Letters on Mabloggy Stuff

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Greasing the Skids

I watched your March 4, 2013 debate with Andrew Sullivan and your March 26, 2021 advice for Christians . I grew up with the LCMS version of Christianity and still hold a lot of the more conservative, that is to say bible based notions. On March 4, 2013, you said the harm in gay marriage was that it was greasing the skids for polygamy. I think you were right about greasing the skids though maybe not the exact direction. Surely legalizing gay marriage greased the skids for this transgender nonsense as well as promoting LGBT notions in the schools. In other words, we gave an inch and they took a mile. And, the transgender movement has caused irreversible damage to these children. On March 26, 2021, you said one move in our playbook should be to be done with secularism. Andrew Sullivan argued that gays are here and we need to find a way to deal with that (Not exact quote). Don’t you think, it is time for Conservative Christians to tell the public at large that Conservative Christians are here and our views are going to have a place at the table?

Also, on March 4, 2013, Andrew Sullivan promised to make good civil arguments and not Deus ex machina. But, if God is real and Jesus is God in the flesh as Christians say than isn’t Democracy and Secularism just a game we play? It seems to me that Sullivan’s arguments don’t take seriously enough that God is God. Though I grant that even in the Bible people didn’t like Theocratic rule but an alternative explanation is that they didn’t like Theocracy because they were sinful. What do you think?

Peter

Peter, yes. I think all that, and more. You are particularly correct that the skids were greasier than I imagined, and that they ran off in more directions at once than I imagined.

We’ve seen (and continue to see) attempts to “remove the stigma” from a wide range of issues ranging from sodomy to receiving welfare assistance from the government.

Is stigma always a bad thing? And can you explain how a Christian should view stigma?

Thank you for your ministry.

Regards,

Shimar

Shimar, stigma is yet one more inescapable concept. It is not whether there will be stigma associated with certain behaviors, but rather which behaviors will incur such stigma. There will either be social stigma for sodomy, or for disapproval of sodomy.

Battle Ground?

RE: Crossways at a Crossroads. Anyone from the team up in Moscow heading to the Negative World conference in the appropriately named Battle Ground, Washington? I was introduced to Renn and Rigney through Blog & Mablog and it sure looks like a timely conference.

Daniel

Daniel, it does look timely, and I wish I could go.

Trapped in Bitterness

I struggle greatly with bitterness, taking offense, and anger. Your dad’s book puts forward a fairly compelling argument from the Bible that they are sin. But I do find myself at a loss for how to overcome them. I believe some, but not all, of the struggle may stem from a lasting point of disagreement, or at least confusion. If someone performs what could be safely described as an offense against me, and I am offended at them for it, before I have acted or responded in any way, have I sinned then? Is the act of feeling offense and anger, in isolation, the point at which sin occurs? If so, could you please defend/explain that. If not, am I not allowed to articulate that what just occurred was offensive to me, and therefore would either request an explanation, apology, or reprieve to get back my composure before proceeding? Would articulating such things be sin? Again if so could you please defend that? Lastly, even if the above two are permissible and not sin, I know that is not the extent of the problem. Peter asked how often he should forgive his brother. At the Lord’s answer he then asked for more faith. How do we overcome bitterness toward close ones, lets say even spouses, who seem to continuously offend? And for the sake of argument lets just assume the offenses are genuine. I have attempted to confess my bitterness as the sin, but seems to give little in the way of power to follow through. I know that I am a sinner, and that my sin against God is greater than others sin against me. But if someone slugs me in the mouth I can forgive and probably never have to deal with them again in my life. If a close one slugs me, and repeatedly, and I have to make like nothing ever happened, and I have to deal with them afterwards and I am accused of wrong if I don’t do this perfectly, well this all seems a little over whelming and one sided.

Thanks for your help,

J

J, there is a lot here, and I will try to cover it with a metaphor. Being wounded is not a sin, and it is not a sin to bleed. But if you are instructed by your nurses to clean and dress the wound daily, and you do not do so, and the wound then gets infected, then that’s on you. Bitterness is the infection, not the initial wound. But a separate problem, one which you recognize, is when you get an ordinary paper cut, and want to be admitted to the ICU. And if you are particularly susceptible to taking offense, and it happens all the time, the chances are good that you are closer to the latter.

Aimee Byrd and Trueman

I must strongly agree with reader Mark who wrote in expressing concerns about your characterizations of Carl Trueman and his association with Aimee Byrd. I refuse to live by the standard where Christians must clearly distance themselves from anyone who draws the ire of the Truly Reformed. Lately this seems to include Tim Keller, the TGC crew, and so on.

This sectarianism/tribalism is probably one of the worst besetting sins of the Reformed World. We eat our own, can’t play nice with others, and always find a way to sneer or make snide, backhanded comments towards fellow Christians who aren’t as Pure as we would like.

I’m not unfriending or disfellowshipping my Charismatic, non-denominational, “Big Eva”-sympathetic, or other “weird” Christian friends so I can please the Reformed Club. Nor will I be making exhaustive, public statements enumerating everything I think my friends are wrong about so Truly Reformed people with control issues can sleep at night.

Matt

Matt, thanks, but you have things backwards. My comment about Trueman was that he had written a magnificent book, but one that revealed a blind spot close to home. That is hardly what you might call a slam. And I was very pleased and honored to meet Carl Trueman this last summer, when he spoke at the ACCS convention, one of our events. We invited him, and he was gracious enough to come. When do you think the ecumenical evangelicals will invite me to speak at one of their events? Right . . . when the swine get airborne. In short, we are ecumenical, and they are not. We are not the ones who shun, and they are. Shall I itemize for you the names of the people we have had lined up to do something with us who then cancelled when the pressure from the Bigs was applied?

Sexual Casuistry

Some time ago I had lengthy conversations with a friend of mine from China who was at the time a recent convert. Before he was saved he was involved sexually with his girlfriend and after he was saved we had conversations about why that should stop. As part of preparing for those conversations I was searching for biblical evidence that sex is only for those married. However, when looking at laws in the Old Testament, for example where a man and woman have sex the man is to pay the bride price, I began to wonder when God considers a couple to be married. I don’t see wedding ceremonies in Scripture, and for example in Genesis 24 it simply seems like Isaac taking Rebekah into his mother’s tent is when they are married. (I assume it wasn’t a modern wedding ceremony happening in his mother’s tent.)

1 Cor 6 also adds interesting information, where Paul says that one joined to (I read: has sex with) a prostitute becomes one body with her.

I’m curious where you would go to explain not having sex before marriage and also curious how you would answer the question “When, in the eyes of God, are a man and woman married?”

