing a need to be pastorally sensitive to LGBTIQA+ folks in our churches, and also aware of our impact in our wider social context.

Especially since you are using it to historically justify the forms it is today.

Not exactly. This part of the conversation started back in post #233 where @Bradskii was asking about the boundaries of who can and cannot legitimately be called a Christian. My response was that historically, the boundaries were the Creedal essentials of doctrine; that the idea of moral positions as boundary markers of who is a real Christian is historically novel.

That's not justifying anything, just noting a shift in how these things are thought and talked about.

If you wanted to ask about this point in denomination-specific forums (or Traditional Theology might work well as a sort of catch-all), the question which would reflect my point accurately would be: Would disagreeing with church teaching on sexuality be enough for you to consider someone to be not a real Christian?

I think you will find that the answer, particularly in the older, more traditional churches, would generally be, "no." They might consider that person wrong about that issue, poorly educated, misguided, etc, but it won't be enough for them to say, that person is not a real Christian.

 

[stevevw]

That is complete and utter nonsense. Whoever told you that is lying to you.

I am not sure that anyone is lying or thats its utter nonsense when there seems to be independent evidence. Even the NHS admits that there are problems with the Trans Affirmative model.

The NHS Ends the "Gender-Affirmative Care Model" for Youth in England
The abandonment of the "gender-affirming" model by England had been foreshadowed by The Cass Review's interim report. The reasons for the restructuring of gender services for minors in England are (3) scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making. The NHS strongly discourages social transition in children The NHS states that puberty blockers can only be administered in formal research settings, due to the unknown effects of these interventions and the potential for harm.

The NHS Ends the "Gender-Affirmative Care Model" for Youth in England

Following extensive stakeholder engagement and a systematic review of evidence, England’s National Health Service (NHS) has issued new draft guidance for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, which sharply deviates from the “gender-affirming” approach. The previous presumption that gender...

segm.org

The Cass review identified a number of problems such as

The Observer view on gender identity services for children
Highlights a profound lack of evidence and medical consensus about the best approach to treating gender dysphoria in children. The review is also clear about the lack of evidence about one of the affirmative model’s treatment pathways: puberty-blocking drugs. The long-term health consequences of puberty blockers are unknown, and there is clinical confusion about their purpose. It is unclear whether children progress to cross-sex hormones because their gender identity was already settled, or whether puberty blockers interfere with the natural resolution of gender dysphoria.
The Observer view on gender identity services for children | Editorial

This is a link to the Review itself.
Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people

UK Government Web Archive

This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page https://cass.independent-review.uk/ looked like on 10 Mar 2025 at 14:36:33

cass.independent-review.uk

Interim report
Interim report – Cass Review

Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate
A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is rooted in an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the longstanding ethical principle of “First do no harm.
https://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/cretella.pdf

As readers of The Australian would know, the High Court in Britain ruled that puberty-blocking treatment remains experimental.

Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine
The Hayes reports are the damning indictments of the transgender industry. The reports draw from the literature of peer-reviewed publications over the span of at least a decade’s worth of studies and concern themselves with outcomes ranging from “psychological well-being” and “sexual function and satisfaction” to “safety outcomes” and “quality of life.”—the overall “quality of evidence” for every category of treatment was rated “very low.”
Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine

Experts issue recommendations to provide gender-affirmation treatment for transgender individuals
The Endocrine Society rates each of its recommendations on a four-point scale of quality of evidence: “very low,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high.” Not a single one of the guidelines is backed by “high” quality evidence. Of the twenty-eight recommendations, only three scored “moderate.” The rest were either “low” or “very low.” Among the recommendations that scored “low” are those that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria should “undergo treatment to suppress pubertal development;”

Experts issue recommendations to provide gender-affirmation treatment for transgender individuals

The Endocrine Society today issued a Clinical Practice Guideline on the treatment for gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent people, commonly referred to as transgender, to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender.

www.endocrine.org

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thats a good point. Theres also more Independent reps and groups. Maybe thats a sign of the times like with identity politics.

