Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why There Is (And Should Be) No Legal Right To Transgender Protections

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Transgenderism is when a person considers themselves to internally be the opposite sex of their physical body. They mentally “self-identify” in contradiction to the physical fact of their body sex. Transgender law advocates insist that self-identified “transgenders” be given legal right to have unfettered access to all public facilities currently reserved for one sex or the other (male and female restrooms, lockers, showers, women’s shelters, etc.) Obama has recently decreed that all schools that do not fully adopt transgender protections and policies will face the revocation of federal funding.

Usually, when a person believes they are something in contradiction to the physical facts (such as believing one is Napoleon, or believing one is a horse), we call that view delusional, because it is a persistent belief held in contradiction to physical facts. Believing that one is a “female” trapped in a male’s body is to consider female-ness something other than what it is, which is a designation based on physical facts. A man can have personality traits that are more in line with what are generally considered the personality traits of females, but having such personality traits doesn’t in fact make them a female “trapped” in a man’s body; it just makes them a man with some personality/psychological traits that are more generally considered to be that of females.

Should men (or women) be free to exhibit personality traits that are more in line with the opposite sex? Should they be allowed to dress like the opposite sex? Certainly. No one is arguing against that. However, should such people have the right to be legally accepted as actually being the opposite sex, for all legal intents and purposes? Should public institutions be forced to view them as the sex they personally identify with by allowing them full legal access to public facilities of the opposite sex?

This boils down to a simple question: should self-identifying personality traits that contradict physical facts be enforceable in the public sector as if those personality traits were physical facts? If a man self-identifies as a woman, should they be given access to all female-specific services and facilities? Should they be able to fill out employment forms and government forms, such as the census, as the opposite sex? Should public-funded school sports teams be required to allow men into women’s sports because they self-identify as women?

Logically, where does the right to self-identify in contradiction to physical facts end? Can I self-identify as a different race? A different age? Can I self-identify as having skills I physically do not have, as having talent I do not possess? Should the law force everyone to accept whatever anyone self-identifies as, regardless of what the physical facts are?

The reason transgenderism is not, and should not be, a legally protected right is because it is a set of personality/psychological traits where a person subjectively, mentally sees him- or herself as something they physically are not, or perhaps because they wish to display a personality that is somewhat in contradiction to social norms concerning gender. Society cannot legally enforce individual personality traits as if those traits represented physical reality or else chaos will ensue. Actual law must be grounded in physical reality, not in individual conceptions of self or individual personality traits. Society cannot, and should not, force everyone to treat such personality traits as if those personality traits represent physical reality. If a 40 year old man “sees himself” as a 4 year old child, am I legally bound to treat him as such? If a stranger insists they are my child or my parent, should such a personality trait have legal force?

These are not “slippery slope arguments”, these are the logical entailments of giving personality/psychological traits (that are in contradiction to physical facts) the full support and force of law. It is outright insanity. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all; it is attempting to break down any valid meaning to any law or right whatsoever if people can simply “self-identify” in contradiction to physical facts.

