No go zones for beliefs

Too right you are!

What did the Master say? "Wide the path that leads to destruction, narrow the path that leads to life. Few find it." (Matthew 7:13)

The first thing you need to understand about Christianity is that it is not a numbers game, nor a popularity contest. Christian's don't care whether Megan Markle approves of their religion.

The truth of Christianity does not depend on how many Christians there are. There will be a lot of surprises on the day of judgement, that is for sure. Joe Bible Thumper who spent his life bullying Catholics, Mormons and JW's, may find himself out in the cold while he sees Carol Catholic, who believed in the IC of Mary admitted into heaven. On the other hand Joe Catholic who supported abortion all his life, even after warnings from Church authorities yet used his influence to help the poor, have a generous immigration policy will be told to depart from the Lord's presence, while Bob the Muslim who though was not able to make an explicit proclamation of Christ as Lord and Savior, yet lived a humble life as Christ lived will be admitted to heaven.

Indeed, there will be a lot of surprises on Judgement Day. Between you and I--I think the Christian fundamentalists will be the ones who are the most shocked to find that---they aren't the only ones in heaven---but also shocked to find that many of their number did not make the cut.

In other words---what I am getting at is that rea; Christianity is a way of life. It is not in memorizing Bible verses, a profession of perfect theology, etc. Real Christianity is in one's ACTIONS. (This is something fundamentalists do not seem to get.)

You are right: I don't have that authority. But I do not need a formal proclamation from someone in authority to declare what is true. Right and wrong and declaring what is right and wrong do not depend on whether I have "formal authority" (whatever that means) to declare it. You can tell me all about gravity. Me asking you if you have a PhD in physics, and telling you that without being formally studied in Physics you have no authority to declare the laws or gravity to me does not negate the laws of gravity.

In other words, sir, I do not need to be the pope, or the Dalai Lama to know right and wrong when I see it, nor to declare it, anymore than you need a PhD in physics to be able to tell me about gravity.

It isn't my personal interpretation, sir. Religion is not "personal interpretation" anymore than Science is, sir. Religion is just as objective as science.

So what? Of course they would disagree! They do not want to change their views on abortion becasue that would be too hard. It is easier for them to deny the truth than change their views. They want to support abortion. When their religion is against it, it is easier for them to bury their heads in the sand and go "La, la, la, I can't hear you" and or act as if the one who tells them that their beliefs are not compatible with the religion they claim to believe is the one who is the problem rather than them, and or claim that it is the religion that needs to change rather than them.

So yeah--of COURSE they would disagree with me and act as if I am the problem, not them. I point you back to the Master: "Wide the path to destruction."

Truth is truth, sir. It does not depend on how the mother of your grandson feels about it. And you can quote me!

Lot's of things are not specifically described as a salvific issue. Racism is nowhere described as a salvific issue. Does it follow racism is compatible with Christianity?
Sadly for you, your personal opinions about Right and Wrong are no more authoritative than anyone else's. And that's all they are, personal opinions. You are welcome to reject as fellow Christians anyone who disagrees with you. Why not? That's the one universal trait that every single Christian has . Truth is indeed Truth, but your personal opinions even on weighty moral issues, are not Truth, since in morality there is no Truth, only opinions. There are some moral issues upon which nearly everyone agrees. There are moral issues upon which there is little agreement, but which no-one is really bothered about. Abortion however is one on which there is no agreement, but the opposing sides feel very strongly about. You don't have the moral high ground on this issue. You don't have Truth or Right on your side, but then no-one else can claim this either. As flawed human beings we need to find a compromise that all can agree on, other than the small rump on both sides who refuse to compromise because they mistakenly belief in Truth, Right and Wrong as objective facts rather than mere opinions.
 
No-one is taking rights away.
In the case of a baker--the government is attempting to compel speech from a baker that they find morally abhorrent. In the case of Christian colleges, the government is attempting to limit their ability to run their college according to the dictates of their conscience. They have to allow biological males who identify as female to use the female restroom. That is against the dictates of their conscience--not to mention reason.