I'm not sure identity politics was an organic change or if it was one foisted onto the left after the "Attack On Wall Street/We Are The 99%" protests.

The problem is I think that it may be impossible to have such a society where theres pluracy of beliefs and views all having equal say and representation.

Pluralism as an idea for social construction is not without it's problems.

I can't think of your mention of "all having equal say and represention" ever being a part of that idea of a pluralistic society. In fact, there's literally no limit to the number of ways we can categorize people. To suggest they all deserve something is ridiculous. They deserve the right to express themselves and their beliefs....which is why the 1st amendment is about such things. Without it, all other rights disappear.

As we often see minor interests can hold the balance of power and push their ageneda on everyone. It seems the same with the general population where minority groups can have sway over everyone.

That's a choice though. If identity politics has indeed been foisted onto the left...so has the idea that being of a minority group makes one above criticism or otherwise imbued with special knowledge.

Thats what I am mainly talking about. That was the status quo and we pretty well accepted those Traditional norms. When it came to morality people thought of God. I think it was Englightenment that questioned "but how do we know God is the basis for morality" (epistemics) that began or led people to question God and be open to other possibilities.

Well there's a lot of philosophers on the journey of "what are morals" and they end at "God is dead". I think that perhaps the crowd that so easily dismissed the idea of morality in a Christian context also failed to appreciate the role of morality in their own sense of self and unfortunately, have perhaps sought to replace that morality with a virtue signaling sort of advocacy. They are like the celebrities they wish to emulate....standing at the podium of social media and telling everyone about the plight of the DoDo, except they have no awards and offer no solutions. They believe the act of complaining will make them moral in the eyes of others.

In many ways we are still debating that question but I think that questioning has evolved into skepticism and rejection of God altogether. By questioning I think this led to alternative beliefs like materialism aned Individualism which is replacing religious belief.

Well materialism led to the Industrial Revolution and individualism arises from the idea of a pluralistic society. With endless ways to categorize people the final and ultimately the only important way to categorize people is as individuals.

I remember back in the 80s I think where people were complaining about Murdochs powerful influence in pushing certain political views and partices before the rise of the Net. Now that has been completely blurred by many voices vying to be heard and fake news and all that which is making it easier for even small groups and even individuals to have great influence. You are right that the Truth in reporting has been lost but thats a reflection of society as a whole I think.

Always has been, I think. Ask any advertiser if people want to be told the truth or told a lie... and if they're both smart and honest....they'll point out that you really want them to respond with "people want the truth" even if that's a lie. People prefer to be lied to.

Thats why I linked Right, Conservative and Traditional together because Traditionalists an Conservatives are not always Christains. I know its more varied than that but its just a broad coverall. Many say its an attack on traditional Truth including science and reality itself. I think thats telling as it points to epistemics and metaphysics fundementally. What is real and unreal and what is true or fact in the world and I think this reflects belief and thats why I say 'Worldview' as it seems whichever way you go depends on your beliefs and assumptions about how the world works.

If we were to describe types of power....the Postmodernist would describe the ability to determine the "truth" in the minds of the public is the greatest kind of power one can hold. The church spent many years unchallenged in this domain. Enlightement philosophers had made progress in their own ways once they rediscovered Aristotle. By the time the slow methodical and often boring process of science began solidify....it's self evident superiority on matters of truth put philosophers in the same spot it put the Pope in. Irrelevance. Postmodernism is an attack on science in the claim that truth is subjective, not objective.

I agree and you make another good point. I think Marxism the economic struggle between the working class and the elites of the establishment has now expanded into a culture war where the Marxist lens of oppressor and victim is playing out across most domains including race, gender sex. This in turn has been expressed as Woke, Cancel Culture and PC which are about morality.

