When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

Not for any? How about Bi-polar?

Your claim you need a mental health specialist for a mental health diagnosis is demonstrably false. You didn't make any specifications about particular conditions. The wider point, in that particular matter, was that the relevant factor in diagnosing gender dysphoria is the expertise of the HCP.

 

[oikonomia]

What seperates us from the animals??
I'm going to go with "we make moral decisions".

See if that stands up to a little discussion haha

I believe without the revelation of the Bible it is hard to know.
But God has spoken to us that we would know.

Man is connected to all other creature so as not to be absolutely seperate.
Yes man is at the top, the pinnacle in uniqueness among the other creatures.

In Genesis God concerning all other creatures, God said "Let there be . . . " etc.
But when it came to humanity alone He uttered something more involved and intimate.
He did not simplky, as before, say "Let there be . . . '.
Rather He had a kind of council and said "Let Us create man in Our image, according to Our likeness." (Genesis 1:26a)

In light of the whole rest of the Bible, I believe this illustration might help.
A glove is made in the image of a human hand.
A glove is designed to contain a human hand.
In a sense when you look at the shape with five fingers and a thumb, you might say "I see a HAND in the glove."
Actually you see the image and likeness of a human hand in the way the glove is designed.

Now we must think somewhat more spiritually.
Humanity is created in a "God shaped" mannner in order to RECEIVE God in a blended and "organic" way.
Man is created as a vessel designed in a "God shaped" manner in order that God may dispense into man His divine life and nature.
That is that His divine attributes could be expressed from within human virtues.

As comfortable as the hand feels sliding into the glove, so the Triune God dispensed into man is a perfect fit and quite comfortable.
The animals were not created in this fashion or for this purpose.

Latter after Genesis we are told told that Christ is the image of the invisible God.
So we were created according to what Christ is.
This is paradoxical and mysterious to explain.
But on one hand God incarnated thousands of years after Adam and became a man.
And on the other hand man was made according to what Christ is.

We usually regard Jesus Christ, the God-man, as a marvelous enigma.
Acrtually NORMAL is the Son of God. And we could say Christ is what God meant by man.
Jesus Christ is what God meant by humanity.

When we study the life of Jesus we see what was the intended standard or normality for human beings.
It is that something terrible happened and we have fallen so LOW beneath what God intended.

In one short post I cannot explain too much.
It would be good if you could just remember here that NORMALITY in the human race is exemplified in Jesus the Son of God, God's sent Savior and Lord. Because we have fallen so low we need His salvation.

Remember also that man is created as a vessel to contain a Divine and eternal Person in seamless blending and mingling.
Paul wrote of himself and his colleague apostles -

Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not out of us. (2 Cor. 4:6,7)

Did you see that? ". . . treasure in earthen vessels".
Unlike all the other creature animals man was created as an "earthen vessel" to receive and contain an uncreated and eternal Person to be united and mingled with God.

 

[Occams Barber]

What seperates us from the animals??
I'm going to go with "we make moral decisions".

See if that stands up to a little discussion haha

Chimps are well known for making moral decisions. It also appears that dogs recognise morality. There is an argument that dolphins also act morally but based on their own moral standards.

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share.​

Experiments suggest dogs and monkeys have a human-like sense of morality

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share. In their paper published in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, the...

phys.org

​

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (Published 2007)

Dr. Frans de Waal argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

www.nytimes.com

OB​

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. Feel free, though, if you have nothing better to do today.

Pull the first researcher or citation....I'll dig into their associations. We can start at the top of the list.

It refers to counselling. Which is a process of exploring possibilities, feelings, values, goals, and so on. Not a bumper-sticker disclaimer.

Unfortunately anyone who hasn't reached sexual maturity doesn't have "fertillity options" yet. They likely have any values or goals either. That's a rather limited discussion....

Or you're in full blown denial of what puberty blockers do.

When you look at what's actually involved in diagnosis,

I pulled the criteria for diagnosis right from the DSM....sorry. If you want to claim it's something else, it's on you to prove it.

I don't accept that claim.

It doesn't matter if you accept it. I've provided proof. You handed it to me, remember?

And maybe the Australian healthcare landscape is healthier than you claim.

And maybe not. That's why we won't be relying on your anecdotes.

Given that people who start puberty blockers may go on to cross-sex hormones,

If it's the cross sex hormones that make you infertile.....why not require the discussion of infertility for them? Why bring up infertility before starting a treatment that doesn't make anyone infertile? You don't need to be some sort of genius to figure this out.