Comments
Mung,
Have you asked them to submit to a polygraph?
No.
Do you agree that how is different from what? It seems to me you are confused about that.
Could you elaborate? I honestly don't know what you're getting at.
Do you think that as long as science teachers teach in a psychologically pleasing manner that water does not consist of hydrogen and oxygen that what they teach ought to be acceptable? How science is taught ought to take precedence over what is taught. Right?
Wrong. I guess you're drawing an analogy here, but I think it's safe to say humans are much more complex than water molecules.daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
daveS:
Do you think my transgender acquaintances are lying in some way?
Have you asked them to submit to a polygraph? Do you agree that how is different from what? It seems to me you are confused about that. Do you think that as long as science teachers teach in a psychologically pleasing manner that water does not consist of hydrogen and oxygen that what they teach ought to be acceptable? How science is taught ought to take precedence over what is taught. Right?Mung
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
CF, I have spoken to the wider context, and it seems clear that my point stands; including the point that there are core, manifestly evident moral truths -- which you have never directly and cogently addressed, nor others who might have been expected to. I note as well that the premise of truth (pace Wm G Perry et al) and the touchstone truth claim of the Christian faith, Jesus of Nazareth and his passion including his resurrection witnessed by the 500 [which grounds the specific moral authority of that tradition], have also not been directly faced. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "you know or should know the wider rhetorical context of the relativist objection that there is disagreement on moral items;" There is disagreement on moral items even amongst objectivists. So what? "...meant to undermine the point that there is general, generally understood moral truth ..." My comments in this thread had nothing to do with the existence of moral truth. How many times do I have to repeat this? You are flogging a dead horse. "I have a perfect right to point to that wider context and correct the radical relativists’ view, whether or no you explicitly speak of it." And you have the right to try explain to me the dangers of smoking. But it would not make any sense since I have never smoked and never been a proponent of it. "That is, the Judaeo-Christian principle is not exceptional or in dis-harmony with the general moral governance of humanity. Instead, it fits right in." Have I claimed otherwise? All I have proposed is that people pick one faith over another because they believe that the moral assemblage of one better fits their perception of truth.clown fish
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
CF, you know or should know the wider rhetorical context of the relativist objection that there is disagreement on moral items; meant to undermine the point that there is general, generally understood moral truth . . . in the words of the sophists Plato addresses in The Laws, Bk X, "the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them." I have a perfect right to point to that wider context and correct the radical relativists' view, whether or no you explicitly speak of it. You also know or should know that a focal issue in this thread is that the manifestly evident core principles of the natural law are such that "no man is ignorant" as Hooker put it in the historically important clip I have cited from Locke. I have spoken to that context. Let me cite Locke's quote in his 2nd essay on civil gov't again:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
In the case of a point you have repeatedly brought up, I have pointed out that there is a very widely recognised principle of civil society, that honour should be given to whom or what honour is due (even to the point of actual laws of lese majeste that bear or have had relevant penalties) which is relevant to the Judaeo-Christian principle of solemn respect for God and his name; not least as dread eternal judge and ultimate Lord of all worlds. (In which context laws on contempt of court or of judges or of parliaments or of national symbols including rulers as living symbols are a very relevant point.) That is, the Judaeo-Christian principle is not exceptional or in dis-harmony with the general moral governance of humanity. Instead, it fits right in. A point that you have seemed rather hesitant to acknowledge as relevant to the repeated attempt to suggest that there is a sharp difference between the Judaeo-Christian teaching here and the practices of other religious traditions. And that is at minimum a reasonable point of balancing. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "In a wider context available to all, you have tried to focus an issue you labelled as unique to the Judaeo-Christian tradition..." Your intentional, or blatantly ignorant, misrepresentation of my comments is really becoming tiresome. Are you really so dense that you are incapable of reading what I write in the context in which it is written? Or do you have some paranoid guilt over your own faith that sees every comment that mentions Christianity as an attack on Christianity? At no point have I made any judgment, positive or negative, about Christianity or any other faith. All I have tried to do is examine the rationale for individuals selecting one faith over another. The fact that you are reading nefarious intentions into my words speaks volumes. And not to your favour.clown fish
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Mung,
daveS, Are lies any less lies when sweetly whispered?
No. Do you think my transgender acquaintances are lying in some way?daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Let's not forget how the killing of millions have been sugar-coated, because as we all know: A Spoonful Of SugarMung
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
daveS, Are lies any less lies when sweetly whispered?Mung
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