And make no mistake....it's a power grab....devoid of any moral purpose or righteousness. Broad social agreement is the stand-in for scientific evidence.

I think it stems from Critical Theory which has morphed into not only critically analysing but undermining Grand Narratives and the Truths Western society has held for millenia.

It's a mistake to conflate critical analysis for criticism. Critical Theory is mere criticism....endless and devoid of rationality....but mere criticism. I'll give the creators of Critical Legal Theory the credit of at least being honest. They imagined themselves correct....and were willing to debate. That's how Critical Legal Theory died, on the debate floor, and ripped to shreds by rational thought.

This fits well with Marxism and Cancel Culture and Woke. Thats why I think the move away from the Church from God has been a deeveloping belief about how the world and reality is, how we can know what is Truth which questions the status quo being God.

Like all extreme beliefs they are exposed sonner or later. But I think its more about people rejecting the idea that some group, corporation or political entity are telling them that who they are is somehow wrong or toxic and needs to change. Very judgemental like religion can be. Thats why people have their backs up because its like a New Religion being imposed with unreal and radeical beliefs and ideas.

I'm not sure yet if it actually holds any consistent beliefs or ideas beyond 1 very simple sort of idea....

That the amount of "power" you hold is directly related to the number of "minority" or "marginalized" groups you can claim to belong to. The more groups....the less power. Those who have the least power can lay claim to the truth, and are above criticism, and should be advocated for....no matter what the claim is or nature of the problem....because only in this advocacy for the powerless truth speakers can one claim to be morally good.

That's about it. That's the only consistent belief....absurd as it sounds.

The only difference is that rather than the typical trimmings of religion this new religion is drapped in nobel causes which allows it to get in deep into Insitutions and politics. There is a current generation of academics who think the same and as we have seen the State wants to indoctrinate children with the same. It is a culture war I think about what is Truth and Reality but its all about belief as to whether humans can create the truth or whether there is some Truth beyond us that stands and has stood throughout time. .

It's a power grab, mark my words....should it succeed as any other Marxist power grab in the past, it will immediately turn on its adherents. Once the "oppressed" have all the power....they won't allow any new claims of oppression. The whole thing immediately gets outlawed. Otherwise a new oppressed group may find recognition and claim truthfulness.

I'm not too worried, it is what it is and the forces at play are bigger than any individual. We can only stand up for our Beliefs and the Truth. The problem I see is that both sides are becoming extreme. I think this will only become more deivided and extreme where violence is used more.

There is something funny about trying to implement Marxism piecemeal that theorists of the past weren't able to see....so they failed to really consider how it works. Defunding the police ends in a very predictable way. Not holding dangerous criminals on bail ends in a very predictable way. Not enforcing immigration laws ends in a predictable result. Not enforcing shoplifting ends in a predictable result. San Francisco I think is still considering reparations in a big way...and I predict anyone with money that can leave will leave.

The people suffering most from all these policies and laws are the ones who demanded them. They are either going to inevitably realize their failure....or continue to suffer.

All through our history God and Christainity has influenced us on our morals up until around the mid 20th century. This can be seen in laws and moral norms as recent as the 60's and 70's when this began to change. This has culiminated in more unbelievers than believers and replacing Gods Truth with New truths created by humans.

We are now entering an era of a Godless society for the first time in a long time. You could call the early Roman Empire as another time Christainity was not dominant up until around 300AD when the curch was growing.

The Roman Empire was pluralistic in regards to religious beliefs.

Oddly enough, the Christians mocked those with multiple gods and emphasized their "marginalization" at the hands of evil immoral Romans.

There have been times where the Christainity was reduced but it still guieded our morals. Now that is rapidly beoming not the case.

Yet...everyone has a tipping point. Lose a few million in discrimination lawsuits and those DEI initiatives and moralists suddenly find themselves pushed out the door. When little Johnny comes home from school at 8 years old and declares himself a pansexual genderfluid unicorn named Truvia...parents suddenly care what their child is being taught.