Some contraceptive implants are used as puberty blockers. Particularly for girls, they're extremely similar, and sometimes literally the same thing.

Well for boys....they use something else.

The standard of evidence I'll accept is a protocol or standard of care which says "x treatment (which is likely to result in infertility) is recommended from the age of 11."

And you won't see that....which is why the FDA hasn't signed off on these medications being used in that manner.

It's not as if the Sacklers wrote "our pill is basically synthetic heroin". It's not like the people who made the Vax you so recently got said "this isn't going to prevent anyone from getting sick or spreading covid". BTW, how many boosters have you gotten?

Does the Australian equivalent to the FDA approve these meds for this use? I'm gonna bet they don't....because like our FDA, the evidence isn't there.

I haven't seen that yet. Puberty blockers on their own, don't result in infertility after the use of them is ceased (it can take up to a year for normal fertility to return, according to this; which is also a valuable exploration of what fertility counselling might involve). Not some claim that some person once said something.

Puberty blockers used for a brief period aren't the same as blocking puberty for years.

Not actually my point. You asked why I stayed in the church if I so vehemently disagreed. My point is that there isn't one Christian position on these things, and that some of us may consider the positions of others to be quite comprehensively discredited. I'm not at variance with my church on this.

Ahhh....ok...why didn't I guess? Your church has it right, all others have it wrong. How typically Christian of you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not what she said. She rejected the claim (as I would) that Christianity is the basis of Western values. (What ever the "West" is. I mean, most of the place people claim as central to Western Civilization aren't even in the Western hemisphere.) Her comments weren't about the relative influence of Jesus of Nazareth to any other specific person at all.

There is more to "Western Civ" than Christianity (like Greek and Roman philosophy and culture; the Enlightenment; the 12-bar blues) and it can be seen in Western and non-Western societies with a strong Christian element.

There's more to western political theory and Iaw and government than Christian values.

However, I think the point he was making was regarding the average person for most of our nation's history.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think we can be sure of one thing. No matter how much evidence is produced, and how much research is done, it will never be enough for you. Because how can you possibly agree to any evidence or any research on something you adamantly refuse to admit actually exists?

You haven't provided evidence any treatment is necessary.

 

[rjs330]

It's not "my side." Again, the only thing I'm really arguing for here, is for culture warriors to stay out of people's medical decisions.

That's your sides mantra. People who are against damaging kids which IS happening is suddenly cultural warriors against medical decisions. I guess those who called to the ending of lobotomies were also cultural warriors who should have stayed out og people medical decisions as well.

Funny thing is that the medical community is starting to side with us. I guess we weren't so out of after all. It's a good thing we started pushing back on this.

Well, that's not actually true. For eg. see here: Better mental health found among transgender people who started hormones as teens

And how do you know that wouldn't still have the same outcomes as adults if they just waited? What's about the ones who would have desisted? Besides this was done in 2015 before the explosion of trans identified teens. Also I his was done by Jack Turbin a transactivist doctor and a lot of work has been shown to be very faulty and biased in is methodology and conclusions.

Well, if not to help them, what on earth should we be doing? What other purpose should there be?

How about leaving the kids alone, address the underlying mental health issues if there are any and see if they grow out of it. 90% of them will. The other 20% can go on to further treatments if they feel the necessity once they are adults.

As they progress, yes. So, for example, let's say a young person chooses a new name and chooses to start dressing more like the opposite sex. Counselling continues during this time to monitor how that is for them, whether and how much it's helping, whether they actually find that it relieves any distress, and so on. For two purposes; because if it has a large benefit, that might be enough, for now; and if it has a small benefit, it will help shape next decisions.

Oh I feel better now, it's been 6 months can I get blockers now?

Well you've already met the criteria so sure. Another month and you'll be on hormones. You really feel good then. Who cares that countries are no longer fast tacking kids like this. WPATH says we are good to go!

The other study you linked doesn't answer my question.

 

[rjs330]

As for "working on the possibility that if left alone they will desist," isn't that the point of starting with things like counselling, experimenting with external appearance, and social roles (like names and pronouns)? That gives time and space to see whether and how much those things help, and whether more is needed. I note the comments about how many people only proceed so far because they get to a point that feels right for them.

Except we already know that if left alone they will most likely desist a vast majority of the time. And we also know that the prevailing understanding now is that this is the right thing to do.

Why do you persist on offering things that the prevailing wisdom is moving away from? Why do you persist on wanting to follow a transgender activist organization who research is really bad?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I didn't. I read it carefully.

