When two worldviews collide.

[Mountainmike]

Where?

See how vague this is? What part of your post am I responding to? You'll notice in the past that I have posted my replies to specific parts of your posts immediately after the part in question. Are you incapable of giving me the same courtesy?

Kylie.

This thread is about "world views colliding"
One of the aspects of that is the "lens" through which people search for information.

My post was not aimed at you personally but how world view plays out in practice.


If you had searched for "rwandan genocide causes" or similar (a neutral world view) -
you would have found a myriad of articles stating the same thing in essence.
Increasing race hatred and dehumanization of the tutsi by the hutu over the previous decade(s).

Then there was a flashpoint, which was the downing of an aircraft, nobody knows who did it. Then a great many hutu, took machetes and chopped the tutsi incuding their neighbours and friends to pieces, sparing neither babies nor old people. It was not an army or a dictator. It was the ordinary people whose hate destroyed their humanity. There were so many bodies there were almost no tutsi left to bury them. They rotted in the streets for months. No moral code in evidence.

So how did you find a piece blaming the catholic church?

Easy. A world view intervened in your search.

I cannot say for certain what you searched, but i will wager it was along the lines of "catholic church to blame for rwanda holocaust" or similar. And sure enough, on any subject, there are many who have such contempt for catholics someone somewhere will have written against it with no regard for truth. Just as Jews wrongly got blamed for every ill of society for so many years, and that hatred lead to the holocaust in the Nazi regime devoid of morals.

It mimics the attitude to the shroud so common on this forum. I gave as an example.

If you had searched "shroud science" or shroud dimensions or whatever (neutral world view)
you would have been led first to sturp, in which systematic studies were done on body geometry and shroud geometry, comparing with middle east dimension statistics. John Jackson physicist produced mannikins and shroud dimensional replicas to illustrate how it was folded. At that point you would have accepted the voice of science on that at least.

But you didnt. I am guessing because of world view you searched "shroud fake" in which all sorts of pseudoscience lives, including the question over body size by people who REFUSE to read the science. That was the inspiration for your "doll experiment" which was pseudoscience. No attempt was made to calibrate the doll. Sadly nobody cares how false anti shroud pseudoscience is, so long as someone says it is fake. It even inhabits journals everywhere. They refused to care when Garlaschelli claimed a fake shroud replica, in a journal, when he had used pigment, yet there is no pigment on the shroud, and the mark is not pigment, which was known since 1970s!! The mark is thin layer dehydration oxidation of cellulose. So no liquid process can ever have formed it. That paper should not have been accepted. You cannot even trust scientific media any where near religious phenomena.
I did indeed link the sturp reports. All including you I believe found excuses not to read them.
World view no doubt.

Yet even the one arguably in charge of the disgraceful failed carbon date Michael Tite ultimately admitted it is indeed the shroud of a crucificed man with all that pathology. Despite being present when the verdict was given that someone had "faked it up and flogged it"
If you read the communications between the daters you see they were not interested in dating the shroud, they were interested in proving it medieaval and validating their (already failed) new AMS technology. For them it was a marketing stunt aimed at the old guard of dating (such as Harwell) , and attacking religion was a great by product to confirm what they thought in advance. Imagine how perpexed they were when the tests failed homogeneity so no date coud be announced!. They were forced to fiddle it. They took none of the precautions that the archeologists recommended and ignored all the red flags.. The daters imposed their world view.
Notice None of them including Tite or the other detractors.
have taken the offer up of £1m to produce a shroud replica which matches the chemistry. They know they cannot.

Do you believe Tite now he opposes your world view?
Now he states it the pathoogy of a crucified man. Which is what STURP had said all along.
The daters so hated STURPs conclusion, all those who knew anythin about the shroud were excluded from the dating!!
Tite said "crucified man" quietly of course. Many years on. Hoping nobody heard him.
Yet he and those with thim shouted "fake!!!" from the rooftops.... They clearly prefer the myth. It is why the dating data was fiddled using an "unknown transform"!. Sadly the myth had run round the world of a fake for decades, before the truth got its boots on.