Thank you!

Cole

Cole, I will start with the latter question. A marriage has occurred when two conditions are met. The first is when a covenant is made, one that is enforceable by the surrounding society. The second is when the union is sexually consummated. Both conditions have to be fulfilled in order for the marriage to recognized as such. Different cultures have the authority to make different actions the performative action that creates the covenant—saying I do, throwing a wine glass in the fireplace, or going into the tent.

As far as your first question goes, I think a key there is remembering the distinction between what the law would identify as a sin and what the law would penalize as a crime.

Bahnsen and Zeihan?

I have been working through my D. Wilson reading assignments. I just finished Mis*inflation & End of the World last week, I am trying to overlay both of those information dense books into a cogent worldview realignment and formulate action plans for my family. I am eager to understand how you are doing this. Some thoughts on Mr. Zeihan’s book: He states “there is no point to history” that delusion is not supportable from a Christian viewpoint. My thoughts jumped to some easy implications of demographic collapse. As that fact becomes clear to public, the trends toward abortion, homosexuality & trans delusion evaporate like a fart in a hurricane. We are in a procreation all hands needed on deck situation. God works his will in astonishing ways! Psalm 2:1-12

It would be interesting to get Mr. Bahnsen’s take on the Zeihan prognostications. It seems that the push towards electricification evaporates in aforementioned hurricane. Extended African continental component supplies of cobalt seem iffy at best. Without that Elon will be installing Toyota sourced ICE engines in 2025 Teslas.

Like I said information dense . . .

God Bless You & your ministry,

Robert

Robert, I asked David what he thought of Zeihan, and he said I was the second person to ask him about it, and so he was going to check it out. But I haven’t heard anything yet. At the big picture level, the framework of both men seem consistent to me though.

Singleness and the Family

Thanks very much for this interesting post. I wanted to point you to a related post since this general distancing from family seems to be a growing phenomenon. Sam Allberry wrote along similar lines here:

Allberry’s piece is an abridged version taken from his recent book published by . . . wait for it . . . Crossway.

Several years ago I went through the Colson Fellows apologetics program, which I enjoyed very much. But a significant chunk of the reading was from authors who were same-sex attracted but willing to forego acting on their attraction for the sake of their faith. People like Allberry and Yuan, for example. But I sensed a pattern with these writers which involved a whiff of disenchantment with the family and a general notion that the church should reorganize itself around people like, well, Allberry and Yuan. It was at this time that I began to suspect that homosexuality is actually a manifestation of extreme self-absorption and that such self-absorption wasn’t limited to sexual expression. The idea that the church’s emphasis on the created order (i.e. family) should be rearranged around the circumstances of men and women who struggle with disordered sexual appetites is, it seems to me, another manifestation of self-absorption, albeit one cloaked in spiritual language.

At any rate, I have no other motivation for writing than to suggest that what you’re observing in your post is not a one-off but seems to be a growing theme among Christian writers who are same-sex attracted but celibate.

Warm regards,

Keith

Keith, thanks. I think you are correct about the trend, though I would want to place Allberry in a different place in that trend. I interviewed him in an episode of Man Rampant that you might want to check out. But you are correct . . . the issues regarding family seem much bigger than the matter of what turns you on.

Darla Advice Fallout

“Before there is a covenant, you are the final authority over whether there is even going to be a relationship at all. After a covenant is made, he becomes the final authority in the relationship.” What happens when the man abuses that authority and delegitimatizes himself in the marriage covenant through either adultery or abdication (whether intended abdication or not), and then realizes his sin and repents and begins to walk in his marriage according to God’s Word? Can that authority and rightful role as a biblical husband ever be established again?

JW

JW, yes, it can be established again, depending on how much damage he did. I have seen marriages restored gloriously, with the husband able to lead again. I have also seen them blow up. People are complicated. I have also seen a wife put up with a bunch of crap from her husband, for years, which continues until he repents . . . at which point she goes sour.

“If that starts to happen, he is content and she is exasperated.” This can also happen in a marriage. How should each spouse handle themselves then?

grh

GRH, it would all depend on how egregious the situation is. If it is really bad, they should really get counseling. If they need it, and he won’t, then at some point, she should send up a flare.

I’m enjoying your videos for ladies and considering their future husbands. Will you expound further on your last comment in “Laws of Attraction” about being sexual beings and having a knowledge of their testosterone? While fornication is obviously wrong, what wisdom do you have around physical affection before marriage while courting or engaged, i.e, hand holding, kissing, etc?

Eva

Eva, if you are not going to cook the roast, don’t preheat the oven.

I am thankful for your letters regarding dating, courtship, and marriage, but I have been increasingly wondering about how relevant it is outside of unique Christian subcultures like Moscow, ID. You recently discussed a situation that assumed the presence of a father actively helping his daughter get married. I was wondering: what percentage of people who came to Christ in the US after age 25 live in anything close to the kinds of cultural conditions you describe? How many of them have fathers who are (a) active, and (b) interested in approving potential suitors?

I meet a lot of kids who were converted via college ministries and the situation you describe is shockingly rare. And that brings me to an uncomfortable realization:

If you’re a Christian living in a place like Moscow, there do seem to be some cultural conditions you can (more or less) assume. And if you live in a place like Moscow, it’s also likely that you (more or less) have a stable family around you that loves Jesus and is invested in you.

But . . . if you live outside of it, you can’t assume these things. You are on your own. And you also can’t look to Moscow for much help on this, either, because Moscow is fundamentally unlike New York, Dallas, Miami, the San Fransisco Bay Area, LA, Chicago, and Houston in many significant ways (and a THIRD of the country—110 million people—live in a large city or one of its suburbs).

Thus we have a lot of Christians living in a lot of circumstances where marriage is either (a) unlikely, or (b) orders of magnitude more risky than if it were supported by a stronger Christian culture.

A sensible response to this seems to be spending yourself well while you’re unmarried (however long that lasts). With an increasing percentage of the church remaining unmarried for longer periods of time, how does one do that?

I hope to read your thoughts on this topic sometime, because—to be frank—hearing (again) how singleness is a curse/affliction/etc seems to lead many to a place of despair and discouragement. You know what doesn’t help dealing with a struggle? Spending lots of time thinking about how awful and terrible your struggle is.

The market for good wisdom on how to live a fruitful life while unmarried is wide open, because nobody seems to have anything meaningful to say here (and that includes the people currently writing books on singleness and endlessly lobbying for more church programs for unmarried people).