Yes. When it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth.

Under the affirmative care model, the patient determines this. The doctor affirms it.

I also read the parts that say things like, "before any physical interventions are considered for adolescents, extensive exploration of psychological, family, and social issues should be undertaken,"

"should"

Oddly, they aren't required even if they should happen.

and,
"Among the criteria that are typical for providing hormone-related therapies for youths are:

• A finding that the youth has experienced several symptoms of gender dysphoria listed in the DSM for at least six consecutive months.
• A letter of support from the youth’s licensed therapist and written concurrence from a mental health professional for the provider.
• Parental consent for those under 18.
• Ongoing psychotherapy."

I pulled a rather similar list from the Australian standards of care....you claimed I was leaving things out. Your model doesn't even require psychotherapy....or parental consent in some cases....or the letter of support or concurrence.

Because if that's not appropriate for someone, their treatment will be under a different protocol, with a different diagnosis.

That would require the ability to determine someone isn't trans. That's not possible under this model.

Just as you don't give someone chemotherapy if they don't have cancer*, you don't give someone gender-affirming care if that's not where their issue lies.

Indeed, but the affirmative care model allows the patient to effectively diagnose themselves.

*Occasional exceptions for lupus or the like aside.

Well, given that they need a diagnosis, working out if there is something else is going on, that is indeed part of the process.

As for "working on the possibility that if left alone they will desist," isn't that the point of starting with things like counselling, experimenting with external appearance, and social roles (like names and pronouns)?

In what way are those things "leaving them alone"?

They are in fact the opposite....heaping attention upon a child for reasons no one will when they are an adult.

Its unfortunate that to continue getting this excessive attention...the child must agree to continue treatment.

That gives time and space to see whether and how much those things help, and whether more is needed. I note the comments about how many people only proceed so far because they get to a point that feels right for them.

I think the key word there, was "safe."

More accurately, the point is not to exclude that possibility but to assess it.

At no point is any possibility of a difference of opinion on gender allowed. This is considered harmful to the child....their gender can only be affirmed.

That's totally why the standards of care emphasise "assessment and treatment of co-existing mental health difficulties."

This doesn't prevent treating gender dysphoria. Nor does it allow them to reject any such diagnosis.

I read this as: what if there's really no such thing as transgendered people? And my answer is, we're way past that. This is a real thing people experience.

We aren't actually. Gender is an entirely debatable concept.

Sure, we need to make sure we get diagnosis right. But once we're at that point, why would we deny care?

You've already seen the requirements for diagnosis. Flimsy at best. High possibility of misdiagnosis.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's my 'Uncle Billy'. My spirit animal to combat the neo-Confederates.

You know Uncle Billy is a war criminal by today's standards. He didn't just win the civil war either....I believe he's the brilliant architect of the native American "genocide" (what's a genocide really if there's 6+ million of them still around).

Complicated guy. Scourge of confederates....annihilator of native Americans.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I answered what you asked; I said that we are not in any position to assess whether or how standards should be improved.

Actually, you can rather easily find the quality level of evidence normally required for medical treatment in your country.

For what it's worth, in all the reading I've been doing, the need for ongoing research and refinement has been acknowledged; alongside the need to do the best we know how for the people who need care now.

Using children as guinea pigs is deplorable.

I am trusting the professionals.

Aka...those who profit most.

I'm trusting the professionals to work this out, at the level of governance of medical bodies.

They've booted responsibility to activists who won't face any liability.

If there's disagreement over this or that detail (which is normal in many areas of medicine) I'm trusting them to work through that.

If working through that requires experimental research on children for a non-fatal condition....I'm not approving.

The improvement of medical treatments is an iterative process and it's inevitable that things will change and be refined. That's fine, and normal.

In the meantime, at least you can take solace in the fact that no matter how bad this turns out....you can always blame the children for consenting.

 

[rjs330]

think you're misreading the information there. 6 months is the necessary minimum duration of symptoms for a diagnosis to be possible, not the length of time taken before giving a particular treatment.

Right so if the symptoms have lasted for 6 months you can start treatment as soon as possible.

Want to come and influence mine to clean her room? 'Cause I'm failing dismally to get her to do that for so much as six minutes...

I sure hope your joking and not dismissing my point. The way teens are influenced is well researched and well documented. Especially today with all the access to social media and the internet. With the explosion of Transgenderism in teens and particularly teen girls it's an obvious phenomenon.