All this stuff has an expiration date.

Part of the New religion taking over is that the Rights of religious belief are being deminished and even relegated down the Rights hierarchy.

Sure...but it's not as if you cannot win. The left had cemented certain principles well before this new left came along. I think a pair of elderly grocery store workers recently won a lawsuit when they were fired for not wearing an apron with a rainbow colored heart on it. They offered to cover the heart with name tags, which was rejected, and were fired afterwards. They had no proof this was the reason....the company argued the heart had nothing to do with the gay alliance even though the new aprons appeared in Pride month. The judge wasn't buying it....and they got paid. The law doesn't care about the claims of oppression and truth of this new religion.

This is because religious belief is now being seen as not as important. If more people have non belief and become the majority why would religion be relevant. It is seen as outdated, unreal and even divisive because it clashes with the New Religion of Woke.

I agree.

I agree but Truth, facts and Reality itself have been turned on their heads.

No they haven't. Truth ends up reasserting itself every time. The people sterilizing their children may not realize their mistakes for another 20 years....but they will be realized.

The truth the Church pushed was a human made truth but the core tenets of Christainity are beyond personal beliefs and they have been tested and lived out.

There's hardly any successful or widespread religion that hasn't managed to incorporate some understanding of human nature. I think the spread of Christianity had a lot to do with the power of forgiveness and the humility of recognizing sin as a moral failure and its pervasive effect upon humanity. We know we are flawed and the offer of forgiveness is meaningful.

Truth can be undermined by tiny steps and then people begin to accept them incrimentally until thiose timy mistruths builed into a big lie imposed on everyone. Thats how Totalitarism works. That seems to be what is happening now with language and the narrative..

Imagine then that puberty blockers don't merely come with the risk of sexual dysfunction....they come with the certainty of it. Someone went and dug up some old footage of the president of WPATH stating that in "her" research....nearly 100% of those put on puberty blockers at an early age and go on to take HRT are unable to achieve [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in nearly all cases. That's a recipe for a lonely adulthood and an extremely difficult time forming relationships. The obvious answer is to not put your children on these drugs....but either way, I'm certain that they will eventually learn this truth. There's also footage of this leading expert admitting social contagion is likely the cause of many reported increases in transgenderism.

It's a bit ironic how much they talk about the right side of history, isn't it?

 

[stevevw]

And I would agree with Paidiske that it's essentially an adherence to the Nicene Creed (which I can still recite verbatim after all many these years). If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, was sacrificed for our sins and was resurrected then...you're a Christian. Fundamentally, that's it. All else is open for discussion.

But the one thing I do when I I find something objectionable is ask myself: Does it cause harm? Am I annoyed, frustrated, disgusted, shocked? Possibly. But if it causes no harm, then...I have no right to object. I hold myself to that in all cases. And I expect others to do the same. Because if no harm is caused then guess how it can be described? Harmless.

So if you want to argue against anything, then simpy saying 'it is written' is a waste of your time writing it, or any variation of it, and a waste of my time reading it. You have to show me that it causes harm. And I don't want your opinion. I want some facts. And if you show me it's harmful, then I'll agree with you.

I don't think all else is not up for discussion. If we are to believe in Jesus then surely we must also believe in His Teachings and Words (the Word of God). Jesus said "He did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it". One example of that is "Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery". Jesus said that even if we look at a women in lust we are committing adultery in our heart. This goes beyond the written law as a duty and speaks of a state of mind and spirit or in psychological terms "you are what you think and desire".

This seems like a high standard as it covers those who never actually commit the act. I think this is a big difference of 'being' than what the secular world accepts as OK. So Christians (opps nearly spelt it wrong) should be thinking differently to the world having their minds and spirit made to be like Christs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you think it is a religion, do you also think it should have the same protections that other religions have?