If anyone is offended by Christian teachings, they can find another college. If the gay couple is offended that the baker cannot place gay symbols on a cake, they can find a baker who deals in gay weddings. It is similar to a Christmas store. That store sells Christmas items. Muslims are free to shop there if they want, but the store is not going to stop selling Christmas items becasue the Muslims is offended, nor is the store going to sell Muslim religions items becasue the Muslim demands it.
The limits are subject to change. The current fashion is such that your views are unpopular. The way you wish to exercise your rights and freedoms is such that it interferes with the rights and freedoms of other people.
How so? Gay people are free to find bakers who deal in gay weddings and get whatever they want. People who are offended by Christian teachings at a Christian college or hospital or whatever--remain free to go to another college, hospital, whatever. So how is anyone interfering with anyone else's rights? You are "pro-choice" are you not? I can choose to run my business according to the dictates of my conscience. You can choose to do the same. People are free to choose which businesses to support based on their consciences, tates, likes, dislikes, etc.
On balance, it is seen to be more reasonable to curtail yours than theirs.
That is just the point: why do our rights need to be curtailed? Why not just get the government out of both of our lives---and leave people free to choose for themselves? How hard is it for the transgender person to say "You know, the teachings of the Christian college offend me. I am not going there for college?" or the gay couple to say "This baker offends me. I am getting another baker?" How hard is that?
You have the right to complain, and you can always break the law and take the consequences. The notion that this is all the result of a small coterie of leftist activists determined to destroy the Rights of Man, is frankly nonsense m
Of course you think that--becasue you are part of the left woke who wants to destroy the rights of man.
 
You aren't listening, are you? THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT NOT MURDER.

This is like saying "Well, legally, we do not recognize the law of gravity, therefore there is no law of gravity."

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Abortion is murder. This is not based on my "feelings" any more than whether gravity exists is based on how you feel about it.

They are WRONG. This is my point.

This does not mean abortion isn't murder. All it means is there are a lot of blind people-----who cannot think critically.
Gravity is one of the fundamentals of physics. Murder is a human construct, given the totality of human existence, a very recent construct. We as human societies, decide what is and is not murder. It isn't written in the stars or in the fabric of space-time. No human society considers abortion to be murder, even those where abortion is illegal.

Your personal opinions do not make other people WRONG however much you shout about it. You haven't even attempted to show a definition of murder that includes abortion, that exists outside your own head, let alone one that has the objective existence of gravity. Perhaps you are confused by the similarity in nomenclature between laws of physics, which are descriptive of reality, and laws of society, which are proscriptive and aspirational. There's no reality in which abortion is murder unless it is made so legally. Which it hasn't, isn't and won't be, given that those who make legislation are usually of average or above intelligence.
 
In the case of a baker--the government is attempting to compel speech from a baker that they find morally abhorrent. In the case of Christian colleges, the government is attempting to limit their ability to run their college according to the dictates of their conscience. They have to allow biological males who identify as female to use the female restroom. That is against the dictates of their conscience--not to mention reason.

If anyone is offended by Christian teachings, they can find another college. If the gay couple is offended that the baker cannot place gay symbols on a cake, they can find a baker who deals in gay weddings. It is similar to a Christmas store. That store sells Christmas items. Muslims are free to shop there if they want, but the store is not going to stop selling Christmas items becasue the Muslims is offended, nor is the store going to sell Muslim religions items becasue the Muslim demands it.

How so? Gay people are free to find bakers who deal in gay weddings and get whatever they want. People who are offended by Christian teachings at a Christian college or hospital or whatever--remain free to go to another college, hospital, whatever. So how is anyone interfering with anyone else's rights? You are "pro-choice" are you not? I can choose to run my business according to the dictates of my conscience. You can choose to do the same. People are free to choose which businesses to support based on their consciences, tates, likes, dislikes, etc.

That is just the point: why do our rights need to be curtailed? Why not just get the government out of both of our lives---and leave people free to choose for themselves? How hard is it for the transgender person to say "You know, the teachings of the Christian college offend me. I am not going there for college?" or the gay couple to say "This baker offends me. I am getting another baker?" How hard is that?

Of course you think that--becasue you are part of the left woke who wants to destroy the rights of man.
Are Christian colleges free to have whites only bathrooms? If not, why not and do you agree?
For many people, discrimination against trans people is as destructive and as vile as discrimination against black people. It hasn't been an issue for as long, so the rump of people who don't think that is large, though shrinking all the time.

And yes, it is exactly the same issue. You would not expect the line that Black people can always go to a non-Christian college where no-one has a moral objection to sharing bathrooms, to be acceptable.
 