Why young brains are especially vulnerable to social media

The whole premise of this thread is that there's a disjunction of worldview between Christians/traditionalists/conservatives, and atheists/liberals/progressives. I actually find that premise problematic, but that's the thing the OP wanted to explore in discussion. Transgender issues is just the sample issue we've somehow ended up stuck on. I'd be quite happy to pick another, if you'd like.

That's fine but it sounds like we've kind of moved in from that and so in THIS case it's certainly not only a Christian/conservative view vs everyone else. There are an awful lot of people that are not conservative Christians that oppose the Wpath way of doing things and are recognizing the failure of it. That can't be denied.

They'll work it out, though. If standards of care need amending, over time they'll be amended, just like for every other medical issue. They don't need me heckling them from the peanut gallery while they do it.

On that we disagree. Because often it's the pressure of others outside the "inner circle" including the peanut gallery that gets things changed. And changed more rapidly.

Lobotomies were widely used from the late 1930s through the early 1950s. According to one 2013 research paperTrusted Source, roughly 60,000 lobotomies were performed in the United States and Europe in the 2 decades after the procedure was invented.

But by the 1950s, the dangers and side effects of lobotomies were becoming widely known, drawing more scrutiny from doctors and the public.

Some high-profile incidents helped turn public opinion against lobotomies. For example, Freeman gave President John F. Kennedy’s sister Rosemary a lobotomy that left her permanently incapacitated.

It was public pressure that aided the ending of the procedure. And I would assume you would agree it was a good idea. Even though they seemed to work.

The same professionals who it sounds like you would have supported back then. Oh my how dare we question the professionals. They always no what they are doing and if they don't. Oh well they'll work it out. Meanwhile how many kids are harmed during the process of working it out?

I'm sure you would be very willing to submit your kids to have their legs chopped off just because a professional said that would help their mental health.

 

[rjs330]

So your claim that people only going so far, but not completing a full transition is "not what is happening," or that people, once put on puberty blockers, inevitably complete a full process of transition, just doesn't match reality as I see it around me.

Except that is what is happening. Like I said you need to broaden your horizons. 90% that start puberty blockers do go on to hormones. Thems the facts.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Chimps are well known for making moral decisions. It also appears that dogs recognise morality. There is an argument that dolphins also act morally but based on their own moral standards.

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share.​

Experiments suggest dogs and monkeys have a human-like sense of morality

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share. In their paper published in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, the...

phys.org

​

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (Published 2007)

Dr. Frans de Waal argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

www.nytimes.com

OB​

Saaay “we make free will moral decisions” - not based on nature or instinct.

 

[Bradskii]

Saaay “we make free will moral decisions” - not based on nature or instinct.

I think we need a definition of 'moral decision.'

 

[Occams Barber]

Saaay “we make free will moral decisions” - not based on nature or instinct.

What's the difference between a free will moral decision and one based on nature or instinct?

More importantly - how do you tell the difference?

OB

 

[stevevw]

Are those always mutually exclusive categories? I would say no.

I've always read that hymn as celebrating the advance of human knowledge as a godly endeavour. This conversation made me do some digging, though, and apparently it was inspired by a farewell speech to the pilgrims about to set sail on the Mayflower. So there are some interesting historical ideas to ponder there.

Thats true, knowledge is important so we can come to know Gods Truth at a deeper level. But I think even though the level of knowledge was less than today and even more so at the time of Christ. Gods Truth is not always about knowledge or evidence but rather faith. I would imagine the Pilgrims were anxious about going into the unknown but still looking forward because they believed God would guide them along the way.

But the point for me quoting it was really in the lines about not limiting our thinking "by notions of our day and sect, crude, partial and confined." Paradigms shift and we have to be open to new ideas and new possibilities.

Yes I think so, being open to all possibilities including the spiritual. I think its when we limit God and the spiritual we can limit our thinking because we then restrict everything down to human ideas and beliefs such as materialism, humanism or Wokism.

In some ways the biggest Truth of all is about God, whether there is a God or being behind things. I think thats a fundemental part of our worldview that influences our thinking.

I wouldn't agree about that, actually. Conscience forms over time, and can be imperfect or even wrong; and that's before we consider issues such as neurotic guilt. One of the biggest pastoral problems for Christians is misplaced guilt.

I think neurotic guilt is more about mental illness like anxiety and depression. Cognitive therapy can help expose the irrational thoughts. But besides mental illness I think there are basic moral truths we all know even though we can rationalise and justify them away.