Absolutely. I also think that if it were granted those protections, it would be worth its complete expulsion from a secular government.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not sure that anyone is lying or thats its utter nonsense when there seems to be independent evidence. Even the NHS admits that there are problems with the Trans Affirmative model.

The NHS Ends the "Gender-Affirmative Care Model" for Youth in England
The abandonment of the "gender-affirming" model by England had been foreshadowed by The Cass Review's interim report. The reasons for the restructuring of gender services for minors in England are (3) scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making. The NHS strongly discourages social transition in children The NHS states that puberty blockers can only be administered in formal research settings, due to the unknown effects of these interventions and the potential for harm.

The NHS Ends the "Gender-Affirmative Care Model" for Youth in England

Following extensive stakeholder engagement and a systematic review of evidence, England’s National Health Service (NHS) has issued new draft guidance for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, which sharply deviates from the “gender-affirming” approach. The previous presumption that gender...

segm.org

The Cass review identified a number of problems such as

The Observer view on gender identity services for children
Highlights a profound lack of evidence and medical consensus about the best approach to treating gender dysphoria in children. The review is also clear about the lack of evidence about one of the affirmative model’s treatment pathways: puberty-blocking drugs. The long-term health consequences of puberty blockers are unknown, and there is clinical confusion about their purpose. It is unclear whether children progress to cross-sex hormones because their gender identity was already settled, or whether puberty blockers interfere with the natural resolution of gender dysphoria.
The Observer view on gender identity services for children | Editorial

This is a link to the Review itself.
Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people

UK Government Web Archive

This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page https://cass.independent-review.uk/ looked like on 10 Mar 2025 at 14:36:33

cass.independent-review.uk

Interim report
Interim report – Cass Review

Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate
A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is rooted in an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the longstanding ethical principle of “First do no harm.
https://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/cretella.pdf

As readers of The Australian would know, the High Court in Britain ruled that puberty-blocking treatment remains experimental.

Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine
The Hayes reports are the damning indictments of the transgender industry. The reports draw from the literature of peer-reviewed publications over the span of at least a decade’s worth of studies and concern themselves with outcomes ranging from “psychological well-being” and “sexual function and satisfaction” to “safety outcomes” and “quality of life.”—the overall “quality of evidence” for every category of treatment was rated “very low.”
Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine

Experts issue recommendations to provide gender-affirmation treatment for transgender individuals
The Endocrine Society rates each of its recommendations on a four-point scale of quality of evidence: “very low,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high.” Not a single one of the guidelines is backed by “high” quality evidence. Of the twenty-eight recommendations, only three scored “moderate.” The rest were either “low” or “very low.” Among the recommendations that scored “low” are those that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria should “undergo treatment to suppress pubertal development;”

Experts issue recommendations to provide gender-affirmation treatment for transgender individuals

The Endocrine Society today issued a Clinical Practice Guideline on the treatment for gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent people, commonly referred to as transgender, to develop the physical characteristics of the affirmed gender.

www.endocrine.org

The first three all refer to the Cass report which was referring to Tavistock Hospital. Which had already admitted that its standards were not as high regarding the treatment of minors as the authorities required.

The next three are all references to Michelle Cretella, who is president of the American College of Pediatricians. Which sounds impressive, but which is an advocacy group having no connection with the esteemed American Academy of Pediatrics. From wiki: American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia

The American College of Pediatricians has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a "hate group", and a "fringe group" which closely collaborates with the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) with "a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people, including linking homosexuality to pedophilia"

You do yourself no favours in linking three examples to an organisation whose 'primary focus is advocating against abortion rights and against rights for gay, queer, and trans people. ACPeds promotes conversion therapy and purity culture.'

But your use of these people to advance your argument is noted. I can't believe that you didn't know what they were. But maybe you just copied and pasted that info from someone else who was equally ignorant. Now you know, perhaps we will see you reflect somewhat on their views and join me in rejecting them outright.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think all else is not up for discussion. If we are to believe in Jesus then surely we must also believe in His Teachings and Words (the Word of God).