My main advice tends to be something like “work a ton and have a blast doing it.” I find unmarried people actually like this advice and find it helpful, but it’s other Christians who don’t like it. Part of the reason for the controversy seems to be because of the anti-vocational, anti-ambition sentiments in conservative Christianity (the only thing you’re really supposed to “go all out for” is being a missionary or some sort of ministry worker). Part of this seems to be Christians who have a case of “negative world denialism”: a refusal to accept that old cultural assumptions and life scripts *no longer work like they used to* and shaming those who point it out. And part of this seems to be how much conservative Christians love their easy, pat answers.

Thanks for writing on these topics, Pastor Wilson. God bless.

Anthony

Anthony, there is much value in what you are saying. Christians should work hard in their station, wherever that might be. But I have found that temptations to despair in the midst of unwanted singleness would be more likely to come about when the person is told that their sorrow is a positive blessing. And if you don’t have a supportive culture around you when it comes to your dating life, then an awareness of how it “could be” might be a help as you come up with a makeshift arrangement. E.g. a young lady with no dad could ask an older couple in her church to provide her with some accountability. That kind of thing.

Okay, I beg with my innermost being: Please, please write a book for women titled something like “How to Be the Kind of Woman the Kind of Man You Want to Marry Would Want to Marry.” Darn it, the men get the best books. I need guidance, but just oppositely (supposing Nancy could write it with you? Pretty please?). You’re the best adopted ‘Uncle’ Doug, and no, this is not Darla :) it’s another girl perplexed by unmarriageness. It’s a problem. A real problem. Do be so kind as to consider my plea—and whip out a book at your own leisure except from the girl’s perspective. I’d buy it! You and Nancy are both the best in the west. Do mention to Aunty “N” please. (Hoping I’m not overstepping my bounds in calling her that.) I firmly believe the Lord has good things. Albeit, I’m the type that’d just be home reading books all day and never try to ‘find’ anyone. I’m too scared. That’s really lame on my part though, but I’m just not the life of any party—that’d be my popular sister. I myself am a bookworm with nothing grand about me in particular. God loves me. A man though? Eh. I’m not quite catching anyone’s fancy. Well, I suppose I could become a nun, but that just goes against all logic!!! What a rotten life to be stuck never getting married. Even Luther’s wife Katherine Von Bora got married and she was a nun. I just don’t think I have the “it” that wins a husband. Whatever “it” is. Apparently my sisters have “it” because they are happily married. To be clearer: of all the sisters in Pride and Prejudice, I am the one who plays piano and is awkward at gatherings and told not to play. Socially I’m squeamish. Please consider the literary side—remember, I’ll buy the book! I’d read it frontwards and backwards (and won’t hold you responsible if I don’t see any results, but I would see results! With God-fearing writers like you and Nancy, how could I go wrong??) Praying for you that the Lord gives you a great book to write about the matter (so basically an exact opposite of the one that just recently came out on bookshelves). Cheers!

Another daughter, sister, friend, aunt, and person in Christ.

Another one

AO, you make a strong case . . .

Re: The Kill Switch and the Steering Wheel Pastor Wilson,

What advice would you give to an older unmarried woman (late 30s) who is in a family of unbelievers that live thousands of miles away? In attempting to apply the principle to my situation, where I am fully managing my own affairs, it is not clear how to navigate the “where is this heading” discussion without taking the steering wheel. Any advice would be much appreciated.

P.S. Your ministry has greatly blessed my walk with Christ. Having had no Christian influence during my upbringing, and having coming to saving faith much later in life, I have found your articles, podcasts, videos, and books helpful in learning to apply biblical principles to my life.

Kay

Kay, that is a most reasonable question. If there is no one to speak for you, then you must do it. But you must do it with a recognition of the temptation to take the lead. Your demeanor should be one of “I would love to be able to continue to follow you. Where are we going?” If his answer is blurry and inadequate, then you should decline his next invitation to go nowhere in particular. Resist the temptation to spell it out in detail. Share one third more than you want to initially, and once you get going, stop about one third of the way short of where you want to.

The Transgender CrossPolitic Thing

I have been greatly blessed by your ministry. My family and I have benefited from books and content from both you and your family. We’ve visited your community three times and seen biblical hospitality exemplified. I am extremely grateful for how the Lord has used you for His kingdom. I’m saddened by the division and damage provoked by the statements made on one of your recent shows. The same enemy that caused transgenderism would leverage this to cause disunity among the Bride of Christ. I am praying for humility, wisdom, and self-control, trusting the Lord will use even this to His good.

In Christ’s Love,

Scott

Scott, I agree that we don’t want any kind of rupture over that issue, and I believe that since you wrote the issue has largely been addressed.

Thank you for providing thoughtful articles and at least one “Man Rampant” episode highlighting the differences between blame and responsibility, especially in matters pertaining to the home, and linking that back to the Cross of Christ.

Do you think these same principles apply to the relationship the Church has with the culture? I am specifically referring to the Crosspolitic “Baptist theology caused transgenderism ” blowup. It seems to me that this is an area where we (the Church) all need to rise up and take responsibility for the problem and not grasp at straws to blame the husband for the wife’s sins.

Thank you for your ministry

Chris

Chris, yes. I believe the evangelical church as a whole needs to take responsibility for the condition of the culture.

Dictionary Battles

Regarding your views in Plodcast #245 regarding dictionary battles, the word that frequently comes up with different definitions in cultural power struggles is Freedom. In the midterm political contests both main parties are staking out the high ground on freedom. And both can make a reasonable claim on that position because of their respective definitions.

Tom

Tom, exactly so.

Leaving a Church

What are some principles you use for discerning if a matter is severe enough to leave a church? I ask because I attend what I believe is a faithful, Bible-believing church, but after spending a lot of time in the Canon Press/King’s Hall/confessional corner of the internet I notice the influence the Big Eva crowd has on the culture of the church. It appears the church culture is less family-oriented than I would like and looks at large families with a lot of skepticism. There’s also an emphasis on “gospel-centeredness,” I believe, to the exclusion of anything that’s not a issue of salvation or soteriology. Having recently been convicted towards some more conservative positions that differ from most, if not all, within the congregation (the practice of head coverings, postmillennialism, having a large family, etc.), I often find myself having to choose between being seen as weird/potentially quarrelsome or staying silent and not sharing my opinion on what Scripture says on these matters. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to attend and be involved when I don’t feel like I have any support on these issues, especially those regarding family. Any input or resources would be appreciated.

Tim

Tim, the first thing would be to make sure you are not actually being quarrelsome. Your demeanor should be consistently irenic. The second thing would be to ask if there are any reasonable alternatives. It could well be that this is the healthiest church in your area. And the third thing would be whether they are pressuring you to conform to the culture of the church in ways that would violate your conscience. If not, then I think you go to church with an “it takes all kinds” attitude.