It may well be. I can certainly see circumstances where crowds of people staring at you "praying" would be intimidating and harassing. I cannot see that prayer is the issue, or what is going on in someone's head. Apart from anything else, it is unprovable. The issue is presence in the PSPO and one's intentions and motivation for being there. As I said, there's a lot of legal argy bargy before anyone knows anything for sure.
To the person who denies the evidence, it may well be anything.
No Temujin, once again you have no idea about UK law or human rights. I have given you the video, the PSPO text and a barrister's opinion and still you imagine you know better.
Presence in the area is not described in the PSPO as a breach, praying is. You say YOU cant see a problem with praying yet that is the only breach of the PSPO.
 
Well, that certainly reduces the number of Christians in the world by a considerable margin. Leaving aside the fact that there are many atheists who are pro-life, I don't think that you have the authority to declare that anymore who supports abortion disqualifies themselves from being a Christian. Certainly, being racist doesn't, as history attests. That your personal interpretation of your faith tradition makes abortion unacceptable, I can quie accept. But there are others in your faith, and some I know personally including the mother of my grandson, who would disagree with you and would reject your views as intolerant and abhorrent in the eyes of Christ. The same can be said of all the major Christian traditions. Abortion is nowhere described as a salvic issue, except here perhaps.
Your opinion.
 
No-one is taking rights away. The limits are subject to change. The current fashion is such that your views are unpopular. The way you wish to exercise your rights and freedoms is such that it interferes with the rights and freedoms of other people. On balance, it is seen to be more reasonable to curtail yours than theirs. You have the right to complain, and you can always break the law and take the consequences. The notion that this is all the result of a small coterie of leftist activists determined to destroy the Rights of Man, is frankly nonsense m
Of course they are. ECHR articles 9-11. Obvious to anyone who isnt blinded to reality and evidence.

The UK Stasi police are loosing respect and trust
 
Gravity is one of the fundamentals of physics.
Correct.
Murder is a human construct, given the totality of human existence, a very recent construct.
No it is not a human construct--anymore than gravity is a human construct. It is true to say that there may have been times where people did not recognize murder as murder under certain conditions, but the moral law, like the scientific law is knowable and discoverable. In other words--even if in history, certain things that are now see as murder were not seen as murder then--that does not disprove an objective moral law.
We as human societies, decide what is and is not murder.
No we don't. But we do come to recognize moral truth. A lack of a recognition of moral truth does not disprove the existence of moral truth.
It isn't written in the stars or in the fabric of space-time.
Correct. Who said it was? Right and wrong are known becasue they are inscribed on the human heart. In other words-----the moral law is within us.
No human society considers abortion to be murder, even those where abortion is illegal.
I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Before Isaac Newton, no one understood or cared about gravity. That didn't mean gravity didn't exist.
Your personal opinions do not make other people WRONG however much you shout about it.
They aren't personal opinions.
You haven't even attempted to show a definition of murder that includes abortion, that exists outside your own head, let alone one that has the objective existence of gravity.
Why should the definition of murder include born people?
Perhaps you are confused by the similarity in nomenclature between laws of physics, which are descriptive of reality, and laws of society, which are proscriptive and aspirational.
The moral law is both proscriptive and descriptive.
There's no reality in which abortion is murder unless it is made so legally.
What does this have to do with anything?
Which it hasn't, isn't and won't be, given that those who make legislation are usually of average or above intelligence.
Again, how is this relevant?
 
Correct.

No it is not a human construct--anymore than gravity is a human construct. It is true to say that there may have been times where people did not recognize murder as murder under certain conditions, but the moral law, like the scientific law is knowable and discoverable. In other words--even if in history, certain things that are now see as murder were not seen as murder then--that does not disprove an objective moral law.

No we don't. But we do come to recognize moral truth. A lack of a recognition of moral truth does not disprove the existence of moral truth.

Correct. Who said it was? Right and wrong are known becasue they are inscribed on the human heart. In other words-----the moral law is within us.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Before Isaac Newton, no one understood or cared about gravity. That didn't mean gravity didn't exist.

They aren't personal opinions.

Why should the definition of murder include born people?

The moral law is both proscriptive and descriptive.

What does this have to do with anything?

Again, how is this relevant?
There's no such thing as moral law, just laws that some people consider to me moral.

The human heart is part of the cardiovascular system. Nothing is inscribed on it. What is within us is a shared genetic disposition towards collaborative behaviour, including altruism. Evolution have us that. The same evolution that have us bilharzia, parasitic wasps and the tapeworm. It's nothing to do with a Moral Law. It's a human trait that persists because it helps the species survive.