Paul mentions that the law was known even before it was written because our conscience either accused us or excused us. We have this sinful nature where we do what we know is wrong even thought we know its wrong.

It had profound influence in a supposedly Christian world. And that's still a work in progress.

I mean at the time Christianity was emerging was in a world that had many human made gods and beliefs and Christianity challenged them and gradually became the dominant belief. Much of those values formed the basis for society such as Human Rights. Without Christ and Christianity I am not sure what sort of world we would have ended up with. Maybe one like in Noahs time.

No, that's not my point. My point is that even within the treasure-store of "traditional" ideas and resources, there's been a diversity of views. And they weren't all Truth either, so it's dangerous to kind of revere them simply for having been around a long time.

I agree but there are some basic Truths that still stand today and not just because they are just Christian but because we all know they are true and good. Some may have drifted away from these Truths but we always come back to them. But I agree there are truth claims that people can be fooled by and I think thats why we need to use all our facalties to determine the Truth including science, experience and reason.

No, I'm trying to make an argument that there isn't a sound, well-tested, historically-proven, generally-agreed-upon, "Truth" of human nature from which we have only recently deviated.

If you look back at our history you can see that as recently as the early to mid 20th century Western society had around 90% Christian belief. Around 1840 Britian had around 90% Christian belief and arouned 1911 Australia had 96% belief. Even as recent as the 1950s the US had 95% Australia 90% and Britian had around 80%.

So that level of belief had to have influenced social norms and Laws to the point that most agreed in Christian values even for secular affairs.. We can see this with high attenedences of Church even frowning down on non curch goers and with norms and laws around marriage, sex, relationships, abortion ect.

It doesn't. But you can't claim that the traditional Christian "Truth" was therefore some utopia of equality. If anything, it's been a progressive cause to discover ever more depth to the truth of what it means to be in the image of God!

I'm not saying Christianity was ever a Utopia. I think that won't happen until Christs return. I think the Church in trying to make it a Utopia on earth is what brought it undone. I agree there has been a gradual discovery about the deeper understanding of Gods Truth like with discoveries in science for example.

But Gods Truths still stood, the written law was given to Moses and it applied to the Isrealites and has stood since fullfilled in Christ. It was there before the written law. We are just coming to understand it better through our limited thinking. But I think knowledge only goes so far and its really about faith. Without this we then come up with human made ideas about morality and reality and replace God with it.

Political participation (or lack thereof), management of climate change (causes and responses), access to health care, poverty and economic exploitation, warfare and response to refugees, and on and on we could go.

The West probably has the best and worst of life in some ways. You could say from Christs resurrection there was an explosion of belief from a small start that radiated into the world through the West and reached a pinnacle maybe around the time of the Reformation and Enlightenment.

But then has gradually deminshed due to corruption in the Church and worldly thinking now to the point of being lost or deminshed and now there are more non Christians than Christians and that will continue until Christs return. But some of those Truth wore off on us not just because they are Gods Truth but because they are good and work. We don't have to believe in God to know these Truths.

We could argue about whether first-century Judaism counts as "western," but that aside, seeing our culture as special just because we've had a long history of Christianity is really dangerous. It would seem to promote overlooking our flaws and failings, rather than facing them honestly.

No I realise our flaws as we are a fallen world. The West became the worlds moral conscience for a long time and I think we have let that go to our heads and our behaviour and actions at times are seen as hypocritical and oppressive.

But the Christian Truth has always been there. You see that in how the Church is heavily involved in supporting the disadvantaged in the background still similar to how it did throughout history like the Salvos during the Industrial Revolution and the Great Depression. Like how the ancient Church began Universities aned Hospitals.

I remember all too well. Which suggests that attitudes passed down within that culture might also be flawed.

Yes but Gods Truth remained even if the Church or Kings or Governments have moved away from that. Still we can see Gods Truth at work all through this usually in the background, speaking up for the needy and disadvantaged as Christ did. Sacrificing their lives for others.

And we should be prepared to make our moral arguments on their merits, and let others either accept them, or not.

Yes I absolutely agree. I think an important underlying Truth for the West and Christians is the Right to hold views and beliefs like free speach without descrimination or being shut down. In the past the Church did this by overstepping the mark. The Church gradually lost control and influence as the State gradually took over especially in the last 60 odd years.

During that time Christian influence has deminished as secular ideas take over to replace it. In the last decade we have seen Woke ideology grow faster than any other religion, civil Rights movement or social change in history or at least the last 100 years apart from fads and mass delusions like Eugenics.