But as for your request, I will indeed suggest a good read amongst the number of books I own , and more I have read about Rwanda.
I study first and then judge. In this case a new York times best seller called "left to tell" by catholic immaculee ilibagiza whose family were chopped to bits, but she was saved at great risk to a hutu protestant pastor who hid her in a small bathroom with seven other ladies. The pastor and his family would have been chopped to bits as well as a collaborator if they had been caught during door to door searches. Which they nearly were several times.

She describes the period before the massacre, the massacre and the aftermath. It is a harrowing tale of how hate can kill in an immoral world devoid of moral code.

Will you read it? It does not reinforce your world view. And like all research it takes time to read. It is not a soundbite.

 

[stevil]

No I understand that. There are things I consider immoral that I don't want laws against either.

Then morality isn't the basis for the laws that we want. Our basis is something else, other than our moral beliefs.

Abortion doesn't meet a moral standard for you while for others it does.

This isn't true.
I don't care if abortion is moral, immoral or neutral. It doesn't make a difference to me.

The choice is the pregnant woman's choice. It is up to her to decide if she thinks it is moral or immoral or neutral. It isn't upto me or government to force our beliefs onto her. It is her choice.

And we all argue for our moral reasons for supporting or opposing it.

Nope. When debating the abortion debate I don't try to debate form a point of view whether it is moral or immoral.
It would be like trying to debate with someone that Pepsi is tastier than Coke. It would be a pointless debate, as I have my opinion and they have their opinion.

You support laws against things that YOU find immoral.

No, I don't. I have explained to you that I don't. I have even provided example on things that I might consider immoral but have no interest in having laws against.

 

[rjs330]

Eg: see here.

Let's take a look at this shall we? Your very article states there is no conclusion that can be gained from this research. This puts to rest your idea that somehow there is a female brain in a male body. Here are some exerpts.

Studies conducted on transgender individuals reported signs of feminisation in cortical thickness of transwomen, while no sign of masculinisation was found in transmen [18,19].

The finding only does one way? If that the case no conclusion can b drawn from this. What about this.

one study reported this area to be smaller in transwomen than in cismen and to have less neurons [24]. However, the role of BNST and INAH-3 in the determination of sexual differentiation remains unclear because of the small size of the samples and because part of the subjects enrolled had received hormonal treatment previously. Additionally, the majority of individuals with gender dysphoria report cross gender identity since childhood, while sex differences in BNST do not appear before puberty [25].

Once again inconclusive. ONE study of a small sample size with subjects have received hormone therapy. A Poor study that can't be used to establish your claim.

Studies conducted on transgender individuals described patterns of white matter microstructure to be more in line with the perceived gender (rather than the biological sex) [13,26,27,28]. However, to date, these limited data do not allow to provide a reliable conclusion.

Note- LIMITED DATA DO NOT ALLOW YO PROVIDE A RELIABLE CONCLUSION.

Furthermore, the popular explanation that there is a female and a male brain on the base of gender behavioural differences is not supported by a strong empirical background [11], as, for example, men and women share more similarities than differences [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Furthermore, a great variability in behavioural and psychological aspects is shown between genders [44]. Moreover, the size of the brain differences is usually small [45,46,47].

Gee this is what I've been saying. It's not supported by strong empirical background. Let's look at more conclusions from the various studies.

Indeed, the impact of prenatal hormones on gender identity development is still not clear [56].

However, research on the relationship between finger ratio and gender identity has produced inconsistent results [66,67,68].

However, results from these studies may be affected by the role of environmental influences [2].

Accordingly, some studies demonstrated an increased number of trinucleotide CAG repeats in the androgen receptor gene in transwomen [112,113], while others found contrasting results [114,115].

However, results are in most cases conflicting and the number of genetic studies remains limited.


So what we find over and over again is that the studies are few, with inconclusive and in MOST CASES conflicting. So your whole brain argument has not been substantiated in the least with poor and conflicting studies. Further from your article.