Of course they are personal opinions. If they were as you claim, you could do a post mortem and produce the inscription on the heart.

Historical views on morality have changed markedly, and continue to do so. It seems that the inscription on the heart keeps being rewritten.

The relevance is that murder is a legal term, not a moral one. Morals are a matter of individual opinion. Laws are a matter of collective opinion written into legislation. Neither has anything to do with an entirely mythical Moral Law, an invention promoted by those of a controlling disposition to justify interference in the legal activity of others.
 
Are Christian colleges free to have whites only bathrooms? If not, why not and do you agree?
And here you point out the one flaw in my reasoning that I am well aware of but do not know how to overcome---and something the liberal justices on the SCOTUS have expressed concerns about. It is a legitimate concern. How do we protect the right of bakers, colleges, etc, to run themselves according to the dictates of their conscience without going down the road of whites only bathrooms, or other racist practices?

Answers that may not be satisfactory but do attempt to interact with the question:

1) The baker is not refusing to service gay couples or sell them cakes. The baker is not refusing to allow gay couples to so business at their bakery. The baker is refusing to decorate a cake with speech they find abhorrent. This is no different from the white supremacist demanding a black baker decorate a cake with white supremacist symbols. The black baker in refusing to do so is not refusing service to the racist, but specifically refusing to decorate a cake with speech they find morally abhorrent.

2) The Christian college is not refusing service to "transgender" people. The transgender people are free to go to the college as anyone is who believes in the values of the college. Back in the time of white's only bathrooms, blacks were not even allowed to do business with the merchant. They were forbidden from being in the store because they were black.

3) One's ethnicity or race is not the same as one's gender. Race and ethnicity are different from gender. There is no fundamental or innate difference between a black person and a white person, save color. Any difference between them is merely external. In other words---the black person may have different cultural tastes and practices, the white person other cultural tastes and practices, but those are not fundamental. If a black person adopts cultural practices of those around them, or the white person adopts the cultural practices of those around them, that does not change who they are.

There IS a fundamental difference between a man and a woman. This fundamental difference is the reason we have male only bathrooms and female only bathrooms. Gender IS innate and biological whether the person recognizes this or not. A biological female is a female whether they recognize it or not, and whether they identify with it or not, and whether they have surgery to change this or not. Thus, they have to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender--at least at colleges that---do not throw reason, rationality and reality out the window, that is. Whatever personal tastes they have, cultural tastes, whatever the color of their skin or ethnicity, they are male or female.

People who argue about this leading down the path of "white's only bathrooms" make the mistake of assuming that gender and race are equivalent when, in fact, they are not. The reason for male/female bathrooms is not rooted in bigotry but the fundamental difference between males and females--and a respect for that difference and need for privacy due to that difference. The reason for "white's only" bathrooms was not due to some fundamental difference between whites' and blacks, but racism. But realize this works in the other direction too. What would stop blacks from having "black only" bathrooms, or "black only" businesses?

Though--a compromise would be a bathroom for males, famales, and for those who identify as neither or both or whatever--a bathroom for them.
For many people, discrimination against trans people is as destructive and as vile as discrimination against black people.
That is just the point: HOW is it discrimination to require a person to use the bathroom that corresponds to their biology? Why should we require businesses to enable their mental delusions? A biological woman is a woman. That she does not identify with her biology does not change this. That she may have had surgery to take on male attributes does not change this either. All you wind up with is a woman that looks like a man.
And yes, it is exactly the same issue. You would not expect the line that Black people can always go to a non-Christian college where no-one has a moral objection to sharing bathrooms, to be acceptable.
It is not the same as I have just explained.
 
There's no such thing as moral law, just laws that some people consider to me moral.

The human heart is part of the cardiovascular system. Nothing is inscribed on it. What is within us is a shared genetic disposition towards collaborative behaviour, including altruism. Evolution have us that. The same evolution that have us bilharzia, parasitic wasps and the tapeworm. It's nothing to do with a Moral Law. It's a human trait that persists because it helps the species survive.

Of course they are personal opinions. If they were as you claim, you could do a post mortem and produce the inscription on the heart.

Historical views on morality have changed markedly, and continue to do so. It seems that the inscription on the heart keeps being rewritten.