I don't. So any argument that says, effectively, 'it is written' will fall on deaf ears. I will simply ignore it, so if it's addressed to me might I suggest you don't waste time using it.

Which means we only have 'does it cause harm?' You'd best come up with an argument that says it does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

I've seen it happen plenty where the people insisting someone be fired aren't in the same workplace, or any workplace, at all. They merely believe that those of different opinion should punished for their opinions.

In a pluralistic society, this should not be allowed.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

Aside from those instances where speech is illegal (because it actually does harm) in what way is speech harmful?

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure identity politics was an organic change or if it was one foisted onto the left after the "Attack On Wall Street/We Are The 99%" protests.

It sort of is and isn't. It is because I think its the result of a change in thinking stemming back decades ago such as Critical & Structuralist Theories. Also Queer Theory in recent times and mixed with some Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism. But it is also foisted on society because it fundementally comes from an ideological belief based on certain assumptions about the world, humans, socialization, ect and is very moralistic.

In some ways as we have rejected God and His morality we are now having to fined a replacement and come up with human made moral systems which turn out to be just as bad as the religious dogma of the past which was also human created.. But that was inevitable because we started moving our eyes from God ande to ourselves a long time ago and what we see today is the result..

Pluralism as an idea for social construction is not without it's problems.

I can't think of your mention of "all having equal say and represention" ever being a part of that idea of a pluralistic society. In fact, there's literally no limit to the number of ways we can categorize people. To suggest they all deserve something is ridiculous. They deserve the right to express themselves and their beliefs....which is why the 1st amendment is about such things. Without it, all other rights disappear.

Yes we get the Right to express and live our belief but I think the qualification is "so long as it doesn't harm others". Thats where it can get murky because 'Harm' is subjective. What is regarded as Harm is also changing. Like how 'words' and 'language' is now seen as harm or even violence. Like the word 'Women" or anything associated with Tradition, Colonial, even certain scientific facts. But I think this change is forced upon society and not natural. Its the result of a different way of seeing the world and one I think is harmful in itself.

Well there's a lot of philosophers on the journey of "what are morals" and they end at "God is dead".

Yes Nietzsche comes to mind.

I think that perhaps the crowd that so easily dismissed the idea of morality in a Christian context also failed to appreciate the role of morality in their own sense of self and unfortunately, have perhaps sought to replace that morality with a virtue signaling sort of advocacy.

Yes I agree, I think as time has gone by we have moved from God or a god beyond and above humans to gradually replacing that with ourselves. We have reasoned God away. maybe thats a natural progression or maybe something thats gone too far. But you are right that humans are spiritual beings and if we get rid of God then it leaves a hole and we will fill it with some human created idea of what is moral.

But I notice that as you say with virtue signalling that its not about being good or selfless as a nobel value in and of itself but as self praise ande condemnation of others. Its actually just as bad as religion gets.

They are like the celebrities they wish to emulate....standing at the podium of social media and telling everyone about the plight of the DoDo, except they have no awards and offer no solutions. They believe the act of complaining will make them moral in the eyes of others.

Or it becomes the victim Olmypics. But seriously I am not sure whether its the immersion of the Internet and social media giving everyone accessibility and ability to express themselves directly to millions or its a sign of the times generally such as with Postmodernist thinking that there is no Objective Reality and only Self Referential Reality. Maybe its a mix of a lot of factors but I think this New World thats been created like a virtual world in many ways is becoming the New Reality.

Well materialism led to the Industrial Revolution and individualism arises from the idea of a pluralistic society. With endless ways to categorize people the final and ultimately the only important way to categorize people is as individuals.