"Anyway, to provide reliable conclusions, more data are needed.

The results were contrasting, but they may suggest the hypothesis of a polygenic basis of gender identity; in any case, the complex interaction between these genetic factors is far from understood, and that should be the matter of further studies."

No reliable conclusion can be made from these studies. And the results were contrasting with the complex interaction FAR FROM UNDERSTOOD. In other words we don't know and can't make any reliable conclusions.

So your claims that the evidence is there has been established that it is not. You've been duped again.

 

[rjs330]

And yet it's one of the fundamental reasons for me taking the position I have in this thread. I'm not a trans activist, or particularly interested in what they have to say.

Except your position aligns with theirs. And you are going along with and supporting their position. You may not BE a transactivist, but don't fool yourself. You are very interested in what they have to say because you support what they are saying.

It's no different that saying "I'm not a white supremacist", but then supporting what the white supremacists have to say about race. You may not march in their parades but you parrot their views and support their agenda and in fact in this thread advocate for their ideas.

 

[rjs330]

People support, or should support, laws that protect society in general. So there are arguments for preventing people, or at least discouraging them, from harming society in some way. But not that allow people to act in any way that may harm themselves.

In some cases, disregard for one's own harm can affect others. So we say that seatbelts should be worn because if they are not then some doctor is going to have to spend time fixing you up because of your own stupidity than she'd spend on others.

What is the commonality here? Harm. Determine if harm is being done and there's room for a discussion. Base any argument on God's will, for example, and there's none.

So if you can show that any procedure, any act, any statement will cause more harm than good, then I think that anyone should be prepared to listen. Hey...isn't that some kinda consequentialism? Well, you can call it what you will. But in however many posts you've made on this subject, you have failed badly.

Harm is subjective and like many things has degrees of validity. It is subject to debate and eventually must be proven to be valid enough to require laws to prevent it, such as your seatbelt law. I'm sure we could come up with many examples.

There are moral judgements we make every day and how much harm is being done. Adultery is a great example. One that often causes great harm to people and society at large due to the disintegration of the family structure, psychological damage done to children. I mean we could go on to list many harms done by someone committing adultery. Yet we haven't outlawed that. Because we have determined the harm isn't great enough.

And that the issue. For example, hate speech. We have to specifically defined it and show how an individual making a comment that fits within the restricted definition is causing such harm that it is deserving of prosecution by law.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's take a look at this shall we? Your very article states there is no conclusion that can be gained from this research.

That research was trying to tease out whether genes or hormone exposure were a stronger causative factor. But what that article accepts as a foundation for that, is that there is a "sexual dimorphic brain."

Furthermore, the popular explanation that there is a female and a male brain on the base of gender behavioural differences is not supported by a strong empirical background [11], as, for example, men and women share more similarities than differences [38,39,40,41,42,43].

Yes indeed; which is why I have often argued against brain differences as a justification for gender roles.

Except your position aligns with theirs.

In some limited ways. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[rjs330]

I'm surprised (but not much) that you think that this is somehow a worthwhile argument.

Any given medical procedure is done with the best knowledge at the time by the best experts in the field. If this discussion had taken place in the 50's and broached lobotomies then you would have had zero knowledge of the procedure to even mount an argument against it. And no reason to. The fact that medicical knowledge has advanced is a given. But to point to one aspect of health care and say that they were wrong there so THEREFORE we must stop this aspect of health care would apply to every medical procedure.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that we should proceed carefully and treat each case on its merits...then well done. You've finally caught up with what some of us are saying.

But you haven't. You reject the very concept of gender and simply want it stopped. Why not simply say that? That's what I REALLY don't get.

What we are seeing here is the the exact opposite of that. What we are seeing from you and others similar to your ideology is a doubling down on what has been done. Supporting WPATH and affirmative therapy. I have yet to hear you or others praise these other places for their recognition of the problems they were causing and altering their treatment protocols.