The relevance is that murder is a legal term, not a moral one. Morals are a matter of individual opinion. Laws are a matter of collective opinion written into legislation. Neither has anything to do with an entirely mythical Moral Law, an invention promoted by those of a controlling disposition to justify interference in the legal activity of others.
Thats marxist
 
There's no such thing as moral law, just laws that some people consider to be moral.
No, there is a moral law. Observing children at play bears this out. Watch when a child yells "No fair!" when something goes wrong. The children, without knowing religion or being able to think abstractly seem to know what the child is asserting even if they disagree--and if they disagree they attempt to show why it is fair. The point is that they all know--without having been formally taught what is being asserted.
The human heart is part of the cardiovascular system. Nothing is inscribed on it.
You know what I was talking about sir. You know full well that I was not talking about the human heart that pumps blood.
What is within us is a shared genetic disposition towards collaborative behaviour, including altruism. Evolution have us that. The same evolution that have us bilharzia, parasitic wasps and the tapeworm. It's nothing to do with a Moral Law. It's a human trait that persists because it helps the species survive.
Great. So we know how we have the values we have. We evolved them. Wonderful. Who cares? This is a red herring.

I am not asking you explain HOW we got the values we got, or the MECHANISM by which we got them. I am asking you WHY we have them, and whether they impose obligations on our behavior.

So--according to evolutionary biology, racism is bad becasue racist societies do not live to pass on their genes. They die out. That may be biologically speaking. But--do we have an obligation NOT to be racist? Do we have an obligation to combat racism? Are racists evil--or did they just not properly evolve the gene?

This is where the moral relativist finds himself or herself in a quandary. They essentially want to have their cake and eat it. They want to assert that we have an obligation to fight racism, and they want to assert that people should not be racist because it is abhorrent---but they know full well they have absolutely no basis for asserting this due to their relativism. The moral relativist behaves as if there are moral absolutes while denying that they are doing so and denying that there are moral absolutes--hoping the theist won't notice the slight of hand.

And--if in fact racists societies do not survive to pass on their genes, which is why racism is bad---why are there still racists? Did they just not evolve the gene? Why have we not evolved racism out of our genetics yet?
Of course they are personal opinions. If they were as you claim, you could do a post mortem and produce the inscription on the heart.
And yet--the moral relativist BEHAVES as if they are more than just opinion. The moral relativist behaves as though they are moral imperatives while denying that they are doing so.
Historical views on morality have changed markedly, and continue to do so. It seems that the inscription on the heart keeps being rewritten.
This has what to do with anything?
The relevance is that murder is a legal term, not a moral one.
Yes, I know. I am asking you why this matters. You are just restating a fact that for some reason you think is relevant.
Morals are a matter of individual opinion.
And yet the person who asserts this does not behave that way.
Laws are a matter of collective opinion written into legislation.
And yet people behave as if the laws are meant to reflect moral imperatives.
 
And here you point out the one flaw in my reasoning that I am well aware of but do not know how to overcome---and something the liberal justices on the SCOTUS have expressed concerns about. It is a legitimate concern. How do we protect the right of bakers, colleges, etc, to run themselves according to the dictates of their conscience without going down the road of whites only bathrooms, or other racist practices?

Answers that may not be satisfactory but do attempt to interact with the question:

1) The baker is not refusing to service gay couples or sell them cakes. The baker is not refusing to allow gay couples to so business at their bakery. The baker is refusing to decorate a cake with speech they find abhorrent. This is no different from the white supremacist demanding a black baker decorate a cake with white supremacist symbols. The black baker in refusing to do so is not refusing service to the racist, but specifically refusing to decorate a cake with speech they find morally abhorrent.

2) The Christian college is not refusing service to "transgender" people. The transgender people are free to go to the college as anyone is who believes in the values of the college. Back in the time of white's only bathrooms, blacks were not even allowed to do business with the merchant. They were forbidden from being in the store because they were black.

3) One's ethnicity or race is not the same as one's gender. Race and ethnicity are different from gender. There is no fundamental or innate difference between a black person and a white person, save color. Any difference between them is merely external. In other words---the black person may have different cultural tastes and practices, the white person other cultural tastes and practices, but those are not fundamental. If a black person adopts cultural practices of those around them, or the white person adopts the cultural practices of those around them, that does not change who they are.