Yes and that is why I think the idea of being made in Gods image in Christ was used as the foundation for the Western World. It incorporates individuals rather than identity groups regardless of identity. Whereas an identity group takes your individuality away to sacrifice for group ideology. But being in Christ makes humans sovereign below God and determines a Truth of Human worth and dignity that stands outside human ideas and not subject to human reinterpretation.

Always has been, I think. Ask any advertiser if people want to be told the truth or told a lie... and if they're both smart and honest....they'll point out that you really want them to respond with "people want the truth" even if that's a lie. People prefer to be lied to.

Not like it is now. I think the Net has given the average Joe Blow more exposure to influence the narrative. I think Covid propelled this New world view when everyone was locked down and the only communication was the Net, social media in particular. Identity has become the New Reality because you can be anything your mind wants to create.

If we were to describe types of power....the Postmodernist would describe the ability to determine the "truth" in the minds of the public is the greatest kind of power one can hold. The church spent many years unchallenged in this domain. Enlightement philosophers had made progress in their own ways once they rediscovered Aristotle. By the time the slow methodical and often boring process of science began solidify....it's self evident superiority on matters of truth put philosophers in the same spot it put the Pope in. Irrelevance. Postmodernism is an attack on science in the claim that truth is subjective, not objective.

Yes I agree except I think the Church once did represent God through Christ. It wasn't about doing peoples thinking but proclaiming the Gospel of Christ which renewed the Mind into a different way of thinking. Paul talks a lot about this and that makes sense as he was taking the Gospel into the world of the Gentiles. I think Postmodernism was part of breaking away from the Church and God in that it was a time of liberation and questioning the existing narratives rebelling against percieved injusticies some or many by the Church.

And make no mistake....it's a power grab....devoid of any moral purpose or righteousness. Broad social agreement is the stand-in for scientific evidence.

Interesting you say that.

It's a mistake to conflate critical analysis for criticism. Critical Theory is mere criticism....endless and devoid of rationality....but mere criticism. I'll give the creators of Critical Legal Theory the credit of at least being honest. They imagined themselves correct....and were willing to debate. That's how Critical Legal Theory died, on the debate floor, and ripped to shreds by rational thought.

I think Critical Theory was a good idea on its own without the ideological assumptions of a power struggle. Being able to analyse how relationships influence each other and society is important in being able to identify better ways of doing things. But it became an ideology and narrow way about how the world is which is really cynnical and divisive.

I'm not sure yet if it actually holds any consistent beliefs or ideas beyond 1 very simple sort of idea....

That the amount of "power" you hold is directly related to the number of "minority" or "marginalized" groups you can claim to belong to. The more groups....the less power. Those who have the least power can lay claim to the truth, and are above criticism, and should be advocated for....no matter what the claim is or nature of the problem....because only in this advocacy for the powerless truth speakers can one claim to be morally good.

That's about it. That's the only consistent belief....absurd as it sounds.

That's enough for a lifetime of trouble.

It's a power grab, mark my words....should it succeed as any other Marxist power grab in the past, it will immediately turn on its adherents. Once the "oppressed" have all the power....they won't allow any new claims of oppression. The whole thing immediately gets outlawed. Otherwise a new oppressed group may find recognition and claim truthfulness.

I don't think it will get that far. We are already seeing kick back against the ideology in schools and even with Hollywood and Corporations trying to be Woke. As we have become use to our freedoms I don't think people are willing to give that up so easily. It is more likely to become more extreme on both sides.

There is something funny about trying to implement Marxism piecemeal that theorists of the past weren't able to see....so they failed to really consider how it works. Defunding the police ends in a very predictable way. Not holding dangerous criminals on bail ends in a very predictable way. Not enforcing immigration laws ends in a predictable result. Not enforcing shoplifting ends in a predictable result. San Francisco I think is still considering reparations in a big way...and I predict anyone with money that can leave will leave.

The people suffering most from all these policies and laws are the ones who demanded them. They are either going to inevitably realize their failure....or continue to suffer.