DS, the attritional crumbling of the core moral consensus of our civilisation has been going on a long time on many fronts. Including anecdotal cases that add up like grains of sand in a pile. The material problem is not one or two grains, it is the large scale pattern. And that problem is the eating out of the moral core of our civilisation which is now giving increasing free play to further and further radical -- and often implicitly nihilist (might/manipulation make 'right') -- pushes. The answer to such is to address the core: hold the pinning distractions without over-committing effort, focus strength at the decisive point instead of allowing it to be critically undermined. Where the point is, a clear distraction game so the core needs focus. Right now it looks to me like only after things crash hard will there be a willingness to rethink, but the likelihood is that the crash will break the back of our civilisation in a geostrategically dangerous age. An utter march of folly, and I suggest those who are sober minded will find the example of the Peloponnesian war all too relevant . . . ponder the course of the ill-founded and poorly executed expedition to Sicily and what it cost Athens as the wrong decisions were made over and over in an overconfident atmosphere. I suspect posterity will rise up in their grief and call our generation, for cause, accursed. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, as you know, that is not what is happening. And, consider impact on family, cumulated. KF
That is what is happening with the two transgender people I know of, as far as one can tell. Feel free to consider it as a hypothetical if you prefer. If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any “special rights” and so forth, is that ok? Recall that you have just accused some of the posters here of "ducking" certain issues.daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
CF, again, the focal issue for the thread is clear. In a wider context available to all, you have tried to focus an issue you labelled as unique to the Judaeo-Christian tradition; which I showed is actually an example of a much broader and general principle of civil society -- honor to whom (and what) honour is due, quite often protected by actual laws such as those of lese majeste. The attempt to single out fails, and the distractive effect of repeated tangents while what is central is not squarely faced, is noted. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
DS, as you know, that is not what is happening. And, consider impact on family, cumulated. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "CF, the point is quite clear: honour to whom or what honour is due (rather than raillery or gross disrespect ..." Except that is not the point I was making. I did not, at any time, suggest that anyone disrespect other faiths. Or their moral positions. My point is very clear. The fact that you can't understand it, or chose not to, is, frankly, unbelievable. But I have noticed that, although you have responded to my comments that were not directed at you, you have completely avoided my questions that were directed at you @328 and 329. Repeated at 332. That is very telling.clown fish
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
KF, Speaking of ducking :-) is there a yes/no answer to:
If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any “special rights” and so forth, is that ok?
daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
F/N: Notice, how CF and others have consistently ducked addressing the framework of analysis that draws out the in-common core of the natural moral law. That is a clue that we need to highlight it. And for that let us use Hooker as cited by Locke and then draw out some principles step by step. This is what is in substantial unity or should be -- and it is where it points: _______________ >>John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident moral truths. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>> ________________ This is a case of looking for what is being constantly smoke-screened off and evaded by determined opponents, as that is obviously what they do not wish to face. Which is revealing. Especially, as we bring the OP back to focus -- the latest radical progressivist agenda item being pushed under name of equal rights (as in if you object you can only be an X-phobe and bigot) -- and highlight point 7:
even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.
KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
CF, the point is quite clear: honour to whom or what honour is due (rather than raillery or gross disrespect -- if abroad do you stand in respect for another country's anthem?), an important and patently legitimate premise of civility. Enough on yet another tangent. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: ". In short, respect for God is not an arbitrary or isolated demand, it is a part of much broader principles of respect and honour." Which is fine for your faith. And I respect that. But not all faiths have that demand. Are they wrong? Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that homosexuality is a sin. Hindu and American Indians do not. Do you believe that their position on this is equal to the Christian, Jewish and Muslim position? You have failed to explain to me how the individual selection of faith does not boil down to a choice of the one that conforms best to how the individual perceives the world. How he thinks it fits in with what he perceives to be true. Which one he perceives to have a superior assemblage of morals.clown fish
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, Observe OP and other contexts. KF
Well, the OP and other contexts don't indicate to me there's anything wrong with a genetically male person presenting as a female person, in itself.daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
DS, Observe OP and other contexts. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, is it appropriate for a man to go about projecting himself as if he were a woman? What onward implications of this are becoming evident as we speak? KF
I don't find anything about "genetically" male people presenting themselves as women (in itself) inappropriate. Onward implications? Such as? Naturally, issues will arise as people become more aware of this phenomenon, but it's not new by any means.daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
CF, first kindly cf the focus of the OP and what you have been raising. Then note that insofar as there is relevance, you have consistently focussed on divergent opinions as opposed to evident core principles of the natural law. Third, I pointed the issue of lese majeste to show a much broader context of the importance and moral significance of respect for majesty; this is the broader context in which there is a clear link to much broader principles of honour to whom honour is due and indeed to what honour is due. In short, respect for God is not an arbitrary or isolated demand, it is a part of much broader principles of respect and honour. I find it strange indeed that I would have to spell out such. I add, the context of reasons for worldview choice, that for the priority of truth and that for response to evident truth of the gospel were already given as links, however you passed by such in silence. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