Also when dealing with children it just makes sense that we would be far more cautious about life altering permanent medical procedures especially when we know for a fact that 90+% of them would stop without any intervention at all. We don't even know how many would learn to adjust and live with their condition with only psychological treatment. We've been EXPERIMENTING on children. And society should know better. You should know better.

We have no idea if these medical interventions are even effective long term.

The lobotomy argument is a cogent one to demonstrate that you and others have been convinced that the experts know what they are doing. However we know for a fact that blind trust is misplaced. You cannot say well the experts are learning all the time and then state the experts know what they are doing. They obviously don't know. And the question even becomes more relevant when you start asking who these experts are.

In this case the experts are transactivists with a clear agenda bias working on faulty research. Something we've been trying to point out for some time yet you still supported it. It's not different than those who began to question lobotomies and having people say "well you just have to accept they are experts and we trust them" only to find out later that those who were questioning were correct after all.

In this case it's even more questionable because they are doing it to children based upon faulty research by a biased and agenda driven activist organization.

And so far no one has proven these medical treatments are affective in the long term nor have their been any strong evidence who they would be most effective on. We have not done any real exploration on other methods. No we jumped right into this one and declared it the end.

Based upon what we know about lobotomies we shouldn't have been so quick to just accept the so called experts so called standards of care.

But you haven't. You reject the very concept of gender and simply want it stopped. Why not simply say that? That's what I REALLY don't get.

I think I've been very clear on the matter. I fully accept the concept of gender. Gender being synonymous with biological sex I just reject the concept of more than two genders.

 

[rjs330]

The reason why is that medical corporations in search of increasing profits and lifelong clients for HRT and puberty blockers have allowed activist groups to perpetrate this fraud under the guise of expertise and medical necessity. Fraud has unfortunately been a profitable model for a long time now in the biomedical industry. The billions upon billions made on oxycontin far outweigh the small fines paid out over it. Just ten years ago....testosterone replacement made big promises to men...and those foolish enough to try out testosterone therapy learned later they had done severe damages to their hearts. This happens in women taking testosterone as well. I doubt a child can consider the problem of a heart attack at 35 even if they consent.

Kind of funny how the left is always accusing the pharmaceutical companies of profiteering and not caring about people, but then they turn around and claim the pharmaceutical companies are not profiteering at all in this instance but their motives are pure.

 

[rjs330]

That research was trying to tease out whether genes or hormone exposure were a stronger causative factor. But what that article accepts as a foundation for that, is that there is a "sexual dimorphic brain."

Yet the results are inconclusive. The article jumped to a lot of conclusions that were not actually supported by the research they cited. It was pretty obvious what they were after.

Yes indeed; which is why I have often argued against brain differences as a justification for gender roles.

Your argument is quite interesting. Men's and women's brains are not different and can't be used for justification of gender roles, but they are different and can be used to determine gender in the first place.

In some limited ways. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So where do you disagree with their standards of care?

 

[Paidiske]

So where do you disagree with their standards of care?

I'm not competent to critique standards of care. But activism goes well beyond standards of care.

 

[Bradskii]

Also when dealing with children it just makes sense that we would be far more cautious about life altering permanent medical procedures

This is so much bulldust. You don't want people to be carefull (which is exactly what some of us have been saying). You want them to stop. So please, enough with this false proclamation of concern. And why do you want them to stop? Well, you said it...

I think I've been very clear on the matter. I fully accept the concept of gender. Gender being synonymous with biological sex I just reject the concept of more than two genders.

So in my neice's case she was going through hell for some idea of her gender that you say simply doesn't exist. She contemplated suicide over something which you reject. You will now refer to HIS long transition as something based on what you say doesn't have any basis in reality. So you will ignore the results of what he went through. You will ignore the fact that he is now happily married with a family. You will ridicule the pride that all her friends and family feel for the strength he had in ignoring so many of the negative comments we are all to used to experiencing. Because hey, you 'reject the concept'.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Sr Luisa Derouen offers her perspective in ministry with Transgender people.