There IS a fundamental difference between a man and a woman. This fundamental difference is the reason we have male only bathrooms and female only bathrooms. Gender IS innate and biological whether the person recognizes this or not. A biological female is a female whether they recognize it or not, and whether they identify with it or not, and whether they have surgery to change this or not. Thus, they have to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender--at least at colleges that---do not throw reason, rationality and reality out the window, that is. Whatever personal tastes they have, cultural tastes, whatever the color of their skin or ethnicity, they are male or female.

People who argue about this leading down the path of "white's only bathrooms" make the mistake of assuming that gender and race are equivalent when, in fact, they are not. The reason for male/female bathrooms is not rooted in bigotry but the fundamental difference between males and females--and a respect for that difference and need for privacy due to that difference. The reason for "white's only" bathrooms was not due to some fundamental difference between whites' and blacks, but racism. But realize this works in the other direction too. What would stop blacks from having "black only" bathrooms, or "black only" businesses?

Though--a compromise would be a bathroom for males, famales, and for those who identify as neither or both or whatever--a bathroom for them.

That is just the point: HOW is it discrimination to require a person to use the bathroom that corresponds to their biology? Why should we require businesses to enable their mental delusions? A biological woman is a woman. That she does not identify with her biology does not change this. That she may have had surgery to take on male attributes does not change this either. All you wind up with is a woman that looks like a man.

It is not the same as I have just explained.
For most of human history, and for most of the current world population, the notion of male only and female only bathrooms would be considered laughably eccentric. It is certainly not a biological requirement. It is absolutely a sociological requirement. Unisex bathrooms as a matter of course are perfectly feasible in any country capable of manufacturing toilet cubicle doors that fit. Single sex bathrooms are an artificial convention, not a moral imperative.

Your notions of sex and gender are confused. It's a myth that trans individuals are desperate to have surgery to "look like" the opposite sex. Most don't bother with surgery, which only alters the external genitalia. Most will use hormones to mimic the body shape of their chosen gender, in order to fit in more easily. Most do so successfully, such that you only notice the unsuccessful ones. They don't need to try to look like their chosen gender. They are their chosen gender. The mimicry is as much for your benefit as it is theirs.

The ultimate solution to the trans issue is a society that truly doesn't care what role a person chooses to play, who they have sex with or how they appear. A society that treats people on their merits according to the job they do, and the life they lead. All your moral hang ups would disappear. Of course, I recognise that someone who thinks that it is the Moral Law that men should use male only bathrooms, is going to struggle with a truly genderless society, but don't worry, you can only find it in science fiction and video games. Note, I say genderless, not sexless. Copulation, even for the purpose of reproduction, will always be with us. We are human, after all.
 
For most of human history, and for most of the current world population, the notion of male only and female only bathrooms would be considered laughably eccentric.
So?
It is certainly not a biological requirement. It is absolutely a sociological requirement. Unisex bathrooms as a matter of course are perfectly feasible in any country capable of manufacturing toilet cubicle doors that fit. Single sex bathrooms are an artificial convention, not a moral imperative.
They are for Christian colleges, sir.
Your notions of sex and gender are confused. It's a myth that trans individuals are desperate to have surgery to "look like" the opposite sex. Most don't bother with surgery, which only alters the external genitalia. Most will use hormones to mimic the body shape of their chosen gender, in order to fit in more easily. Most do so successfully, such that you only notice the unsuccessful ones. They don't need to try to look like their chosen gender. They are their chosen gender. The mimicry is as much for your benefit as it is theirs.
You miss the POINT sir. The POINT, sir, is that there are TWO genders. One's gender depends on objective, biological reality, not CHOICE--at least for those who can still reason. No one is their chosen gender. One is male or female regardless of their subjective whims and choices.
The ultimate solution to the trans issue is a society that truly doesn't care what role a person chooses to play, who they have sex with or how they appear.
Correct. I do not care what THEY want to do, I care what they want ME to do, sir. THEY can do whatever they want. The issue is what they want ME or MY BUSINESS, CHURCH, SCHOOL, etc, to do.
A society that treats people on their merits according to the job they do, and the life they lead. All your moral hang ups would disappear. Of course, I recognise that someone who thinks that it is the Moral Law that men should use male only bathrooms, is going to struggle with a truly genderless society, but don't worry, you can only find it in science fiction and video games. Note, I say genderless, not sexless. Copulation, even for the purpose of reproduction, will always be with us. We are human, after all.
Again, you miss the point.