It seems to me that the gradual process of taking God out of the West has culminated to what we have today which is the State taking over all aspects of our lives and now enforcing a new State sanctioned religion on everyone which includes Woke and Trans ideology, Critcal race Theory, Cultural Marxism with some Postmodernism, Materialism and Humanism and the like. You can tell its a religion by how Woke is used as morality. You have to be a certain way to be virtuous and everyone must conform or else. All the hallmarks of religious dogma.

Don't be fooled the States new Religion is not about proecting Rights or nobel causes, thats the Trojan horse. The real battle is about belief, ideology about the world, about tearing down the old to replace it with a new Utopia. The States religion is a mix of unfounded ideas and beliefs that have been cultivated over the last 60 or so years through academia, into our Institutions and now taking over society.

It does lack merit and moral reasoning because they have no scientific basic or reasoned moral arguement. In fact the thinking is there are no moral truths that's except for the enlightened Woke ones. It seems the idea of no truth itself has backfired and now we have created a monster in the State dictating terms with some help from their Woke disciples. Or is it the other way around lol.

I'll leave it there as it looks like the next posts are about specific moral issues which I will reply to later. Regards Steve. Once again sorry for the extra (e) here and there my 'e' sometimes sticks to my 'd'. I reckon theres a song in that.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, no no no.

I had to reply to this as it reminded me of the Australian Crawl song Oh, no no no then the boys light up lol.

Political participation (or lack thereof), management of climate change (causes and responses), access to health care, poverty and economic exploitation, warfare and response to refugees, and on and on we could go.

Yeah the West has seen the best and the worst of it. Like some say for the US who was the leading Nation for the West for some time that they have the best in championing Democracy and Freedoms but also have big problems with guns, race and corruption. Climate change I think is an inevitable result of materialism and consumerism though even the Church is guilty of that. Still it was the West who brought Human Rights. We have brought the standard of living up, refugees are mostly fleeing to Western nations and we are living longer.

We could argue about whether first-century Judaism counts as "western," but that aside, seeing our culture as special just because we've had a long history of Christianity is really dangerous. It would seem to promote overlooking our flaws and failings, rather than facing them honestly.

I agree we need a balanced view and give credit where credits due but also acknowleedge our wrongs.

I remember all too well. Which suggests that attitudes passed down within that culture might also be flawed.

I don't think Gods Laws and Truths are flawed. The Isrealites went away from Gods Truth and Moses established the Law, Christ fullfilled it. Christ said he didn't come to change the Law and that still stands. Moses saw that the Isrealites needed Gods laws because they were getting out of hand, fighting, stealing, committing adultery and worshipping idols. The law helped them live together and flourish. When they followed Gods laws things seem to go better for them. Gods laws and Christs Truth remain the same even when we go astray.

Sorry, I don't agree that Christians should be controlling other people's medical treatment. That would be the opposite of a "well society."

I agree and I am not saying we should enforce Christian rule. I am saying we should uphold the Truths the West has come to know through time as a Culture which happen to align with Christian values such as Inalienable Rights, Free Will, Equality under God as rational and moral beings. The Church tried to dictate and failed and we know better now. But now we have a new religion dictating society, controlling morality and medical treatment. If its wrong for the Church to dictate then its wrong for the State and its disciples to dictate.

And we should be prepared to make our moral arguments on their merits, and let others either accept them, or not.

Exactly on their merits ande moral arguement. But do you think a society can exist without some ethical standard being enforced for the betterment of all. We make our arguements, present the evdience and if all is fair we should go with that which upholds the truth. Modern secular society is full of rules and regulations.

Hopefully most people agree and have done mostly in our past. But sometimes people, society agrees on stupid stuff that we know is suspect and wrong so the question is should we object and stand up to this. Of course we should that is how great changes happened for the better.

For many Woke and Trans ideology don't stand up to scrutiny and is even seen as dangerous and now there is this conflict of Rights and what is moral. The Truth should align with all aspects of life, make sense, be reasoned, have evdience and align with reality and our lived experience as a culture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Chimps are well known for making moral decisions. It also appears that dogs recognise morality. There is an argument that dolphins also act morally but based on their own moral standards.

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from Kyoto University has found that dogs and capuchin monkeys watch how humans interact with one another and react less positively to those that are less willing to help or share.

The dogs and monkeys are judging us.

 

[Lukaris]

I think the concept of “Latinx” is an example of how social damage is created, resisted, or established as another alleged social need that must be addressed thanks to many psychological arsonists who spread it around.

Latinx - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org