Start at 16:00

 

[rjs330]

This is so much bulldust. You don't want people to be carefull (which is exactly what some of us have been saying). You want them to stop. So please, enough with this false proclamation of concern. And why do you want them to stop? Well, you said i

So in my neice's case she was going through hell for some idea of her gender that you say simply doesn't exist. She contemplated suicide over something which you reject. You will now refer to HIS long transition as something based on what you say doesn't have any basis in reality. So you will ignore the results of what he went through. You will ignore the fact that he is now happily married with a family. You will ridicule the pride that all her friends and family feel for the strength he had in ignoring so many of the negative comments we are all to used to experiencing. Because hey, you 'reject the concept'.

We haven't been cautious in the least about this. Did somehow you believe that cautious means that you can do it sometimes? That sometimes it's okay to medically transition a child? No it means we should be more cautious we don't do it all all because we have no clear evidence that it's effective or necessary. You don't do something to kids that permanently alters them without clear and compelling evidence that it will be effective and absolutely necessary.

When you say niece I don't know what you mean. Niece refers to a biological female. With your ideology I don't know if you are talking about a biological male or a biological female.

That being said, the person you are referring to had a gender they were and a gender they thought they should be which was the opposite of what they were biologically. Those genders are something that is real and I believe in them. Male or female. I'm guessing your relative did not believe they were not something else beyond the binary.

They contemplated suicide because they were struggling with reality. They were struggling with which gender/sex they were. They were a male or female and in the heir mind they thought they were the opposite gender/sex. The struggle was real, their thoughts and emotions were real. The mental health disorder was real. And we have no idea what other issues may have happened to help facilitate this disorder.

What they transitioned into was something unreal. Because you cannot actually transition into the opposite sex. You will never be the opposite sex. You can put on a costume and pump yourself full of drugs but no matter what they are not the opposite sex. It's a pretense. And I worry that eventually the dawning of reality will come crashing down around them and they will realize the mistake they made.

No one tried to help them accept who they really were nor tried to help them with addressing whatever else might be going on nor tried to help them navigate the struggles in accepting what is real and working through what was not.

And it seems quite interesting to me in all these conversations that are being had that this is one mental health disorder that requires all of society to affirm the person in order for it to really be fixed. It's not fully dependant upon the person not the drugs not the surgeries. It's actually dependant on everyone else.

Because we have seen in research that years after the transition they are not much happier than they were before. They still struggle and still suffer with depression and anxiety and suicidal ideations. And it's not the drugs or surgeries or affirming treatment that is blamed for not working. It's a everyone else. It's society. It's the one mental health issue that is quite dependant on others to fix rather than the person.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not competent to critique standards of care. But activism goes well beyond standards of care.

That's a cop out. You certainly can review them, see what they say, do research into it and see if they are based upon valid and relatable research or information. You can review what the other experts have to say to determine whether or not the standards are actually good, bad or unreliable. You can do your own homework on who exactly is giving out these standards and discover or not whether they are simply biased activists.

In this case it would be the same as allowing alcoholics to treat other alcoholics and the standard of care is to provide the patient with more alcohol and keep it going for the rest of their lives.

 

[Paidiske]

That's a cop out.

No, it's not. It's part of what I've been arguing all thread. I do not have the expertise, in medicine, psychology, social work, or any other relevant discipline, to bring a robust critique to something like this. I am too ignorant, and would be trying to compensate for that ignorance (which amounts to the equivalent of years of study, work in the field, and life experience) with what I could find on google. I'm not arrogant enough to think I can do that justice. I know what competence in my own field takes; I don't pretend to that competence in fields where I don't have it.

 

[Bradskii]

No it means we should be more cautious WE DON'T DO IT ALL ALL because we have no clear evidence that it's effective or necessary.

Just as I said. You simply reject it all. Every single post you have made is nothing but a rejection of the help people receive. If only someone could show you an example of a person who was helped by this. Who received all the care they needed. Who went from being suicidal to being a happily married partner.