In the end, the point is not how "trans" people want to live their live or what they want to do, the point is what they want ME to do.

Their freedom to be them is not an obligation on me to change anything of what I do in my house, business, church, school, hospital, college, etc. THAT is the ultimate point.
 
For most of human history, and for most of the current world population, the notion of male only and female only bathrooms would be considered laughably eccentric. It is certainly not a biological requirement. It is absolutely a sociological requirement. Unisex bathrooms as a matter of course are perfectly feasible in any country capable of manufacturing toilet cubicle doors that fit. Single sex bathrooms are an artificial convention, not a moral imperative.

Your notions of sex and gender are confused. It's a myth that trans individuals are desperate to have surgery to "look like" the opposite sex. Most don't bother with surgery, which only alters the external genitalia. Most will use hormones to mimic the body shape of their chosen gender, in order to fit in more easily. Most do so successfully, such that you only notice the unsuccessful ones. They don't need to try to look like their chosen gender. They are their chosen gender. The mimicry is as much for your benefit as it is theirs.

The ultimate solution to the trans issue is a society that truly doesn't care what role a person chooses to play, who they have sex with or how they appear. A society that treats people on their merits according to the job they do, and the life they lead. All your moral hang ups would disappear. Of course, I recognise that someone who thinks that it is the Moral Law that men should use male only bathrooms, is going to struggle with a truly genderless society, but don't worry, you can only find it in science fiction and video games. Note, I say genderless, not sexless. Copulation, even for the purpose of reproduction, will always be with us. We are human, after all.
You may be right that in human history there were no shared bathrooms.. but you will need to give some evidence or reasoning. In the UK its been legally segregated for most of human history. .. funny how you look outside the UK law when you choose it.
We know what sex is and have proved that your gender identity is a lie, yet you keep peddling it, presumably to try and convince yourself.
 
For most of human history, and for most of the current world population, the notion of male only and female only bathrooms would be considered laughably eccentric. It is certainly not a biological requirement. It is absolutely a sociological requirement. Unisex bathrooms as a matter of course are perfectly feasible in any country capable of manufacturing toilet cubicle doors that fit. Single sex bathrooms are an artificial convention, not a moral imperative.

Your notions of sex and gender are confused. It's a myth that trans individuals are desperate to have surgery to "look like" the opposite sex. Most don't bother with surgery, which only alters the external genitalia. Most will use hormones to mimic the body shape of their chosen gender, in order to fit in more easily. Most do so successfully, such that you only notice the unsuccessful ones. They don't need to try to look like their chosen gender. They are their chosen gender. The mimicry is as much for your benefit as it is theirs.

The ultimate solution to the trans issue is a society that truly doesn't care what role a person chooses to play, who they have sex with or how they appear. A society that treats people on their merits according to the job they do, and the life they lead. All your moral hang ups would disappear. Of course, I recognise that someone who thinks that it is the Moral Law that men should use male only bathrooms, is going to struggle with a truly genderless society, but don't worry, you can only find it in science fiction and video games. Note, I say genderless, not sexless. Copulation, even for the purpose of reproduction, will always be with us. We are human, after all.
The ultimate solution to lies is the truth. The ultimate solution to the lie of transgender, is the reality of biological sex.
A society that believes treats people with lies is a sick and degenerate society.
The solution is to kick gender identity trans ideology into the dustbin of history.
Smash it
 
No, there is a moral law. Observing children at play bears this out. Watch when a child yells "No fair!" when something goes wrong. The children, without knowing religion or being able to think abstractly seem to know what the child is asserting even if they disagree--and if they disagree they attempt to show why it is fair. The point is that they all know--without having been formally taught what is being asserted.
What they have been taught, and have innately, is a concept of fairness. What fair actually is, and how unfairness should be treated, is something they, and we as a society as a whole, work out for ourselves.

Great. So we know how we have the values we have. We evolved them. Wonderful. Who cares? This is a red herring.
No, evolution didn't give us values. It gave us the capacity to feel values. The values we have now are far distant from our pre civilisation ancestors. Social evolution has no biological basis. It moves much more quickly. All evolution does is give us a conscience. What we feel good or bad about is almost all down to where and when we were brought up.