I just watched your video, “Ask Doug: went to break communion with your local church”.

In it you mentioned that it’s perfectly reasonable to leave if you’re doing it for the sake of your children needing some peer-to-peer interaction and the church is drying up. Well what if you’re in a really small church, your kids have grown, there’s hardly any families with kids, there’s hardly anything going on and the church itself is drying up, and anemic? What do you do if your an elder but the other elders want to go in a direction with the church body that bothers your conscience, but not necessarily unbiblical or sinful? Is it ok to look for a church body that’s more robust, fruitful and like-minded? Thank you!!

Chenoa

Chenoa, yes, it would be lawful to leave. Just make sure you leave peaceably, and without a lot of commotion.

God has grown me tremendously in my understanding and actioning of assuming sacrificial responsibility of headship in my marriage over the past few years. Specifically, I have better clarity and understanding of Ephesians 5:22-28.

This leads me to my question. As God holds me directly responsible for the spiritual condition of my family. How do I best lovingly get my wife to follow me towards the church I believe God is calling our family to? We recently moved to Kentucky and have come to a crossroads on a church. She prefers a bigger non-denominational church with stadium seating and an ease to remain anonymous—read no accountability.

I would like us to go to a smaller church where accountability is built in. In fact, yesterday, I attended a church meeting and was blown away at how members were held accountable for lack of attendance, divorce without biblical justification and other issues. Furthermore, I see where there are tons of pregnant and post-pregnant women that my wife can join with (we just had our first child last week).

My wife is inherently shy and is stumbling with the thought of having to interact, but we need the community and Christian accountability in our lives and family.

Thanks!

Travis

Travis, I would encourage your wife to try. In other words, tell her that you would like to attend this small church for a couple of months, and then you will try the Big Box Church for a couple of months. As you attend the smaller church, you would be vocal about this being a test drive so no one thinks they chased you off. At the end, you sit down with your wife and talk it through. But then you would both be speaking on the basis of experience, and not ungrounded fears.

Femina Content

Thanks for keeping your blog going. I only happened upon it because I had a child reading Nate Wilson’s blog sometime ago (they were enthralled by his books). I myself used to read the Femina girls blog until all blogging from there completely just stopped. I’m sorry everyone stopped because I was a diligent reader and it had a positive effect. Will any of the women be blogging again soon? Thank you from a not-to-techie blog reader,

Priscilla

Priscilla, the girls aren’t blogging anymore, but they are still generating a great deal of content. Nancy has moved to her Femina podcast, and Rachel and Bekah have a podcast called What Have You.

Avuncular Eschatology

Dear Uncle (can I just refer to you as uncle now? It seems fitting.) I’m trying to understand eschatology and currently have been working through several of Gary Demar’s talks and conferences working through Matthew 24 and the preterist view. Thus far I’m pretty convinced and very thankful for the way he and those like him (I’d include your teaching on it during the Collision film) are very clear in how they use Scripture to interpret Scripture and don’t dance around difficult texts.

My question is about the word “age”. In Matthew 24:3 the disciples ask about the end of the age (Greek word aion). Demar uses this as part of saying that the following explanation is about the end of the Jewish age and not the end of the world. This makes good sense to me because it is not the word cosmos. But I’m curious for those who hold the preterist view, what does this do to Matthew 28:20? Jesus says that “I am with you always, to the end of the age (aion)” Does this promise of Christ’s merely last until AD 70?

I’m not sure your views on gifts either, but would this be an argument for the end of spiritual gifts? Perhaps Christ was with the apostles and churches in a unique way until AD 70 and then things change?

Would greatly appreciate any help you can provide in understanding these things, thank you.

Shea

Shea, the time between when those words were written and the end of the age were going to be particularly tumultuous, and I believe the Lord was making a particular promise for that time. But it would be a false inference to say that He would ditch the church after that. Imagine a husband saying to his wife—facing, say, a regimen of chemo—that he was going to be “with her all the way through this.” She should not then conclude that “after this,” he was going to pull a Lynyrd Skynyrd, and blow on down the road.

More on Peterson

Devin wrote concerning Jordan Peterson and I think your response was spot on. Jordan does not use the same Christianese language that we are accustomed to but his message is that the Bible and Christ sacrifice make a lot of sense from his perspective. He is speaking as a neuropsychologist, not as a theologian. If you read the comments on his videos it is amazing how many people credit Jordan for restoring their faith or helping them understand Christianity for the first time. I dare say many pastors have not been as effective as Jordan has been. Also if you watch his video on “Belief in God” he is clear. How dare anyone claim to be a Christian and not act like it ethically and morally. That is why he does not profess to be one. He does not believe he can live up to the claim.

Howard

Howard, thanks.

Christians and Student Loans

Could you address the real temptation that financially burdened Christians might feel to take advantage of the loan “forgiveness” program and why we ought to resist that urge? I’d be very curious to hear what you have to say.

Andrew

Andrew, I believe that if we really want to get free of statism, Christians need to learn how to refuse the benefits first.

As Biden has “forgiven” student loans I have a question and a related observation.

Question: I have student loans and this would get rid off all of my student loan debt. If I have to sign paperwork and go through a process to receive it should I pursue it or not? I feel like there is a difference between them dropping it right on my lap vs. Me pursuing it. Even if I did have to pursue it then should I take it and say thanks but I’m still not voting for you while I blow a raspberry? I guess if I’m a young man ready to start a family and pursuing a degree that I am paying for to become a pastor then would it be prudent to use Democrat stupidity to benefit my family and be more free for the kingdom in the future.

Observation: I’m noticing that in the student loan debate the liberals are becoming their view of God that they detest. I know atheists and liberals love to rail against a wrong view of substitutionary atonement because a cruel God kills his son blah blah blah, but now they like substitutions when it’s one group paying for another. The difference between Christ’s substitution is that Jesus did it voluntarily while tax payers get to be the substitute at the end of the gun of the 87000 new it’s agents.

Thank you and God bless

Shawn

Shawn, amen to your second point. On the first point, see above.

An Earlier Swing and a Miss

In Rules for Reformers, you stated, “Have your son try out for the girl’s shot put event. Make them say, ‘No, girls are different.'” What does”making your adversary live up to his own rules,” in that particular scenario now look like? Perhaps, “since men and women are the same, and in an effort to make it fair to all trans athletes, we should eliminate men’s and women’s sports and just have sports? now do scholarships, grants, etc . . . Perhaps we should eliminate affirmative action since anyone can be anything at any given moment?”