Gee, I wonder where we could get one? Where could we find a family that helped their child and saved her from a short life of misery? And if we find one wouldn't it be lucky for her that people like them ignore people like you.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it's not. It's part of what I've been arguing all thread. I do not have the expertise, in medicine, psychology, social work, or any other relevant discipline, to bring a robust critique to something like this. I am too ignorant, and would be trying to compensate for that ignorance (which amounts to the equivalent of years of study, work in the field, and life experience) with what I could find on google. I'm not arrogant enough to think I can do that justice. I know what competence in my own field takes; I don't pretend to that competence in fields where I don't have it.

Well said. Though me being me I would have couched it in the third person as opposed to the first.

 

[stevevw]

Mmhmm. Okay. God's laws; let's take the two great commandments; love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength;

How would we even determine what loving God even looks like morally. Research shows we are natural believers in a moral God or Divine entities. So if there is a God I would imagine honouring and respecting Him is important for being moral. Afterall you can't keep Gods laws unless you truely believe in God and love Him.

Out of the mouths of babes
Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.
Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise
The vast majority of humans are “born believers”, naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using them.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328562-000-the-god-issue-we-are-all-born-believers/#ixzz62ZjQIc00

and love your neighbour as yourself. I'd like to see your research evidence that we are all born knowing that, and not needing to be taught it.

This ones a bit easier to see. We come into the world with a moral sense about justice, kindness and empathy towards others which is basically the Golden Rule.

Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
The Moral Life of Babies

Really? What 3 month old totally unaffected by family or culture has been available for study?

The research shows that a babies moral sense is not somthing that can be taught or indoctrinated into them as it is the babies unique and owned moral sense for which they invest themselves into. Its universal so the same basic moral sense of justice, kindness, fairness, empathy and compassion is in all humans regardless of culture or family influences. Basically no one is a moral blank slate when we are born. We could not relate to moral situations if we did not have some foundational sense in us. We wouled just be selfish amoral beings seeking to survive.

The articles make it clear that this moral sense is not something we learn. Later we build on this moral foundation with family and cultural influences. Heres some quotes and commentary on the article I linked which clearly explains we are born with a moral sense.

Our sense of morality is inherent and a fundamental part of being human.
“certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. They do not come from the mother’s knee … ” It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
https://fs.blog/the-origins-of-good-and-evil/

Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions, no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level. Indeed, if you watch the older babies during the experiments, they don’t act like impassive judges — they tend to smile and clap during good events and frown, shake their heads and look sad during the naughty events. The babies’ experiences might be cognitively empty but emotionally intense, replete with strong feelings and strong desires.

To have a genuinely moral system, in other words, some things first have to matter, and what we see in babies is the development of mattering.
Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

So this interview report discusses some foundations for later moral development which are seen in infants. I'm not disputing that there are some basics most (nb: not all) humans share which feed into our moral reasoning. But that's a far cry from "perfect knowledge of God's laws"!

Actually it seems we are all born with this moral sense regardless of culture environmental influences just like humans are born with a sense of pain or hunger. Its not a perfectly developed set of morals but if you consider that at its core a babies moral sense involves values like justice, kindness, fairness, empathy and compassion and even altruism in some waays these morals are perfect in principle.

For example Alturism relates to giving of self for another with the ultimate act being to give ones life for another. There is no greater moral act than this. I edeon't think its a case of getting morals perfect as in every context is covered and it stands up rationally. Its more about what matters to humans about others and thats more a sense or intuitive reaction that cannot be rationalied or subject to traditional methods of measured perfection.

But my point in citing it is that two Christians can have different convictions of conscience on the same matter. If our consciences were an infallible guide to moral truth, this wouldn't happen.

When you consider that the person with the weak conscience was defiling themselves by going against their own conscience even though the issue about eating meat or not was not a sin to feel guilty about it would seem that the role of our conscience is even greater in determing right and wrong. Though each person may have a different belief they are still judged by their conscience, whether they live up to their own conscience or not.

(So yes, the person with the weaker conscience - the person who thinks something is sinful when it is not - is indulged by the person with the more robust conscience, precisely because idolatry is an important moral issue).

This actually highlights the importance of our conscience even more so because even though eating Idol meat is not a sin they still sin because they defiled their own conscience. So regardless of different levels in our conscience each persons individual conscience will still hold them accountable as individuals. It seems our intentions play a big role.

I think we all have a conscience when it comes to the basic morals like murder, stealing, abuse of others, dishonesty, descrimination. Unless someone is deenying the truth or is constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves we would all have a guilty conscience if we committed one of these wrongs.

No, he wasn't. Go back to verse 14; this bit of his argument begins, "When gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires..." He is talking specifically about gentiles who have some apprehension of God's goodness. But he is not talking about everyone; go back to verse 6 and see the flow of his thought:

So are you saying that the Jews never had an aprehension of Gods Goodness.

"For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality."

His point is not that we all know the law; his point is that those who do what the law requires, whether they know the law in an academic sense or not, will be rewarded for it. But there are those - both those who have never been taught the law, and those who have - who do not do what the law requires, and they do not have the law written on their hearts (or in their consciences).

Humm I will have to think about that as it doesn't seem right. Thats more or less saying there are some people who don't have a conscience about right andwrong. I know there are people like psychopaths but most people I think have a conscience whether Jew or Gentile. I mean the research shows humans are born with a moral sense. Its in our bones and we cannot help but react to injustice or cruelty towards others regardless of religion and culture.

The point is to remove any claim to Jewish superiority; not to make some sort of claim for a universal moral consciousness.

Yeah I thought Paul was having a go at the Jewish Rabbies saying you think the letter of the law is going to make you right before God well think again because God knows whats in your heart. But a persons heart is their conscience when it comes to morality. As Christ said the Pharisees hid a corrupt and hyocritical heart on the inside.

The same as the Parable of the Adulterous women where Jesus said to the Pharisees whoever is without sin can throw the first stone and everyone got up and walked away. The Pharisees could not have walked away unless they had a guilty conscience of their sin.

 

[Whyayeman]

How would we even determine what loving God even looks like morally.

I couldn't get past that first sentence, coming as it does from somebody who professes Christianity. I was brought up (in the Church) to believe that the whole of Christian morality stems from these words:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. Love God above all else. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

— Matthew 22:35–40

 

[Paidiske]

How would we even determine what loving God even looks like morally.

You tell me; you're the one claiming that we're all born with perfect knowledge of God's law!

Actually it seems we are all born with this moral sense regardless of culture environmental influences just like humans are born with a sense of pain or hunger. Its not a perfectly developed set of morals but if you consider that at its core a babies moral sense involves values like justice, kindness, fairness, empathy and compassion and even altruism in some waays these morals are perfect in principle.

I don't agree that a natural capacity for empathy is the same as a moral sense (although I agree that empathy can help us to make moral choices). That said, that's not the same things as being born with a perfect knowledge of God's law!

My point, way back when in this thread, is that our sense of right and wrong can be incomplete, imperfect or misguided. You haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.

I think we all have a conscience when it comes to the basic morals like murder, stealing, abuse of others, dishonesty, descrimination. Unless someone is deenying the truth or is constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves we would all have a guilty conscience if we committed one of these wrongs.

Really? I see people commit abuse, dishonesty and discrimination without any apparent pang of conscience, often!

So are you saying that the Jews never had an aprehension of Gods Goodness.

No... I am saying that Paul was saying that the Jews didn't have an advantage over the gentiles, despite having been given the Mosaic law.

Thats more or less saying there are some people who don't have a conscience about right andwrong.

I think all but perhaps the most extreme psychopaths have a conscience. My argument is that conscience is fallible and imperfect. You might find it interesting to do some reading on developmental stages of moral reasoning.