I am not asking you explain HOW we got the values we got, or the MECHANISM by which we got them. I am asking you WHY we have them, and whether they impose obligations on our behavior.
We have them because we have evolved the capacity to have them and because the society we were brought up in inculcated them into our lives. And because our life experiences reinforced or changed these accepted mores. We impose obligations on ourselves, with differing degrees of success, on living according to our personal lights. We have expectations that others will conform to a large extent, because after all, others share our society and many of our experiences. We empower society to enforce some agreed obligations. All of which is dependent on society. Change or sweep away and replace that society, and the moral views of the individuals in it will change.

So--according to evolutionary biology, racism is bad becasue racist societies do not live to pass on their genes. They die out. That may be biologically speaking. But--do we have an obligation NOT to be racist? Do we have an obligation to combat racism? Are racists evil--or did they just not properly evolve the gene?
No. Evolution gives us the capacity to make moral decisions. It doesn't determine what they are. Indeed, it could well be argued that the persistence of racism is because at one time the demonisation of the other was a useful way of promoting one's own genes. Evolution gives us no obligations. We are not slaves to our genetic past. We have the capacity to make decisions based on intelligence rather than instinct, and to know when evolutionary impulses are not a good thing to act upon.

This is where the moral relativist finds himself or herself in a quandary. They essentially want to have their cake and eat it. They want to assert that we have an obligation to fight racism, and they want to assert that people should not be racist because it is abhorrent---but they know full well they have absolutely no basis for asserting this due to their relativism. The moral relativist behaves as if there are moral absolutes while denying that they are doing so and denying that there are moral absolutes--hoping the theist won't notice the slight of hand.
Wrong again. There's a drive to persuade society to act in accordance with one's own values, to persuade others that you are right. This isn't difficult for the most part, since you got your values from that society. Racism as a concept took a long time to arise, and then a long time to be considered morally wrong and will take a long time to eradicate.

And--if in fact racists societies do not survive to pass on their genes, which is why racism is bad---why are there still racists? Did they just not evolve the gene? Why have we not evolved racism out of our genetics yet?
Answered above. Plus, evolution doesn't do value judgement. It gives us the capacity to make value judgements for ourselves. And they vary from person to person just as you would expect.

And yet--the moral relativist BEHAVES as if they are more than just opinion. The moral relativist behaves as though they are moral imperatives while denying that they are doing so.
No, they don't. They live up to their own moral standards and try to persuade others to agree with them, just like everyone else, including you. The difference is that they don't argue that their moral standards are a Moral Law inscribed on the heart.
This has what to do with anything?

Yes, I know. I am asking you why this matters. You are just restating a fact that for some reason you think is relevant.

And yet the person who asserts this does not behave that way.

And yet people behave as if the laws are meant to reflect moral imperatives.
It has to do with the fact that you are wrong, which is why you are trying to dismiss it. There's no evidence of a fixed objective Moral Code. There is abundant evidence of a mutable and constantly shifting moral code.

Laws do reflect, to a point, the moral views of the majority of people in that society. In addition, obeying the laws of society is one of the more widely accepted moral imperatives, even when those law are not deemed moral in themselves. Nevertheless it remains the case, that morality is a personal judgement and law is a societal obligation.
 
So?

They are for Christian colleges, sir.

You miss the POINT sir. The POINT, sir, is that there are TWO genders. One's gender depends on objective, biological reality, not CHOICE--at least for those who can still reason. No one is their chosen gender. One is male or female regardless of their subjective whims and choices.

Correct. I do not care what THEY want to do, I care what they want ME to do, sir. THEY can do whatever they want. The issue is what they want ME or MY BUSINESS, CHURCH, SCHOOL, etc, to do.

Again, you miss the point.

In the end, the point is not how "trans" people want to live their live or what they want to do, the point is what they want ME to do.

Their freedom to be them is not an obligation on me to change anything of what I do in my house, business, church, school, hospital, college, etc. THAT is the ultimate point.
Don't shout. It doesn't make your position any less wrong. Gender is a construct of society. Many societies recognise more than two genders and have for millennia. Yours is an arrogant assumption that your minority viewpoint in your minority faith of a minority culture is some way TRUE because you shout it rather than provide any actual evidence. The evidence is against you. That there are only two genders is untrue. You are building your morality on sand. That's your privilege, just as it is mine to both disagree and show that you are wrong.
 
Romish is correct. A child cries out 'not fair' when something goes wrong or doesnt happen they way they want it.

Temujin's response is typical of woke which reckons children know best
 
Back
Top