Would that be a fair application of this principle/tactic in these times?

Todd

Todd, when I wrote those words I had more confidence that a reductio ad absurdum would work than I should have had.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
69 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jsm
Jsm
2 months ago

Peterson’s video on belief in God may not reflect his current view. He has, since then , nearly died from ceasing to take prescription meds he took for anxiety that both didn’t help his anxiety and gave him all the bad side effects. He was prescribed these meds by another doctor to help him deal with his wife’s terminal cancer and the huge blow up he received for standing against the Canadian government’s attempt to regulate speech regarding trannies. Since then his wife has been miraculously healed from cancer, and has embraced faith in Christ and he has stopped taking… Read more »

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Jsm

I don’t know what the “latest” on Peterson’s spiritual account of himself is, but your information on his health is also somewhat outdated. He is back on an international tour, keeping a busy schedule, and speaking and writing constantly. He is much recovered from where he was a year ago.

Reed Bates
Reed Bates
2 months ago

When a loan goes bad, a loss will occur to one or more parties.
It is not whether, but for whom.
Bankruptcy court is designed to discharge those losses in an orderly and equitable way for all interested parties. Bypassing bankruptcy as a way to discharge bad student loans was foolish. (But seemed like a good solution for the simplistic thinking of a politician’s mind, and curried favor from those who originated those loans.) Can you say “moral hazard”?
Governments can try to shift the losses away from favored interests, but they cannot do away with them.

me
me
2 months ago

I’ve heard plenty of sour grapes from evangelicals on podcasts about Peterson. He gets criticized for not checking all the right church-speak boxes, and I doubt if he’s said a sinner’s prayer, so he’s not embraced in that subculture. I call it sour grapes because Peterson has and is stealing a big part of the audience that these folks were supposed to be helping all along. Young men want straight talk and common sense to show them how to live. Peterson does that where many (most?) evangelical churches can’t or won’t. I say God bless him, and I wish him… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago

C’mon, Matt. This has nothing to do with distancing “from anyone who draws the ire of the Truly Reformed.” The FV crowd drew more ire than the wokesters ever did. Mrs. Byrd has gone fully rogue by preaching in churches. Her problem (and with those defending her) is with the Bible. The same is true for those pro-Revoicers soft on sodomy, those squishy on abortion, those who went right along with long-term church lockdowns/masking/jab mandates and the rest of the Keller/TGC agenda. If you want to align yourself with those who always punch to the right and just want a… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by C Herrera
agblooms
agblooms
2 months ago

It was at this time that I began to suspect that homosexuality is actually a manifestation of extreme self-absorption and that such self-absorption wasn’t limited to sexual expression”

By definition, the homosexual wants someone with a body that mirrors his, not one that complements his.

Narcissism in a nutshell.

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  agblooms

I really believe that the majority of homosexuality we see today is about this, and have thought that for a long time. There has always been some small number of people who are twisted in such a way as to have unnatural desires for their own sake. But Lesbianism especially is in many cases obviously about not wanting to deal with the other sex and wanting to find fulfillment in a mirror image or idealized mirror image of one’s own self, rather than giving oneself to someone who is “other” in important ways.

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

There’s also an element of social incentive, in that identifying as a sexual pervert gives you clout and attention, as well as the opportunity to identity with a victim group if you’re a white gentile. I think this social element has particular pull with women, who are naturally more inclined to derive their self-worth from their position in the social hierarchy around them

Last edited 2 months ago by Armin
JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

Something like that I think, plus what Armin says about clout and attention, and then too bisexuality for women just seems to have become something that can be worn as a fashionable accessory. I do get the impression professing lesbians outnumber homosexual males, and are the ones primarily driving the agenda. Do you get that same impression?

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  agblooms

I don’t think any of this armchair psychologizing is all that helpful and I also think it’s mostly confirmation bias. I once heard a pro-gay preacher argue that homosexual love is actually superior to heterosexual love because he who loves Adam, loves him who is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27 explicitly states that “in the image of God created he HIM”) so loving Adam is a higher form of love than loving Eve. That argument, of course, is complete and utter BS and I’m certainly not endorsing it. But the point is that if you’re looking to… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike Freeman armchair psychologized: “No one really knows why same sex attraction exists.”

You must be no one, then. It’s easy: Man is sinful. Sometimes disgustingly so. But the good news is, Jesus died and rose to free people from same-sex attraction.

Since you’re here, perhaps you, as an out-and-proud Democrat, can explain to us just how your party reconciles its obsession with homosexuality with its slobbering love affair with Islam. I already know the answer, but I’d like to hear it straight from the donkey’s mouth. This should be good.

Last edited 2 months ago by The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago

They try to distance themselves from that and pretend it’s the Democrat party from 40 years ago. But when this freaky pair hold high positions and the Resident’s own press secretary boasts ““I am a black, gay, immigrant woman, the first of all three of those to hold this position,” it’s clear that identity politics and LGBTQ+ flaunting are part and parcel. Drag queen shows for 5-year olds, pornographic materials in the classroom, trans-madness pushed at the early ages and minors making their own sex change choices are what you voted for. Deal with it.


Mash.jpg
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I’m not nearly as sold on identity politics as some of my fellow Democrats, but I think your complaint is about 250 years too late. For most of our history, only white males with socially approved religious views would have even been considered for most government jobs. Nobody complained about identity politics then. It doesn’t strike me as the end of the world to give minorities the chance to catch up.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

How many government jobs were there 250 years ago, Mike? I guess you know the size of the government has exploded since FDR began turning us into a welfare state? The now incredibly corrupt DoJ started as a part-time job for one person. None of these unconstitutional alphabet agencies were around in the early days of the Republic, and very few worked for the government. So your point is largely moot. As for a “chance to catch up,” how many more decades of affirmative action do we need? Any idea how hard it is for a white male to get… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by C Herrera
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Yes, there is more government today than there was 250 years ago, but that’s not the point. A black woman would not have been considered for a seat on the Supreme Court until relatively recently, assuming she could have gotten a legal education in the first place. For most of our history, minorities were completely shut out of the most profitable parts of the economy. You can’t just tell them that OK, we’ll stop depriving you of opportunities; you have to take into account where they would be had they not been deprived of economic opportunity in the first place.… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

God may punish sins for several generations, but he absolutely never mandates that the civil government, church, employers or individuals EVER do the same. His standard is non-partiality, no matter the race or wealth status, which is the opposite. That’s clear in both the OT and NT, as his condemnation of homosexuality. I don’t know why you bring up such things anyway since you clearly don’t take the Bible seriously on abortion, homosexuality and other things.

Also, you’re trying to change the goalposts from government jobs (your original claim) to “the most profitable parts of the economy.”

Last edited 2 months ago by C Herrera
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Then why do you bring them up since there’s no point to it?

The actions of the civil government are often a collateral consequence of sin. But you know what? I hear almost no repentance from whites complaining about affirmative action for the way minorities were earlier treated. It’s all about you. Maybe the reason this continues as it does is the lack of repentance for past racism and an unwillingness to squarely face the racism that remains. Maybe the reason divine judgment continues is the lack of genuine repentance.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“ Nobody complained about identity politics then. It doesn’t strike me as the end of the world to give minorities the chance to catch up.” This is either a misrepresentation of, or a misunderstanding of, identity politics. Merely having say, an all black SCOTUS would not be in and of itself identity politics. Having all white or all male or all anything else in a particular position does not mean identity politics were at play at all, especially not in an overwhelmingly white majority candidate pool. No, they would have to have argued that you need specifically white politicians in order… Read more »

Prince of Tides
Prince of Tides
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Love your dress. We are all still waiting for the honeymoon photos.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

Approving of something, and thinking that those who practice that something are entitled to equal legal rights, are two separate issues. There are lots of religions I don’t approve of, but they are still entitled to tax exempt status, religious freedom, and all the other rights that come with the First Amendment. Unless you support closing down all religions that you disapprove of, you understand the concept. Same with a free press: I abhor much of the media, but it’s still protected by the First Amendment. And whatever one thinks of homosexuality or transgender, it’s constitutionally protected. Your argument is… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

” And whatever one thinks of homosexuality or transgender, it’s constitutionally protected. Your argument is with the Constitution.” Citations, please? Oh, wait, this is your “living Constitution” as determined by activist “scholars.” There are no special protections for such groups or requirements that private business or church/non-profit hire them or promote their agendas. If there are specific issues, it should be handled at the state level under the 10th Amendment. The same scholars who insist abortion and LGBTQ+ism (never found in the Constitution) are sooooo protected believe we can largely throw out much of the Bill of Rights (especially 1A, 2A,… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by C Herrera
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I don’t need living constitutionalism for this one, kiddo. The word “Internet” never appears in the Constitution either but that doesn’t mean the First Amendment has nothing to say on the subject. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to treat people equally. It must afford homosexuals the same rights as it affords heterosexuals. If it affords heterosexuals the right to marry, it must afford homosexuals the same right. It can allow both to marry, or forbid both to marry, but it may not pick and choose. Same theory under which it can’t say that only… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Wow, the “internet” comparison is a textbook false analogy. As for the 14th Amendment, exactly 0 of the people drafting it had SSM in mind, and all would be horrified if they knew it was used for that purpose back in 1866. I’m done here, as your “living constitution” has already been debunked and reduced to absurdity in many other posts.
Why the 14th Amendment is no mandate for same-sex ‘marriage’ – LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Cherrera, I already told you in an earlier thread that you’re one of the sloppiest thinkers I’ve ever encountered and you’ve said nothing here to change my mind.

How is it relevant what the authors of the 14th Amendment thought? The first rule of interpreting a law is what the law *says* and not what the drafters intended to say.

Jonathan (The Conservative One)
Jonathan (The Conservative One)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

It does not and cannot protect same-sex marriage because no such thing exists. It’s an oxymoron, and against the very definition of the term marriage until the wokesters changed the dictionary.

Thus, the gov could absolutely protect marriage while forbidding homosexual mirage, because they are not analogous.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

As a good Protestant I would argue that transubstantiation doesn’t exist either except as a figment of the Catholic imagination. Doesn’t mean it’s not protected by the First Amendment.

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Good luck getting people to agree with you that same-sex marriage is a religious practice. If it’s not, then the first amendment has nothing to do with it and the transubstantiation comparison is a non-starter.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jane
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, as a matter of constitutional law, all it takes is one person to say, “My religion requires me to enter into a same sex marriage” and it’s now protected by the First Amendment. But that wasn’t my point anyway. My point is that something doesn’t need to exist in reality. If it exists in the mind of a true believer, then the Constitution takes the belief seriously. That’s why the First Amendment would protect someone who believes in the Greek gods of Mount Olympus. Whether they exist in objective reality isn’t the point; the point is the true believer… Read more »

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Get back to me when someone says that in a court of law.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

I’d have to get back to you in 1944 because that’s been the law since then, See Ballard v. United States, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).

And you don’t want that to change, because the consequence would then be the government inquiring into the sincerity and truth of religious beliefs.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

Nor does the 14th Amendment have anything to do with it.

Prince of Tides
Prince of Tides
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, it’s no less a religious practice for same-sex marriages than were your vows in a church, before God. Or, for those who were married by a magistrate.

If you would venture out of your religious bubble from time to time, you just might receive a healing from homophobia.

I wish I had the same hope for your buddies Cherra & TCFKAfp. I fear their disease is terminal. But with God, all things are possible, just not probable.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago

Are you still a part of the mainline Episcopal church, Clay? Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, please re-read the Sodom and Gomorrah account. And read the many other places in the OT and NT where homosexuality is condemned. Stop mocking God by claiming He’ll change someone’s views to love and accept what He calls an abomination. And please cite verses where same-sex marriages or relationships were considered valid “religious practices” in the Bible.

The other option would be for you and Mike to drop the God/Christianity/Bible references altogether, since you don’t take any of it seriously.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

This is my last comment to you in this thread, but, oh, the projection in that claim. You make one fallacy after another and have no ethical/epistemological foundations beyond opinion polls and “living” documents that change every few years. You frequently change goalposts when things don’t go your way (like I noted earlier). By your standards, a “good thinker” would be one whose best arguments are spurious and worst ones are downright ludicrous.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Cherrera, always a pleasure. Like the peace of God, your logical contortions pass all understanding. But if it makes you feel better to believe that, knock yourself out.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

How is it relevant what the authors of the 14th Amendment thought? The first rule of interpreting a law is what the law *says* and not what the drafters intended to say.”

Do you need textualism and originalism explained? Because simply declaring your way as the only way is not a very compelling argument.

This is a message board of Bible believers. Do you really think no one here can come up with an example of text that, if interpreted literally word for word, rather than reading for intent, will be horribly misconstrued?

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

This is a message board of Bible believers. Do you really think no one here can come up with an example of text that, if interpreted literally word for word, rather than reading for intent, will be horribly misconstrued?”

Mike will respond once he heals from cutting off his hand and gouging out his eye. Doing what the law *says* can be painful sometimes!

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, trying to divine someone’s intent is basically reading tea leaves. I’m not a mind reader; I can’t guess what is going on inside your head. I can only go by what you say. Maybe you’re right that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn’t intend to protect homosexuals, but maybe they never thought about it and had no opinion one way or another. (I don’t imagine the issue came up much in the 1860s.) Maybe at least some of them would have supported extending it to cover sexual orientation. I don’t know, and neither do you, and unless you… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Homosexual men certainly do have the right to marry women, same as as heterosexual men. Heterosexual men have no right to enter into arrangements with other men and call it marriage. Equal protection. Of course the 14th Amendment does not provide protection for, let alone privilege, deviant behavior – and if you think it does I can point you to deviant behaviors you agree are not protected – and of course we are pretending here that “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are real categories instead of words made up by a deviant attempting to legitimize deviancy. We may have to live with… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to treat people equally. It must afford homosexuals the same rights as it affords heterosexuals.” And it does. A heterosexual man, and his homosexual twin brother have an exactly identical number of marriable targets, regardless of whether or not homosexual marriage is legal. The distinction you’re looking for is between the sexes, not the sexualities. If homosexual marriage is illegal, the law treats men and women differently, not straight and gay men. Of course then you run into the GIGANTIC bag of worms that is actually enforcing complete and… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, it does not matter whether gay marriage travels as sexual equality or sexual orientation equality. Forbidding gay marriage is based on the sexist stereotype that men should behave one way and women another. If a man can marry a woman, but not another man, that is simultaneously sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. And I shouldn’t have to explain that to someone with your theological leanings. Your whole paradigm is based on an order of creation argument that men were created to do certain things and women were created to do certain other things, It’s why your church doesn’t… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Male attraction to females is not sin. Male attraction to other males is sin. The former is natural, the other disordered.

Thank you for demonstrating that, once again, the concept of categories — not to mention knowing the difference between right and wrong — is way above your pay grade.

Speaking of your Democrat-induced brain damage, you still haven’t answered the question of just how you overcome the jet-turbine noise of your party’s cognitive dissonance when it comes to homosexuals and Muslims. It’s a wonder Ilhan Omar hasn’t thrown Sean Patrick Maloney off a building yet.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago

As for your last paragraph, you can add Matt Walsh’s recent Tweet: “Yes let’s listen to the people who want to castrate children, execute infants minutes before birth, abolish the police and put pornography in elementary schools about the dangers of extremism. They are experts on the subject after all.” Of course you could add much more if not for Twitter’s character limit. For example “who supported actual insurrectionists that made Jan. 6 look like a pre-school party in dozens of cities, to the tune of $2 billion+ in damage, over 30 deaths, hundreds of injured cops and dozens of… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Assuming you can actually find people who want to castrate children, execute infants minutes before birth, abolish the police and put pornography in elementary schools; such people primarily exist as boogeymen in right wing extremists’ imaginations. I suppose with 8 billion people on the planet you can probably find someone somewhere who believes just about anything, but I travel in left of center circles and I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who supports any of those positions.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

I wasn’t going to respond, but that’s such an easy slam dunk it’s hard to resist: Sex reassignment surgery for children is essentially castration for boys and it’s certainly supported by some in your party At least 6 states plus Washington D.C. allow abortion with no gestational limits. Tons of people called for defunding if not totally abolishing the police in 2020 and many still hold that view. Are you kidding? And replacing cops with social workers and psychologists is essentially the same thing. Here’s one of your beloved MSM sources: ‘Defund the police’ movement 6 months after killing of… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Cherrera, your problem is you’ve got no better sense than to believe what you read in right-wing media. Gender reassignment surgery is not done on children. It just isn’t. Yes, there are states with no time limit on abortion, but almost all last minute abortions happen because of a last minute discovery of a major medical problem. This meme that there are lots and lots of last minute abortions simply isn’t true. As I recall, nationwide, last year (before Roe was overturned) there were a grand total of 47, almost all of them because of medical complications that arose at… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike the Ostrich: “Gender reassignment surgery is not done on children. It just isn’t.” ABC Australia, Mar 16,2018: “Children with gender dysphoria no longer have to seek court approval to undergo surgery” Journal of Clinical Medicine: “An estimated 0.7% of the youth in the United States (ages 13–17) identify as transgender. Over the last decade, access to gender-affirming specialized surgical care has increased among adolescents and young adults. Gender-affirmation surgery has been established as an effective and medically indicated treatment for gender dysphoria [2]. Although most data on gender-affirming surgeries are from adult populations, there is growing literature establishing their… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

A quick google search produced hundreds of articles all saying that gender reassignment surgery is generally not available in the US for those under 18. Here are the top 2. As I told Cherrea, you really need to stop taking right-wing propaganda seriously: “Gender-reassignment surgery, which may include removing or creating penises, is only done by a handful of U.S. doctors, on patients at least 18 years old.” Sex-change treatment for kids on the rise – CBS News “Gender reassignment surgery is typically only available to those 18 and older in the United States.” PolitiFact | No, young children cannot… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“As I told Cherrea, you really need to stop taking right-wing propaganda seriously”

Says someone who takes both DNC propaganda and Google seriously. Search for any controversial/political topic and you’ll get pages of curated content lining up with what the Ministry of Truth wants. I’ve searched for popular articles (meaning they got lots of actual attention and hits, which should drive them to the top of the page) and they’re practically impossible to find or buried on the 10th page of search results. The same is true for so-called “dangerous misinformation” about COVID that turned out to be true.

Last edited 2 months ago by C Herrera
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Fine, so find me some citations that show the ones I’ve offered are wrong.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

I’ve provided them already and so has fp. And this issue isn’t about the number of times X thing has happened. I never made that claim to begin with. That’s like saying “I only smoke crack every other weekend so it’s no big deal.” The issue is these things have happened, they’re supported by some Democrats and most shockingly, there’s no consensus among Democrats to condemn them. 40 years ago no one in either party would believe what’s going on now. This includes a president insinuating half the Republic are dangerous would-be terrorists…while it’s Democratic-run cities where violence and crime… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Oh, and here’s one of those things that doesn’t happen…except when it does. A “trans” child gets her breasts chopped off. Aren’t you proud, Mike? Your party pushing its agenda through government schools and allies in the media and pop culture…to the point that large numbers of kids in some age brackets don’t know if they want to be boys or girls. And some make horrific decisions they later regret.

Child Chop.jpg
Last edited 2 months ago by C Herrera
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

You really need to stop taking left-wing propaganda seriously. Those surgeries are happening, and they’re happening to those under 18. You’d be a far more sympathetic figure if you just man up and admit that your claim is bunk.

The fact that you are trying to spin it away tells me that even you know deep down that what the transgender cult is pushing is wrong. But you, as a good Democrat, can’t condemn it, because it’s all about power and right now the transgenders are helping you in pursuit of that goal.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

Fine, so find me some citations that show that the ones I offered are wrong. The ones you already gave are about what is going on in Australia, not here, and the second one doesn’t support your claim.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Dude, all it took was one counter-example to defeat your claim, because you said it wasn’t happening, period. That the first cite was from Australia doesn’t matter; it’s still enough to discredit your claim. As for the second cite, 1) I didn’t make any claims, only refuted yours, and 2) apparently reading articles from medical journals is beyond your meager capabilities, so here’s something more your speed: Daily Mail: “How 800 children as young as 10 have been given sex change drugs: Huge rise in puberty-blocker jabs revealed as transgender 17-year-old who was born a boy claims the NHS treatment… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

Sorry, I misjudged you; I assumed you’d be smart enough to understand that I meant it wasn’t happening in the United States. And sex change drugs are not surgery.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

And I misjudged you; I assumed that, when presented with a citation from an actual medical journal stating that minors are in fact getting these types of surgeries in the United States, you’d be smart enough to admit your error and acknowledge reality.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

fp, the question is not whether the two are the same; the question is whether the law should treat them the same. Presbyterians and Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t the same either — one has a far more biblical theology than the other — but for purposes of the First Amendment, the law considers them to be on an equal footing. As for Muslims, I did respond to that, but apparently you’re too dense to have picked up on it, so here it is, in very, very simple words: The law must treat people the same. Neither Muslims nor homosexuals should face… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

When you lie, can you at at least try not to be so laughably bad at it? Every single left-wing utopia your comrades have ever created — Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China — have resulted in the squashing of dissent and massive bloodshed. And I love how you Democrats make a pious show of wrapping yourselves in the Constitution while actively working to destroy it. Equal protection under the law! No one should face discrimination! Yet, at every turn, you Democrats demonstrate that you: – Hate free speech (Biden administration telling social media companies… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

I certainly hope you feel better now that you have that out of your system. And I’m not going to write the 5000 word response that would be necessary to refute every nonsensical claim you’ve made, point by point. So just a couple of things. Neither the communists nor the Nazis are my comrades; I’m a capitalist who believes in the Bill of Rights, as are most Democrats. That said, living in civil society means there are going to be some restrictions on freedom just so people can live in peace with one another. You and I may disagree over… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

And I certainly hope you feel better now that you have that out of your system. Unlike you, I have no problem refuting your nonsensical claims point by point. Let’s get started, shall we? 1. Oh yeah, Democrats just looooove the Constitution. From an article in The New Republic entitled, “The Constitution Is the Crisis”:  “In fact, progressives might consider going even further—why not begin the push for a constitutional convention that would draw up a new document altogether? [T]he American left should work toward abolishing the Constitution someday—either for a new document or a new democratic order without a… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

So the New Republic speaks for all Democrats? Even if it did, attempting to amend the Constitution is fair game; it’s already been done 27 times. Do you think people who have been defamed should have the right to sue for defamation? Or that people whose speech consists of “give me all the money in the till or I’ll blow your head off” should be criminally prosecuted? If your answer is yes, you understand that not all speech is constitutionally protected, and we’re quibbling over where that line is to be drawn, not whether it exists. I think lies that… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

1) The New Republic was wanting to do away with the Constitution entirely, not amend it 2) When you’re flailing, you’re losing. We’re not talking about libel or threats here. Steven Crowder has been kicked off of YouTube for merely citing the CDC regarding the dread coof. We’re talking about your clear double standard when it comes to discrimination. Own it. 3) My side doesn’t suppress speech or assembly, so I’ve admitted no such thing. When a Democrat administration pressures social media to censor conservatives, that is suppression of speech. When Democrats all over the country use a hyped-up pandemic… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

First, the Constitution explicitly provides for a constitutional convention if there is enough support for it, so “getting rid of” the Constitution is fair game, so long as 3/4 of the states go along with it. Whether it would be a good idea is a different question, but such a process, if iniitated, would be a legitimate process. Second, Youtube is a private company that has the right to kick anyone off that they like and no, that’s not why Crowder was kicked off. He was kicked off for spreading disinformation in the middle of an attempt to combat a… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

First, three quarters of the states aren’t going to go along with getting rid of the Constitution, unless Democrats ran them. What was that you said about Democrats believing in the Bill of Rights? Second, if YouTube as a private company can discriminate against anyone they like, then so should Masterpiece Bakery — but that’s not how you Democrats roll, because equal protection is merely a blunt object with which to bludgeon your enemies, not a principle. And apparently, the CDC are now purveyors of misinformation, because it was their stuff Crowder shared that YouTube didn’t like. Third, merely saying… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago

A few days ago a J6 protester got 10 years for assaulting a cop. This Antifa terrorist got 5 years for trying to murder a cop by hitting him on the head with a metal baseball bat. Oh, and 1st degree arson and 1st degree reckless burning. He initially got bailed out unlike many J6 guys who went straight to jail/prison. He was also considered a strong suspect for attacking SPD East Precinct with Molotov Cocktails where doors were cemented shut, aiming to burn officers alive. How’s that for leftist privilege and a 2-tiered justice system? Antifa rioter sentenced to… Read more »

Rafael
Rafael
2 months ago

To Shea’s point on Matthew 28:20, the usual logic inference goes like: Jesus said that he would be with us “until the end of the age” and we believe that the “end of the age” he referred to is past, therefore Jesus would no longer be with us. But the same inference would be a problem if we assume “end of the age” to mean “end of the world”. Would we say that Jesus won’t be with us after the resurrection or however we define “end of the age”? In practice everyone believes that Jesus will ALSO be with us… Read more »

Shannon family
Shannon family
2 months ago

To the family that moved to KY looking for a smaller church:
We live in KY, specifically Louisville. Not sure where you are but we started at a mega church and now attend a faithful small PCA church called Community Presbyterian Church. It’s been so encouraging and helped our family grow and mature. No church is perfect, but we have been so thankful the Lord led our family here.

Mark
Mark
1 month ago

Doug: In your response to subject of “Sexual Casuistry” you say: A marriage has occurred when two conditions are met. The first is when a covenant is made, one that is enforceable by the surrounding society. The second is when the union is sexually consummated. While I agree that the first condition must always be met and see the second as normally necessary, I believe the couple is completely married when the covenant is made. (I realize there may be a few exceptions that could lead to annulment, but exceptions do not of necessity negate a principle.) While sexual intercourse… Read more »