I think the proof comes out in the pudding. I remember someone saying that "reality came and bit them" and it does have a way of coming out. That is why I think the hard earn't and won Truths that we have come to know throughout our history are important because they didn't happen overnight but were lived out over and over and we learnt the hard way.

I will leave it at that as the post is getting too long.

 

[stevevw]

I don't. So any argument that says, effectively, 'it is written' will fall on deaf ears. I will simply ignore it, so if it's addressed to me might I suggest you don't waste time using it.

Which means we only have 'does it cause harm?' You'd best come up with an argument that says it does.

But if you buy into a discussion about what is and is not Christain belief then you can't then dismiss any arguements that will actually point out what the actual belief represents from the person who originated it.

As far as I know Christs teachings cause no harm and in fact should be the best possible way to live, but not necessarily how this world would live.

 

[Bradskii]

But if you buy into a discussion about what is and is not Christain belief then you can't then dismiss any arguements that will actually point out what the actual belief represents from the person who originated it.

Pointing out what you believe in is just fine with me. But you'll need to back it up with reasons. 'It is written' obviously won't convince me because I'm an atheist. So please don't bother.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe, just maybe, it's not as neat and clear cut as that. After all, the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest.

Except I would hope as Christains we can tell the difference between the wheat and weeds. The bible tells us that as Christains we know Gods Truth even though the world is blind to them.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The world sees things different. It is guided by desires of the flesh as opposed to the spirit of God.

 

[stevevw]

Pointing out what you believe in is just fine with me. But you'll need to back it up with reasons. 'It is written' obviously won't convince me because I'm an atheist. So please don't bother.

Hum I am not sure where that will get us. may just be just back and forth examples and counter examples. As mentioned earlier I think Gods Truth is coherent with nature and reality as well so there is a practical aspect as well. God created the world and ourselves and it was good so we should expect that He made it to be in harmony with nature and reality and His Truths will be best for us.

But as for believing Gods Word no amount of reasons is going to convince you. I think it comes back to each persons worldview, whether they in being an atheist believe there is no God beyond the material world or not. So you basis is a material one contained within the world and universe we live. Whereas a Christain believes that this world is part of a greater reality that cannot be reduced to the material world.

 

[Paidiske]

Aside from those instances where speech is illegal (because it actually does harm) in what way is speech harmful?

Things like workplace bullying and harassment aren't necessarily illegal, but they can do massive harm.

Except I would hope as Christains we can tell the difference between the wheat and weeds.

The point of the parable is that that's not something for us to get hung up on. Spending time categorising belief systems and behaviours so that we can tell who's "in" and who's "out" is not what we're called to do. It's a distraction. Better that we focus on the mission at hand, and leave the sorting to the Almighty later.

 

[Bradskii]

Hum I am not sure where that will get us. may just be just back and forth examples and counter examples.

If you want to convince me that something is harmful, then do so. Provide evidence. Produce facts. Use reason.

But as for believing Gods Word no amount of reasons is going to convince you.

True. So don't use it as a reason.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But as for believing Gods Word no amount of reasons is going to convince you.

You don't have "God's Word". You have words written by people purporting to speak on behalf of Yahweh - a claim they couldn't substantiate, and neither can you.

 

[stevevw]

If you want to convince me that something is harmful, then do so. Provide evidence. Produce facts. Use reason.

True. So don't use it as a reason.

That is why I aligned Christian, Conservatives and Traditionalists and the Truths that Western culture has come to know which happen to align with Christian values. They are real and we can show examples. But I wasn't so interested in a debate on morals but determining whether there is a difference in worldview between Christians and secularists and whether that difference is leading to conflicts in moern society.

So even if we exclude God we can look at the beliefs and values themselves which each worldview supports to see if there is any difference and conflict. These differences in worldview and morals is the basis for laws and norms in society so the outcomes are important for potential harm and conflict verses stablity and flurishing.