KairosFocus: CF, heard of outrageous arrogance [= hubris] manifested as lese majeste? Now ponder such as directed against God, and particularly in the form of misusing his name. KF" Do you make it a habit to intentionally misrepresent what other people are saying, or do you reserve this privilege for those who you disagree with? Please read my comments carefully. I never said anything about whether taking the Lord's name in vain was good or bad. I simply said that not all faiths have this restriction. Which is patently true. This is one of the assemblage of moral values which, I presume, you feel is better than that of other faiths that do not have it. I am not making a statement of judgement, just a proposal that I think is blatantly obvious. Faiths are different. There has to be some rational reason for an individual to select one over another.clown fish
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
KairosFocus: "CF, I observe you consistently shifting focus to opinion clashes." I have not shifted my focus at all. My discussion with Vividbleu was always about opinion. It did not attempt, at any time, to address truth in any fashion. The fact that you have refused to accept this and chose rather to make an accusation that is clearly and evidently false to anyone reading along, does not speak well for you.clown fish
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
CF, heard of outrageous arrogance [= hubris] manifested as lese majeste? Now ponder such as directed against God, and particularly in the form of misusing his name. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
DS, is it appropriate for a man to go about projecting himself as if he were a woman? What onward implications of this are becoming evident as we speak? KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
clown fish:
What about the prohibition against taking the Lord’s name in vain, or of having no graven images?
What about them?
These are part of the moral assemblage of Judeo-Christian faiths, but not in all faiths.
So?
“Who exactly is claiming moral superiority?” I never said that anyone is claiming this. I am saying that people think this.
So they think it but don't say it. You're a mind reader then.Mung
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, one should respond appropriately to one’s sex and to relevant moral governance. KF
Hm. I expected that you would forthrightly agree (or perhaps disagree) with the statement I posted in #350. Maybe I misread your position. If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any "special rights" and so forth, is that ok?daveS
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
F/N: Let us lay out the core Christian moral teaching in the words of its founder, to make clear exactly what we discuss here -- let us see if this comes across as arrogant and arbitrary imposition or as a humbling but all too familiar challenge: _________________ >>Matthew 5-7English Standard Version (ESV) The Sermon on the Mount 5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. The Beatitudes 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Salt and Light 13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. Christ Came to Fulfill the Law 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Anger 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother[c] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell[e] of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.[f] Lust 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. Divorce 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Oaths 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g] Retaliation 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Giving to the Needy 6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. The Lord's Prayer 5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.[j] 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,[k] on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,[l] 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[m] 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Fasting 16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Lay Up Treasures in Heaven 19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[n] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.[o] Do Not Be Anxious 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[p] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Judging Others 7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. Ask, and It Will Be Given 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! The Golden Rule 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[q] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. A Tree and Its Fruit 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. I Never Knew You 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Build Your House on the Rock 24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” The Authority of Jesus 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. Footnotes: Matthew 5:9 Greek huioi; see Preface Matthew 5:16 Or house. 16Let your light so shine before others that Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts insert without cause Matthew 5:22 Greek says Raca to (a term of abuse) Matthew 5:22 Greek Gehenna; also verses 29, 30 Matthew 5:26 Greek kodrantes, Roman copper coin (Latin quadrans) worth about 1/64 of a denarius (which was a day's wage for a laborer) Matthew 5:37 Or the evil one Matthew 5:40 Greek chiton, a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin Matthew 5:47 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters Matthew 6:9 Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence Matthew 6:10 Or Let your kingdom come, let your will be done Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one; some manuscripts add For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen Matthew 6:19 Or worm; also verse 20 Matthew 6:24 Greek mammon, a Semitic word for money or possessions Matthew 6:27 Or a single cubit to his stature; a cubit was about 18 inches or 45 centimeters Matthew 7:13 Some manuscripts For the way is wide and easy English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.>> _________________ KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
CF, I observe you consistently shifting focus to opinion clashes. I noted and responded to that i/l/o the wider context of ongoing history of ideas in our time. I also note that the Judaeo-Christian framework of thought explicitly endorses the relevance of manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law; indeed specifically identifying the properly functioning conscience and the sense of oughtness it points to as a key guide, a candle within. Also, to the significance of morally freighted wisdom as opposed to simplicity, folly and committed willful evil. KFkairosfocus
May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply