Lewis the Mentor
Your recent article on privilege reminded me of some other words from Screwtape’s author: “When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget but as an ideal we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority . . . Every intrusion of the spirit that says ‘I’m as good as you’ into our personal and spiritual life is to be resisted just as jealously as every intrusion of bureaucracy or privilege into our politics.” It appears you are in good company on this topic.
Daniel
Daniel, so it would appear. But, truth be told, I learned a great deal of it from him. I am in good company because in many respects, on many topics, I am tagging along behind.
Making Grammar Exciting Again
Apropos of no particular post . . . Pastor Wilson, I have been following your writing since the early newsletter days of Credenda Agenda, have read most of your books, and was a member of a Phoenix CREC church before it folded a few years ago. All that to say, I value your wisdom on many fronts. I am a manager in a high tech company and believe there will come a time in the near future when I will be confronted with the LGBTQ juggernaut and put in a position where I must say “I refuse to comply” with the certain consequence of my 28-year-career at the company either severely threatened or coming to an end. I have many scenarios swirling in my head for how this might look, but let’s say it is something like a seminar for managers on how to promote being an ally of transgendered employees by promoting the use of their preferred pronouns. The responses that tick through my mental menu range from starting with a “by what standard” presuppositional argument that would likely go over the heads of most to a reductio ad absurdum that would certainly offend, but get the point across. How would you respond in such a scenario, where the seminar leader or high-level manager goes around the room asking for manager pledges to promote or use preferred pronouns as a matter of company policy? I’m not in search of a job-saving answer, but one that honors our Lord Jesus Christ as certainly as it guarantees my dismissal from a company I’ve honorably served for almost 30 years with a good reputation.
Jon
Jon, very sorry to hear your dilemma—shared, as I am sure you know, by many believers scattered throughout corporate America. It is very difficult to judge the ins and outs before they have arisen, but I think that the best approach would be a gracious but flat refusal to tinker with any pronouns, followed by meticulous record-keeping on what happens next. The battle is over who will be “ridiculous”—the one who is fired over a pronoun, or the one who fires over a pronoun. It is currently the former, but I am seeing signs that it may break the other way.
On Not Wasting Your White Privilege
Great article. I’m very grateful for how thoroughly you insist on running ideas through the grid of Scripture; it has developed a great deal of my thought and has made me aware of what the Book does and doesn’t say in many areas. I also want to mention what a blessing your (somewhat) recent sermon on The Resurrection of the Body was. I listened to it today at work and was very strengthened in the Lord. I pray for you that God would bless and protect you, and that he would keep you pastoring many people, steadfast until the end.
Dave
Dave, thanks so much for the prayers
Are you a bassist? ;)
Steven
Steven, no, although I have played a time or two. But if I were a bassist, I am afraid it wouldn’t be out of central casting.
I think about privilege too much, I’ll admit that. I think the reason is that we are bombarded by it. But I’ve considered that my greatest privilege is not my whiteness, but that I was raised by Christian parents in a Christian home and in a Bible-believing church. Things weren’t perfect, but much better than many other situations. It would be absurd of me to repent of this privilege. This privilege is a wonderful thing. Many others have it and I am happy for them. Many have more of the same type of privilege and I am happy for them. I wish everyone had this privilege. Sin should be repented of. Privilege should not be. Not this privilege nor any other. When I look into the Bible, the privilege that jumps out at me is Jewish privilege. There are many things that the Jews, the OT covenant people of God had to repent from, but being the covenant people of God was never one of them. If privilege was a bad thing, God would have said so. “What advantage has the Jew? . . . Much in every way.” Now it is not enough to be of the circumcision or to have Christian parents, but it is a great start. It is a privilege. Let the world be filled with the knowledge of God and extend that privilege to every child born. May God grant us to hate sin, not privilege. And may He grant we hate sin more than oppression, cancer or sadness. And I, for one, think John Piper would approve, though he would caution against the softness that white privilege may lead us toward.
Nathan
Nathan, exactly right. What is the difference between “privilege” and “blessing”?
I just got back from Guatemala. We heard a young lady tell us her mother started selling her to men when she was four years old. I don’t think people who complain about “privilege” in this country truly understand what the word means.
Dan
Dan, exactly.
Wut?
Been gone awhile. Checked back for some stimulating reading and find this site has turned into Twitter.
Ken
Ken, perhaps I would be more bothered by the jibe if I knew what you were talking about.
The White Water of Affliction
Awesome picture! I sent this to our pastor and the rest of the deacon board to read. I did add the following, expanding one of your points a bit further “I would add that the white water he speaks of may slow or speed our course and may change our direction slightly, but will not change where the river ends!”
Charlie
Charlie, thanks.
Tiny Jesus
I have spent about ten years reading your blog regularly. I started reading it right after I was saved in 2008. This means that a lot of what you teach has become ingrained in my assumptions in such a way that I am routinely surprised to learn that most other Christians do not believe the same things. For instance, you teach that Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, and that he therefore has authority over the public square. However, most Christians I know do not believe this. Most of the conservative Christians I know do not believe that our Christian faith should follow us into the voting booth. They do not believe that abortion should be outlawed, they do not believe that Christian bakers have the right to refuse service to a gay couple, etc. So my question is this: how do you defend the lordship of Christ among conservative Christians who already believe all the right things regarding the gospel, the sovereignty of God, etc.? It’s easy to proclaim the lordship of Christ to secularists and Muslims, since they are well accustomed to a worldview where their god has authority over every aspect of life. But where do you start with Christians who will grant all your religious convictions but still say that those convictions have no bearing in the political realm? The total and complete lordship of Christ is something that I have taken so much for granted that I don’t even know how to defend it among Christians who don’t believe in it. Thank you for your blogging ministry!
Andrew
Andrew, the problem really is a puzzlement. I would ask them if Jesus is being tiny with regard to the world because He can’t be bigger, or if He doesn’t want to be bigger. If the former, what happened to His power. If the latter, what happened to His love? In fact, I would probably quietly assume it is the latter answer (because it probably is) and reduce the question in your conversations with them to why Jesus is so unloving? Leaving us here like this, etc.
Heads Down
How do we distinguish between appeasement and faithfulness under cover? If we know we’re not in position to be an Elijah (and are pretty sure we’re not a prophet of Ba’al), but want to make sure we are a lot more like Obadiah (in Kings) than Hananiah (in Jeremiah). I’m a chaplain in jail, and while we have a fair amount of freedom while conducting religious services, we have to be very judicious in how we interact with officers and staff, as well as inmates who have not requested religious services (or who have requested non-Christian religious services, which we have some hand in administrating access to) and the local church. As someone who ostensibly represents a broad sampling of the church to the jail (we are essentially locally-funded missionaries) and strives to connect inmates to churches of a similarly broad spectrum (let’s face it, most won’t be coming through CREC doors anytime soon, even if they could drive to get there), what are some broad principles you would commend for maintaining faithfulness in a position such as this?
Brian
Brian, it sounds like to me you have the right patterns in front of you, one to emulate and the other to avoid. Make sure you maintain your freedom to speak the truth to those you are ministering to, and that they don’t get to tell you to say something positively false to those you are not ministering to.
More Death Penalty Stuff
Sir, if I may follow up my previous question—I just listened to the recent discussion with Joel McDurmon on “Iron Sharpens Iron.” Fascinating, but further underscores in my mind the importance of the exaples of Hosea and David: Joel argued that the death penalty laws were absolute and gave no exception (arguing the example of the Kings was a “description” rather than a “prescription”). However, the words of God’s prophet to David the adulterer were “You shall not die,” and God’ command to Hosea was to go and love a woman “who is an adulteress.” These particular cases are decrees from God, not “descriptions” of what fallible people did. I thus find your observation inescapable that the OT death penalty laws could not have been absolute or without exception, even for the Old Testament saints. But I am still unclear about the OT principle behind this, and am very interested in better understanding it. Would appreciate any further thoughts or direction for study.
Daniel
Daniel, correct. And the description of the kings I cited was a description that included the sacred historian telling us that they did right in the sight of the Lord. The principle, as I understand it, is that the law itself establishes the base line—it instructs us on the meaning of holiness. Penology is of course relevant, but if we see variations in Scripture, we are allowed to take instruction from those variations. Which is why I say that there are circumstances where death could be an appropriate penalty for adultery, but would resist any attempt to make such a penalty mandatory.
More on the Gifts
In the last letter of the March 6th mailbag, you responded to a reader who asked you to address New Apostolic Reformation / Prophecy. You mentioned you wanted to write something more on that. I’d like to ask a few related questions, particularly about prophecy and the idea of listening for God’s voice. How would you assess and describe these situations? 1. You pray the psalm—search me, O God and know my heart . . . see if there be any wicked way in me. After you pray, you sense conviction over sin that wasn’t previously there. Have you ‘heard God speak to you?’ (since the content of the conviction isn’t in the text?) 2. You are going about your daily business and suddenly you sense a strong burden to pray for someone. 3. Similarly, you are out and about, going about your daily business, and suddenly you have a strong sense that you should go share the gospel with someone you see. (Is it ok to say, that you sensed God wanted you to go share? How about ‘I sense God spoke to me’) 4. One more. You are going about your day, and in a moment of quiet, you are overwhelmed with gratitude for God’s grace in making you His child. On the basis of Romans 8:16, is it ok to say that God spoke (testified) with your spirit that you are his child? I teach in Asia. There are several people I value that value ‘listening prayer.’ The argument is that if God can convict us, burden us in prayer, nudge us to go witness, why shouldn’t we be more open to his leadings? But, in almost all cases, this then bleeds in to ‘God spoke to me’ and a belief in prophecy (a la Wayne Grudem, NT is different than OT), that comes out as “I sensed the Lord is saying (implicit – I may be wrong, so you need to discern).” These are not people off the charts, ignoring God’s Word, although I worry that it will open to the door to devaluing the Word in favor of what is ‘fresh.’ But to be charitable and put the best face on it. Could you believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, that it is all you need for life and salvation, and yet be open to God ‘speaking’ into your life like the instances above—or by extension about other things as well? I’d really appreciate your thoughts. Peace,
Andrew
Andrew, this will just begin to touch on it, and I know that I really do need to develop it more. Of course I believe that modern believers can be led by the Spirit, in just the kind of scenarios you describe—a timely sense of burden, answered prayers, etc. I appeal to two things: first a distinction I learned from Charles Hodge, the difference between revelation and inspiration. I can feel that God gave me a burden for someone (and be right about that), and yet believe that I have no guarantee of protection if I tried to reduce that burden to a proposition (which would amount to inspiration). I have no guarantee of inspiration, which I why I am very chary of sentences that begin with “God told me.” And I have real trouble with Grudem’s approach, which would make New Testament prophecy into a downgrade version.
The second distinction is this. Although I am a cessationist, unlike many other cessationist, I do not believe we live in a mechanistic cosmos, grinding away. In other words, without resorting to supernatural anything, there are dogs that know when their owners are coming home, and I don’t have to assert that they are prophets. There are caterpillars that turn into creatures that know the way to Mexico, and that they must go there. They are not on a mission from God, although in a way they kind of are.
Perhaps This Will Make Sense to You
Regarding the problems people are having with your site’s rendering: This occurs in webkit-based Linux browser Epiphany, too, as well as Firefox 59. The problem seems to be the following div, and the other divs like it (at least starting at soliloquy-item-2): #soliloquy-109084 > li.soliloquy-item.soliloquy-item-6.soliloquy-id-115962.soliloquy-image-slide These are rendering at 1920×1920, or 960×960, or whatever the window width is, causing the rest of the page content to be pushed below each of these six or seven (invisble) divs/links/images that are each as tall as the page is wide. These items are things like links to Mablog Shop, CrossPolitic, etc. I’m too lazy to look at your CSS for you, but anyway this should be enough information to fix it, or to find a doulos who’ll do it for you. Hope that helps.
Mike
Mike, thanks very much.
Re: the gifts/Prophecy.
I think Calvin’s commentary on Romans 12:6 is insightful.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xvi.iii.html
You call yourself a cessationist and then publish that last letter, which was totally speaking in tongues. Hmph. ????
Simply Brilliant.
Well…simple, at least. ????
Doug, You say that you do not agree with Grudem’s assessment of prophecy, but what you describe seem to be exactly what he describes. You call yourself a cessationist, but when you explain yourself, it seems to be a distinction without a difference. I have long thought that much of the difference between continuationists who still hold tightly to Sola Scriptura (like myself), and hard cessationists was one of differences in cosmology. Hard cessationists, practically speaking, seem to have a more mechanistic cosmology. You simply don’t fit that mold. I guess I would just be curious about why you reject… Read more »
Is the difference perhaps between a voice that helps you apply the Word of God as revealed in Scripture and a voice that is simply Making Stuff Up?
“You say that you do not agree with Grudem’s assessment of prophecy, but what you describe seem to be exactly what he describes. You call yourself a cessationist, but when you explain yourself, it seems to be a distinction without a difference.” Not speaking for Doug of course, but I know the problem I have with Grudem’s teaching is what is defined as prophecy. There were people in the post-Pentecost days that were real Prophets who when they were telling of future events that would happen, spoke infallibly. The guy who says ‘I feel led by the Lord to ….’… Read more »
But the idea is not that the Holy Spirit can err, but that human listeners does not hear clearly. Think of it like trying to listen to a radio message on a faulty receiver. Why would the voice of the Spirit have to be received that way? Because the canon is closed. Now it is possible to criticize this as bad theology, but the real viewpoints of continuanists should be criticized, not something else.
Besides this, there are biblical examples of real prophets speaking falsely. The tragic record in 1 Kings 13 springs to mind immediately. OT and NT give instruction about discerning between God-ordained prophecy and false or even devilish messages. See Deu chapters 13:1-3 and 18:21, I Cor 12:3, 14:37, 1 Jn 4:1. There was never a time when hearing someone say “God told me” meant the next words were guaranteed to be true. This is not an argument for cessation, rather it is an explanation of why we are afraid of the type of prophecy the bible describes. Times are tough… Read more »
Regarding Dan’s question on gender pronouns in the corporate setting…. I suggest it would be true and appropriate, and honoring our commitment to Christ in such a setting, to simply and plainly explain that to use such alternate pronouns is quite literally “against my religion.” This hits the “tolerance” ball back to their side of the court, so to speak, where they are forced now to publicly choose between acknowledging that true “tolerance” would allow different views on the subject…. or clearly expressing intolerance not just against you personally, but against your entire religion. In our recent (rather atrocious) transgender… Read more »
Why not just be kind and respect their pronouns? You aren’t agreeing with it or violating any morals, you are just being gratious.
Because those pronouns represent high rebellion and a mutinous attempt to commandeer language for their own cultural and political ends.
Goodness that’s quite the cynical view. Have you actually talked to and understood these people. They aren’t sinister like that, they are to be pittied in our society when they are treated poorly
I pity these people very much. I would pity a man who thought he was a cabbage, but if he insisted that I treat him as if he were a cabbage, I would refuse. Not out of a desire to hurt his feelings but because I think he is ultimately better served by my refusing to participate in his delusion. What he needs is to be brought to the realisation that God made him a man and that that is a great and wonderful thing.
That is quite a different situation. And if calling him a man did him no good, and a considerable amount of harm, but calling him a cabbage did him harm, then you would just be a jerk, as the situation with pronouns would be. People thinking they know what is best for people in this way is extremely arrogant, excluding psychologists.
But in saying that people ought to be called whatever they like, you are saying that *you* know what is best for them. How do you know what harm it does a man to be called a woman? I suggest it’s harmful because it’s a lie and God hates lies. Sometimes the things that are best for us are not the things we like. God is the God of truth, and truth is not always what makes us feel good in the first instance.
I am not saying I know what is best for them at all. I am saying that I and you and many others have no idea what is best for them and we should let them deal with their own internal struggles without attacking them or making some “noble” political stand at their expence.
Again, you have not said anything about how God says to call people their correct pronouns, so I can easily ignore this argument. God of course knows what is best, but he hasn’t told us on this issue.
God has told us a great deal about what He thinks of lies. To say a man can be a woman is false in every way. No amount of surgery, hormone therapy, or pronouns can accomplish such a transition. Our biological differences go far beyond genitals and hormones.
I disagree that our options are either to let them struggle on alone or to attack them or make a political stand at their expense. These people need compassion, possibly quite a lot of therapy, and above all they need the truth.
They definitely need compassion, an area in which the church has failed. Therapy as well. Why is it a lie? Are you talking about trans people? What about gay, bi, lesbian, other forms of queer? Are they all lies? Hardly. However you spin it, it is very hard to make the case that calling someone a different pronoun is a lie. And there are clearly people who are sexually ambiguous, all the way down to the genetic level. Also gender and sexuality are different. Which one do pronouns denote? How much does it matter? What about completely bi people, they… Read more »
As far as I can tell, the very new idea that sex and gender are different only means that some people really don’t like being the sex that they are. So the new meaning of ‘gender’ relates to feelings rather than to external reality. And feelings famously lie. ‘The heart is deceitful above all things,’ etc. Your desire to maintain a separation between sex and gender (reality and feelings) is what makes you find this issue complex when it is really simple, except for that small handful of cases you mentioned of genuine biological ambiguity. I think you’ll agree that… Read more »
It’s actually not that complicated are the topic. Gender means things like gay bisexual queer or lesbian. This is who you’re attracted to. This is clearly factual, as there are men more attracted to men AK gay. Gay denotes there gender while mail to note sexuality through clear scientific difference. It’s a mentally only Western cultures I’ve ever thought that there are only two genders. Luckily this is now changing to a more comprehensive View. There’s a lot of biological ambiguity, which would be sexually ambiguous, but there’s also a gender ambiguo guess people. This is when their attractions are… Read more »
Gender means things like gay bisexual queer or lesbian.
No it does not, gender refers to whether people are male or female. Where have you read that gender refers to attraction?
I didn’t read that, sorry I made a mistake and changed gender and sexuality. I responded a long comment below where we were talking about it.
Malik, I don’t think gender means whom you are attracted to, but rather (as it is used by sociologists and so on) socially constructed roles, norms, and expectations. You can be biologically male, have a masculine gender identity, and still have same sex attraction I think that TG gets unnecessarily complicated when it is conflated with homosexuality.
Yeah my bad, I commented below, I switched gender and sexuality.
I agree with the TG thing for sure. They are kind of thrown together which makes it confusing.
Actúa I messed this up. This is more sexuality. “Gender is determined by the conception of tasks, functions and roles attributed to women and men in society and in public and private life.”. My fault
“hey definitely need compassion, an area in which the church has failed.” True, and not remotely relevant. Stop dodging the question. “Therapy as well.” Also true, also not relevant. Stop dodging the question. “Why is it a lie?” Because a person’s gender is not dependent on what they say it is. ” Are you talking about trans people? ” You already know that’s what he’s talking about. ” What about gay, bi, lesbian, other forms of queer? Are they all lies? Hardly. ” Do you honestly not understand the basic premise being discussed, or are you being deliberately obstuse to… Read more »
You keep saying nothing is relevant, look what I was responding to, I was responding to a bunch of people that inghost said. And I talked about gender vs sex as well, and it isn’t controversial that’s why I assumed that people agree. No one thinks they are the same, and by definition they are not.
“we should let them deal with their own internal struggles without attacking them or making some “noble” political stand at their expence.”
This is a lie. We just established that the goal isn’t to do anything at all “at their expense”. If you want to criticize the other points of view, you need to be honest about what it is.
Malik, “People thinking they know what is best for people in this way is extremely arrogant, excluding psychologists.” And the persons themselves know what is best for themselves? That seems like rather a circular argument. As for psychologists, it would not surprise me if they disagree with each other on this subject. As you often do, you are choosing what you believe is right on the subject, leaning toward the popular culture rather than the Bible. In this case, as indighost states, “you are saying that you know what is best”. Again, I think that is illogical. What does God… Read more »
Again my point is that we don’t know what is good for them, so give them space, or if you are close to them be compassionate and a good friend, and just be respectful, stop making everyone hate Christians. Yes psychologists disagree, but are you more likely to be right them someone who has studied this extensively? That’s arrogant. And yes I am more online with popular culture than most but it’s because I think that’s where the Bible leads, and like I said it was opposite of the pressure in my life. About the male and female thing, clearly… Read more »
Malik, “… stop making everyone hate Christians.” No one makes anyone do anything. If you don’t understand that, you need to review that concept. In this situation, perhaps the popular axiom applies: “Haters gonna hate!” I believe you have immersed yourself in the culture to the point that you automatically presume that the culture is right. If you don’t immediately deny that, I will be astounded! Yes, I know you claim to believe the Bible, but, it appears that every time you have the opportunity to believe the popular culture’s interpretation of the Bible rather than Christian doctrine for thousands… Read more »
Lol, you’re right, I deny it. I’ve thought a lot about my opinions, and again, I have not been steeped at all in popular culture. Quite the opposite. I came to most of my opinions in high school when I knew very few non Christians, and the vast majority of the Christians I knew were conservative. I was homeschooled for a time, and spent all of my time on a seminary. This is not being steeped it popular culture. It was during these times that I thought about what everyone was saying and started disagreeing. It was conservative arguments for… Read more »
Malik, “by the same odd twisted logic.” Have you seriously not seen this “odd twisted logic” before in your reading, etc.? I imagine you have heard someone say “I have to go to work tomorrow”. It is not a requirement! Unless, of course, they want to avoid the consequences of not going to work tomorrow. In fact, the really twisted logic is the person who insists that another person’s behavior forces them to respond in a specific way. Choosing to consider yourself a victim, rather than responsible for your own behavior, is unlikely to end with desirable results. This is… Read more »
Of course. My point is yes, you are not making anyone do anything, however you are causing. You are not nessesitating it, but still are a cause.
I think I may have read it, if not I will.
Since you’ve been here, you’ve made some hard-to-believe claims: You were shielded from pop culture, and independently came to a conclusion that goes against 6,000 years of clear Biblical teaching…as a homeschooled high schooler and seminarian (?) You spend very little time online, but manage to comment here frequently and are active on Youtube, Twitter, etc. You also manage to read 20+ news sources regularly, apparently ones ranging from mainstream to very far left (based on your links) You’re trilingual..well, not really, but according to Twitter You’re a construction worker You’re a cage fighter Is it true or is this… Read more »
More or less. I don’t fight as much as I want because I don’t have a ton of time right now. I’m far from tried lingual, I already told you, I’m bilingual, learning french, know and am learning a tiny bit of Korean, and am starting a Chinese class this fall. I have an app called smartness where you can follow most major news outlets and let’s you quickly comare stories in different sources. I’m far from active on Twitter and YouTube. I follow like five people and never tweet. I kind of hate Twitter but since it is our… Read more »
“I believe such as immigration, tho in my mind the Bible strongly supports my view not vica versa.”
If you’re referring to OT verses about “aliens and strangers,” that doesn’t support our modern immigration practices at all. (1) There wasn’t a massive welfare state ready to support them (2) they couldn’t go into theocratic Israel and practice their religions. If Muslims were around then, there’s zero chance they could build mosques and worship their counterfeit, demonic god.
Lol, someone downvoted my life. They be like “lame life” downvoted. Like wut????
To clarify I never fought professionally, I’m an amateur and am no where near good enough to ever have a pro fight.
Also they range far right to far left. I read far right stuff like fox and listen to Andrew klavin and then go left from there.
Fox is far right?
In California Fox is far right, and Breitbart is in wing-nut land!
So I was talking to my American friend about how I read on the right and left. Mentioned Guardian and NY Times and Atlantic (quite good that one at times); but when I mentioned Daily Mail that was just popular, and when I mentioned Brietbart—no comment at all, it was like I invented a new cuss word that would make Eddie Murphy blush.
Yeah, and really poor journalism in general. But it’s important to understand what right people think.
Except it is not. It is quite centrist.
Hahahaha???? i know right. I was arguing with one person who said “fox tells it like it is” lol.
clearly gender is not set in stone and binary,
It is both set in stone and very binary. So why do you use the word “clearly” to state the opposite?
I would be interested to hear why you think that.
I mean, by definition they are different, that’s why we have different words lol.
So gender is kind of more complicated but it basically has to do with social and cultural stereotypes and roles. Here is one way to define it “Gender is determined by the conception of tasks, functions and roles attributed to women and men in society and in public and private life.”. So like clearly it is different, why do you disagree?
If you want to use a very modern and broad definition of gender that does not relate to sexual characteristics then I guess “gender” means anything you want it to mean, a bit like Humpty Dumpty. But the vast majority of babies are born male and female. Even the rare cases with some ambiguity, most are classified as male and female.
So this is both set in stone: you are what you were born; and binary: you are male or female.
Yeah so that’s your sex. Sex is definitely binary except for the few exceptions. But gender is different, it’s the difference between male and female and masculinity and femininity. There are feminine guys and masculine girls. That’s gender. Here is a helpful if a little hippy source:https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/ This is kind of helpful. Things are assigned to genders, cleaning is feminine and construction is male. It’s a societal thing. And people clearly move around on our spectrum that we have created. There are like massive bear like men that love construction and hunting and that’s like a very gender masculine guy,… Read more »
While I agree that there are cultural aspects to how we see behaviour ascribed to men and women, I do not accept that the sex a person feels is his gender.
Masculine and feminine are concepts that relate to male and female, and thus a man or woman can have a degree of masculine and feminine traits, especially as they denote to where a person is in relation to another.
Right so that’s gender as opposed to sex. While not independent they are different.
But gender is still binary. And it is not “as opposed to sex”, but rather takes behavioural considerations into account.
You literally just agreed that it wasn’t. There are some masculine thing and some feminine things but people fall in between as no one is the manifestation of perfect manhood or vica versa, so most fall somewhere between.
masculinity and femininity is not gender.
sex and gender and synonyms. With gender taking into account behavioural issues (which could include culture). I dispute it takes into account feelings, nor is that helpful to any discussion.
both sex and gender can be described as male and female which is binary.
Masculinity and femininity describe characteristics that are associated with male and female. And generally men have (intrinsically) and should strive towards (behaviourally) masculine characteristics.
Oh jeeze. Is it really a hard distinction to understand? Just go read the definition somewhere. Gender is cultural, sex is biological. They go hand in hand often. But I’m sure you have heard by now there is something called a feminine man. They are men, but often act feminine. Their sex is male, the have male genitals. But their cultural behavior is feminine, this relates to gender. We have different words to mean different things, you can’t change the meaning of words because it isn’t helpful to your political narrative. You can say they always go hand in hand,… Read more »
you can’t change the meaning of words because it isn’t helpful to your political narrative. Exactly. So gender refers to male and female with the added dimension of behavioural considerations. You can say a man behaves in a feminine manner, but his gender is still male. Sex and gender are synonymous. Synonyms don’t have identical meanings, they have similar ones. Oxford dictionary: Gender: Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do… Read more »
I mean there are male and female thing but there is still a gender spectrum. I guess at the end of the day it is two way to look at the world, but I think the spectrum provides a much more helpful tool to look at reality. It is also interesting because only Western cultures only have two genders, for example the native Americans had six. The word gender is behind a concept that I think we disagree on and that’s why we can’t agree on the definition
I would tend to think they are more independent than you most likely, but we agree that they are different but related.
Yes and no. Psychologists bring their own worldview along with them. We may not know what is good for a particular troubled individual, but that should not stop us from pointing out that a therapy might have dubious results, or even might be ethically wrong. Because this issue has been conflated with gay rights in general, I think that some of us who oppose it have not always been as compassionate as we might have been towards those who experience gender dysmorphia. If I adopted a purely secular view, I would be concerned only with: does it work? Does it… Read more »
“excluding psychologists.”
It’s been a universal matter of treatment that you do not indulge delusional people. The only reason the policy ever differs for transgender people is psychologists are choosing to ignore the science of other fields, so they start with a false presupposition.
There is no circumstance where directly lying to someone about what they are is healthy.
There is no circumstance where directly lying to someone about what they are is healthy.
Careful. It is not helpful but it may be an appropriate judgment.
Yes, let’s be “kind” and totally undermine “He created them male and female.” Your support for LGBTQ isn’t a minor thing…it’s a slap to a foundational truth taught from the beginning of the Bible.
Even a non-Christian (or at least non-orthodox Christian) like Jordan Peterson is willing to put his job on the line to protest this rubbish. We need more like him and fewer sell outs.
I would be more of a sell out to do what you say, as I have considerable pressure on me in that direction but I’m not because it is not what I believe. I’m not selling out I’m standing for what I believe. And it is not undermining anything. If we accept your baseline, which I don’t, then you still would not be proclaiming it to be true, or undermining anything. If I tell you I want to be called John now, you are not undermining reality by calling me John because that is not what is on my birth… Read more »
Changing your name (legally or informally) isn’t remotely similar to this. Unless you’re changing it from “Benny” to “Jenny” or something.
And yes, you are a sell out when it comes to Biblical standards. Lining up your beliefs with pop culture and saying “I stand up for what I believe” doesn’t make you right…even if it keeps you from being called a jerk.
Why is it different? And if it is, why is complying with the request different? Why is complying with the request a slap to reality? (All of these operating from the conservative assumption) And in my opinion I’m not selling out. I personally do not agree with the conventional interpretation of the Bible verses, and I don’t after a lot of thinking and reading. From my perspective I am not selling out to the popular interpretation because personally I have come to a different conclusion. The is not selling out. I didn’t do it because I caved to peer pressure… Read more »
“I personally do not agree with the conventional interpretation of the Bible verses”
Just take out the words “the conventional interpretation of” then. The Bible’s teaching on homosexuality and the uniqueness of men and women (something we’re not allowed to change) is clear from Genesis to Revelation. Why do you think no reputable church father, Reformer, etc. taught your view?
It’s also telling that you complain about “conservative hypocrites” but say nothing about SJWs on your side who wish death upon their adversaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPyPSyM3B3c
You haven’t really put forward a point here. You can say that all you want but that does not make it true.
Yes, there are tons of awful leftists. Tons of them. And…..? I’ve said before I’m not going to try to defend every ass hole on you tube, who would, and why would I? The point I made was that Republicans tend to be very hipocritical about the not allowing dissent thing.
“You haven’t really put forward a point here. You can say that all you want but that does not make it true.” Projection much? You’re disputing both the Bible and the church’s teaching for thousands of years. It’s only during the last few decades that any part of the church claimed sodomy isn’t a sin. And of course this coincided perfectly with a cultural shift. The burden of proof is on you. If I claim bestiality and incest are perfectly fine (based on a lot of thinking and reading), how do you dispute that? Am I wrong just because it’s… Read more »
The church also claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe and caused it on biblical evidence. Clearly the church can be wrong. Guess what, the church changed its mind after a cultural shift, were they wrong? The burden of proof is in the one doing the convincing. And as for incest, look up how many times homosexuality is mentioned (3) and the incest (100+ in both old and new testiment) and examine the context and there is a clear difference. If you said that I wouldn’t say you are a sell out, I could say you are… Read more »
I’m not sure where you’re getting the word count, but homosexuality is certainly mentioned (condemned) more than 3 times. If anything, you can make a better case for incest, as Abraham married his half-sister and Isaac and Jacob married relatives. There’s no direct reproof of Lot’s daughters for seducing their father in Gen. 19, yet Sodom and Gomorroh were destroyed for homosexuality just before that. Not that I have any interest in defending incest, but you can’t find ANY similar examples of homosexuals. Your geocentric comparison isn’t even worth mentioning. Again, we’re talking about completely turning over God’s order from… Read more »
You are very, very ignorant as to how the LGBT community works. The case of men pretending to be women is fairly small. Most people are simple gay bi or lesbian. The others are a much smaller group.
And the point of geocentrism only means that the church has often been wrong, they are not above questioning.
I’m not concerned about how the LGBT community “works.” They don’t get to create all of the rules and definitions. When two men have sex, one of them unnaturally becomes the “woman.” I suspect you don’t know some other common homosexual practices, as they’re quite stomach-turning and not usually discussed…except by some who walked away from the lifestyle.
If you don’t know how it works then you should stop discussing it as if you do. “One of the unnaturally becomes the woman,” actually not how it works. Sometimes it is, but they are not pretending to be a woman, as you said before. Maybe they take that role sexually at times, but not always. And again, the whole thing about pronouns, gay men rarely pretend to be women or take feminine pronouns.
“If you don’t know how it works then you should stop discussing it as if you do. ”
Again, I’m not interested in accepting the LGBTQ’s agenda/definitions any more than I am the SAFBI (Society of Adultery, Fornication, Bestiality and Incest, if there were such a thing). To mimic the God-given procreative act, one man has to play the part of a woman in a modified (pretending) way. I won’t get any more graphic than that. It doesn’t matter if there’s a dominant/male and submissive/female role outside of that.
You don’t have to take their definitions, but if you don’t understand it then you have no business discussing it. Guess what, that’s a biblical principle. ???? And yeah, that happens sexually, but they still don’t pretend to be women during everyday life as you suggested before. That was what I was arguing and I have no idea how you diverted it to sex. I’m saying few queer people pretend to be the other gender. Some do, but few.
“You don’t have to take their definitions, but if you don’t understand it then you have no business discussing it. Guess what, that’s a biblical principle. ”
Nope, there’s nothing Biblical about calling something good that God calls evil (not just homosexuality, but effeminate men). Letting this group call the shots and control the language is about as unbiblical as it gets.
That’s all I’m saying for now. Maybe you’re having a slow day at the office, but I’m not.
You didn’t read what I said.
Also the part about no one discussing it is not true for my generation. We aren’t that uncomfortable about it.
We know, we know.
?
We know that many of your generation are comfortable discussing things that many of us older ones think are better left unsaid!
Right, I was just saying I understand the community, I was just responding? Not trying to be crude or anything of that kind.
Also you need to reread the Sodom and gomorah story, maybe in the original, because this myth about it being about homosexuality is just plain false. It says their son was sodomy, and guess what, it isn’t the modern definition. In the original all that means is the sin of Sodom, specifically violence to a guest and trying to rape angels.
No, you’re the one pushing the myth. You have to torture both Gen. 19 and many other passages to end up with the LGBQT-friendly reading. And no matter how you slice it, Lev. 18:22 and several NT passages condemn homosexuality.
https://www.str.org/articles/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah#.WruVAIjwbIU
Again, no one even attempted this stuff until the so-called “gay revolution.”
And just think about it: why would God give us a detailed account of Sodom that was referenced 27 times in the Bible….if the key takeaway is “don’t rape angels or get violent with them when they’re visiting someone!” How often is that applicable in our daily lives?
Don’t be violent to visitors, that’s a lesson Republicans could take to heart. And again, dig into the theology, it says sin of Sodom,not don’t do it in the ass, clearly. That definition of sodomy is so recent I’m not sure how you think that when they wrote this thousands of years ago they used a 100 year old definition of a word. That’s rediculous
How many Republicans have attacked “visitors” (immigrants) compared to the number of times Antifa has attacked Trump supporters….or the number of times leftists have thrown things at conservative guest speakers and prevented them from talking?
As for the rest of your comment, it’s so misinformed that it’s not even worth replying to. Again, do some research outside of your favorite hip liberal theologians.
Sigh. This is not an argument of why the left is better than the right. Follow the argument with me. You say that there is no lesson that we can learn from in Sodom and gamorah given my interpretation. Then I say look at this great lesson Republicans could learn. You say leftists attack people too so I don’t have to learn from the Bible. Wut? Wanna try again? Helpful tips, we are talking about wether or not we can learn lessons from my interpretation of Sodom and gamorah and I just gave a lesson you can learn. You were… Read more »
No, you simply lied. You promoted a leftist fantasy that Republicans are aggressively attacking “visitors”….who broke the law in the first place to get to the U.S. The only lesson I learned was to not commit the same fallacies you make.
What about the militia movement. I personally know and have hear of people who physically attack illegal immigrants. It happens. You don’t have to Google far to find examples.
Want to return to the argument?
Please list any “militia movement” attacks on immigrants.
Here are some by Antifa:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/20343/timeline-antifa-violence-january-%E2%80%93-august-2017-frank-camp
There have been more since then, including ones like this that get no mainstream media exposure:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-supporter-punched-and-strangled-by-antifa-extremist-outside-nyc-gala_2420884.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-militia/armed-patriots-the-private-citizens-out-to-secure-the-u-s-border-idUSKBN0H50VA20140910
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/undercover-border-militia-immigration-bauer/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project
If you read the beginning of spare parts it talks about it a lot too. I’ve also heard about it personally. One guy I heard about literally goes and just beats up illegal immigrants. It’s really sad.
My comment is awaiting moderation for some reason.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/undercover-border-militia-immigration-bauer/
Malik, I am prepared to believe people on the left and right assault and murder people, but you are careless in your claims. You are better to link to one or 2 sites and quote the evidence for your claim than to throw and dozen pointless links that do not say what you want them to. This wastes everyone’s time. This may be what you intend to do, but most realise that such trollish behaviour is just better to ignore. You may think that policing the border is not appropriate for civilians, but the fact of policing a border is… Read more »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project
Shawna Forde is a despicable human being. I don’t like the death penalty, but she is not someone whose execution I will be wearing sackcloth and ashes over. But, it is certainly not reasonable to associate her activities with the Republican party or even with various militia groups. As I understand it, she was kicked out of her militia because of her dangerous propensities. She claimed militia membership to get into her victims’ house, but she went there looking for drugs and money. The fact that she got a death sentence should reassure us that neither the state nor her… Read more »
Why is this unreasonable? The Democrats are a bunch of collectivists who foisted identity politics on the rest of us. If they want to live by identity politics, then they can most certainly die by identity politics.
Fp, this is now on a bdash level. Democrats don’t get lumped together for the same reason that I don’t lump you in with a neo Nazi, a slave owner, or a white supremacist. I doubt you want to by put in as guilty with every person of the same opinion as you. Please be consistent.
Malik, you started this whole tangent with your “Don’t be violent to visitors, that’s a lesson Republicans could take to heart.” comment. Yes, you generalized about “Republicans” being violent to immigrants, but provided zero evidence of it.
And let’s not project or insult “BDash” over this…I’ve never seen that kind of blatant hypocrisy from him, whatever his faults may be.
I didn’t say all Republicans are like this. Most Republicans do not support immigration, it’s one of the partison issues.
You made a false claim that you couldn’t back up. Will you man up (or woman up or gender-neutral up) and admit it or keep digging a deeper hole? You generalized about Republicans being violent to “visitors” and were wrong.
I wasn’t wrong, I’ve seen it. It is poorly documented, but as Jill said, people commonly hurl insults out cars and in restaurants. It’s definitely a hard point to prove. But people denying it are tripping. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/09/killed-hate-victims-america-violence-170924153101480.html
You don’t have to look far.
And anti immigration is one of the bases of the Republican party.
Don’t insult bdash? The one who says that black people are dumb and ignorant. Yeah right.
I pay little attention to him and don’t know what he says, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a train wreck of fallacies, hypocrisy, poor reading comprehension, inability to cite sources, etc. Bringing up someone who’s not taking part in the comments looks like a way of avoiding the holes in your positions.
You see what you want to see. It wasn’t a hole, I was saying his stance is getting ridiculous as that of bdash.
I’m done here, Malik. You’ve followed the 3 Rules for SJWs about as well as anyone I’ve seen. To wit:
1) SJWs always lie.
2) SJWs always double down when caught in a lie.
3) SJWs always project.
I pray you’ll go back to the teachings of your youth (Prov. 4) which you’ve rejected. And remember the Bible’s definition foolishness:
https://www.gotquestions.org/fool-Bible.html
Bdash doesn’t say that.
Malik, I was addressing Jilly, not you. What was it you said about having to “read previous arguments if you want to add to the discussion and especially if you want to attack”?
I read her comment, and then I read yours. And yours was one of the dumbest most hypocritical things I’ve read. So I attacked it.
Very true, good point. There are other instances, but yeah
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-militia/armed-patriots-the-private-citizens-out-to-secure-the-u-s-border-idUSKBN0H50VA20140910
It is called the Minuteman project you can Google for more. It was huge around 2002 if I remember right. I personally heard about a guy who a coworker if friends with who goes around and just beats up illegal immigrants. It’s so sad. And yeah, Antifa is bad? I already said that and I know what Antifa is. I didn’t ever say I wanted a contest of who is better????
So what documented attacks were there? I didn’t read every word, but the closest thing to an assault I saw was a bunch of leftists heckling and trying to yell down a Minuteman speaker on a college campus (no surprise there).
It’s illegal, it isn’t documented that I know of. Did you read all of them? What about my anocdot? If you think it didn’t happen you’re selling something. Some people like to disregard facts because the don’t fit with their personal narrative, didn’t know you were one.
You just made a claim and provided no documentation. I know of many black-on-white assaults that were never documented–that don’t fit your narrative–but that’s not what we’re discussing. If the mainstream media knew of a militia types attacking immigrants, it would be front-page news. I proved my point and you failed to prove yours. Are you man enough to admit that? Or maybe that’s an insensitive comment due to gender fluidity.
I sent you three web pages, a book, and a keywords for Google. What more do you want?
“I sent you three web pages, a book, and a keywords for Google. What more do you want?”
Basic reading comprehension. You didn’t answer my question. No “attacks by militias on immigrants” were cited.
More then. Maybe read these ones. The book had it. I already gave you all the information if you are really still in denial about this.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/27arizona.html
And more https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xd7jmn/what-happened-to-arizonas-minutemen
Do you know how to Google, you could find this I’m sure. If you wanted to
And this is one movement, you can look for normal people on the right doing it too. And you don’t have to look far. Take a look at the UNODC document on violence against immigrants. I can’t believe you think this isn’t a thing. Why are you so worried about this anyway. I made my point that there are lessons to be learned. Can you not accept that there are violent people on the right? If not you are crazy. There are violent people everywhere. Look that the neo Nazis, white supremacists, look what happened in Charlottesville, look what has… Read more »
you can look for normal people on the right doing it too. And you don’t have to look far. Take a look at the UNODC document on violence against immigrants. I know, right? It’s getting to the point where you can’t walk down the street anymore without witnessing first-hand some redneck hillbilly Homer-choking the ever-living daylights out of some poor, innocent, law-abiding illegal alien, who’s also a valedictorian. For but a small example of white supremacist, non-immigrant-caused, neo-Nazi mass-killing sprees: – Omar Mateen who killed 49 people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando – Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik (no… Read more »
Yeahway to much gun violence. That’s why I went to the march for our lives. Times up
Good choice, Malik, going to a rally run by a bunch of adolescents whose prefrontal cortexes aren’t fully formed, and just last week were getting into the Tide Pods.
Yeah, because the kids at the march are the exact same kids as the ones eating Tide pods. Just like you are the same guy who was just at a neo Nazis rally. Look man, I’m not sure why you have such a problem right now, but it isn’t cool to lump people all together. People are constantly complaining about being equated with racists because of their race and age. If you don’t want people doing it, don’t do it to others. They aren’t the same kids, those kids are still in the hospital, and hopefully some brains from the… Read more »
Yeah, because the kids at the march are the exact same kids as the ones eating Tide pods. How do you know, Malik? When idiots such as David (Media) Hogg are all of a sudden concerned with constitutional rights while calling those who are pro-Second Amendment “child killers”, then snacking on Tide Pods is as good an explanation as any. …but it isn’t cool to lump people all together. Why is it you’ll attack some guy on the internet for observing the generation eating Tide Pods is the same one lecturing the rest of us about how we need Gun!… Read more »
I don’t nessisarily think that the people have the best developed ideas. But I support gun reform so I went. That doesn’t mean I think they are right on. I do find it refreshing how non partison they are however. Again, everyone in a given generation is not the same. Are you a rapist because plenty in you generation are? Are you racist because many in you generation are? If not, then stop using the logic to condemn people for someone else in their generation. If you want to use this logic then I’ll just assume that you are a… Read more »
And there are tons of black on white or black on black violence. Guess what there is also white on white and white on black violence. That fits fine with my “narrative”. Where r you getting these crazy ideas.
White-on-black violence (whether real or a questionable police case) gets 24/7 front page news. Black-on-white gets reported much less prominently, and they never call it “racist” or a hate crime…though it happens much more frequently.
And while you blast Fox, they’re usually the only major news outlet to report it. CNN, Yahoo, MSNBC, Washington (Com)Post, etc. would rather control the narrative and pretend such things don’t happen.
Fox controls their news as well. Another reason to read as many sources as possible, otherwise you will never get a good picture of what is going on. I hate partison news, but you gotta read it unfortunately.
To be honest tho, fox is a little more thinly veiled than most. They barely try.
Fox came about as a reaction to decades of biased journalism. Yes, they tilt to the right. And I don’t always like their slant or coverage. They’re more neocon/war hawkish than I am. But they started their news channel because the market (people) wanted a major news alternative to CNN, et. al.
Right. Doesn’t make them better, they are just the opposite. CNN for the right.
I guess they are “documented” in spare parts if that’s what you mean.
Malik,
“. I personally know and have hear of people who physically attack illegal immigrants.”
“I personally heard about a guy who a coworker if friends with who goes around and just beats up illegal immigrants.”
So, your second-hand knowledge (of multiple people and events?) has now become third-hand knowledge of one instance?
I gave you plenty of other stuff including a freaking book about it. And what about Charlottesville? And of the 1900s. There are plenty of examples. There was a law names the Chinese exclusion act. What do you want. God to tell in your ear that people are still racist and violent? And some of those are on the right. Why is this controversial?
You’re right, there are horrible people who beat up immigrants. More frequently, there are horrible people who yell abuse out of cars and on buses and in restaurants. I have seen quite a bit of the latter, and I have been pleased at the protective behavior this elicits from the non-immigrant community. But, I don’t think a clear line can be drawn between this kind of abhorrent conduct and a political philosophy. The kind of person who beats up other people in public is usually deranged or impossibly violent. If it weren’t immigrants, it would be someone else. But I… Read more »
But I don’t think any Republican party platform endorses illegal harassment of immigrants, any more than Democrats are urged to throw glass bottles at Trump rally attendees. Jilly, Democrats may not be urged to throw glass bottles at Trump rallies, but the Democrat establishment certainly endorsed — if not outright caused — violence at Trump rallies: The frequent outbursts of violence at Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign rallies have been orchestrated and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, a stunning new undercover video suggests. … In the video, Americans United for Change (AUfC) operative Scott Foval is shown on camera… Read more »
Lol, you sound like Alex Jones
Malik, last I checked, Frontpage Mag is David Horowitz’ outlet, and The Washington Times is a legitimate news organization. Nowhere did I quote from Infowars.
You might want to lay off the Tide Pods.
I know you didn’t, you just sound like him
fp, I am getting old. I remember when Horowitz was the left-wing editor of Ramparts magazine, which I read in secret because my right-wing father would not allow it under his roof!
Right, and while I hate the disgusting behavior exhibited by far too many members of the right I’m also not so ridiculous to believe that it is a tenant or endorced by the party, or that it is a problem unique to them or anything of that kind.
I think we can learn a lot from the story. I have no problem with your interpretation. It is wrong to be inhospitable and uncharitable. I’m not so sure it’s okay to offer up your daughters as gang rape victims. It’s wrong for crowds to gather outside someone’s house demanding sex. But, can we add that the story might also show that God is not okay with the kind of sex the crowd appeared to be wanting?
Jill,
That doesn’t fit with the narrative Malik is insisting is true so, no, you can’t. Dissension from current popular belief is unacceptable.
It very well could be, but I don’t think that the Bible nessesitates it in that verse. So it could be saying it, but I don’t think that what it says has to mean that homosexuality it wrong if that makes sence.
According to Merriam Webster:
Next time, try not to talk out of the orifice to which sodomy refers.
Yup, first use in the 13th c. That’s after the Bible was written.
Malik,
Condemnation of homosexual behavior goes back to the earliest days of the Church:
Early Christian Teachings on Homosexuality
The same was true in ancient Jewish texts, as documented by the Feminist Sexual Ethics Project at Brandeis University.
The Koran and the Hadiths (the sayings of Mohammad) also interpret the story of Sodom as a stern warning against engaging in same-sex acts.
There are none so blind as the Maliks who will not see.
Nevermind, soylentg has changed my mind. This is truly a flooring argument. I’m going to go rethink my entire worldview now.
Malik,
I am appalled, but not surprised, that you are ignorant enough to read soylentg’s paraphrase of an axiom and call it an argument. I recognize it was attempted sarcasm intended to insult him. However, it is not witty or true, and certainly not what I would expect from someone with your lofty aspirations.
I think that if this story were the only scriptural reference to sexual relations between men, you would be on surer ground. But there are others, including one in the New Testament which prevents us from saying, Oh that was just a Hebrew holiness code violation. Look, I have huge sympathy for unhappy gays, especially those who are struggling to live chaste lives. But, for me to say that gay sex is morally neutral or okay, I have to conclude that some very explicit scriptural verses were dead wrong. I also have to conclude that every century, and every civilization,… Read more »
We also are not talking about homosexuality in general, only pronoun use.
Oh no, it’s not just pronouns. We probably shouldn’t even say “women” any more.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mount-holyoke-college-women-tells-professors-avoid-word-women-020618924.html
But we are discussing using pronouns
“But we are discussing using pronouns,”
And you’re totally missing the bigger picture.
I understand there is a bigger picture, but we already have talked about that and disagree. So I am arguing from your point of view.
BS, you read that wrong.
Malik, “But we are discussing using pronouns” That is the specific issue, but it is only one aspect of something bigger. If one concedes that aspect, it may well put you on a slippery slope toward conceding the bigger issue. As has been said, “The one who controls the language, controls the debate.” Which reminds me of this: “The point I made was that Republicans tend to be very hipocritical about the not allowing dissent thing.” Who doesn’t allow dissent? As far as I can see, the progressives and liberals are extremely hypocritical in this regard. I believe they are… Read more »
Yep.
“You can choose from among 80 pronouns and I’ll use whichever you like (no matter how absurd), but I draw the line at saying male and female are just social constructs…in fact, I’ll lose my job over that.” – Said no one ever
I know tons of people like that. The believe your version of gender and sexuality and marriage, but they call people their pronouns
Ah, the sell outs I mentioned earlier.
Hardly, you don’t know them, and they are anything but sell outs. Just because someone doesn’t think exactly like you doesn’t make them weak or bad or a sell out. I can’t believe I’m explaining this to a grown ass man.
Goodness. You don’t listen to what I say. Liberals don’t allow disasent, often. Not always, not all liberals, maybe not most, but definitely plenty.
Republicans call out liberals for this very harshly. Fairly, until it is the same people shouting me down for my views. That is called hypocrocy.
Do liberals do it, of course. But stop pretending conservatives don’t.
And of course there is a bigger issue.
Well, if you were trying to totally miss and avoid my point, you succeeded. Congratulations…I guess.
Well, what’s your point, you said there is a bigger picture, yes, but we started with me arguing that even with your set of beliefs that you can call people their pronouns and should.
Simply put, because I would be perpetuating, endorsing, and affirming a dangerous and godless lie.
If I insisted you refer to me as “his majesty the King of England,” and you did so, then even if you didn’t agree personally, you would still be endorsing, affirming, and perpetuating my delusion.
Why is it prepetuating it?
Because it is allowing it to continue unchallenged.
Control the language, control the masses, Malik.
Contra your presumptuous assertion below, we know exactly how the sexually deviant alphabet soup “community” works. Given your gullibility to their propaganda, perhaps it’s time you heeded your own advice: “If you don’t know how it works then you should stop discussing it as if you do.”
Hahahaha, nah you have no idea how it works if you think gay guys commonly pretend to be women. And how many of you have extensive contact with the community? I do. I’m not saying I’m an expert, but I definitely have expirienced the community, something that it is clear many here have not.
You understand them “exactly”? I doubt it. Nothing you have said suggests it, and the alphabet soup suggests otherwise.
Control the language control the masses, yeah. But when Christians have made themselves obsolete and everyone hates them for being rude and doesn’t care at all what they say, how are they going to control anyone, much less the masses?
you have no idea how it works if you think gay guys commonly pretend to be women. Malik, do try to keep up. I never said homosexual men commonly pretend to be women. If you don’t know how it works then you should stop discussing it as if you do. I’m not saying I’m an expert, but I definitely have expirienced [sic] the community, something that it is clear many here have not. You understand them “exactly”? I doubt it. Nothing you have said suggests it, and the alphabet soup suggests otherwise. Do you even think before you type, Malik?… Read more »
Hahahahaha, you are actually really funny. Problem is I’m not sure if you are serious or just having fun. ???????? Nice tho
If you are serious:
Yeah I got the alphabet soup thing, it just sounds like a tag line, not a person who understands it.
And with the guys pretending to be women, you came in in the middle of a conversation, we were discussing that before. You have to read previous arguments if you want to add to the discussion and especially if you want to attack.
Well, aren’t you cute? I’d be more impressed if you could actually come up with a coherent argument without all the red herrings and gratuitous partisan swipes, but I can only work with what little I’m given.
I like red herring, you like ad hominum Cool.
You needn’t worry about any ad hominems I toss your way ruining your credibility, since you’re doing such a fine job of it yourself.
Hahahahahahahaha???? respect.
I have never heard chowderheaded. ???????? I’m dead
I sometimes do, depending on context. The thing being objected to isn’t elective politeness, but coerced behavior. As a matter of principle, you don’t get to dictate what other people say, particularly if the thing you want them to say is a lie. It’s just polite not to call someone fat. It’s another thing entirely to suggest that you are obligated to tell them they are thin when they are not. A man is not a woman just because he says he is. I can for the sake of politeness choose to use his preferred pronouns, but it is not… Read more »
Right, you can and should use pronouns, you don’t have to tell someone they are the other sex. I totally agree.
Because the pronouns are not theirs, the pronouns have an objective meaning and do not belong to them, and because there is no obligation to respect nonsense. If you go along with preferred pronouns either you are in fact agreeing with the preference, or you are dishonest.
Why? Why are those the only two options?
Well , I suppose if you don’t mind a logical contraction those are not the only two options.
I don’t find that a logical controdiction, you haven’t set up the logic. I find other alternatives. You can’t expect anyone to agree with you if you don’t articulate it.
I don’t expect you to agree with me in any case, but I won’t allow you both agree and not agree, you have to pick one. Of course, you can pretend to agree to be polite, or safe, but then you are being dishonest.
I don’t think that’s a very strong argument, because I can simply say I don’t agree I think I can disagree while still using their pronoun as this is different than saying that they are a different sex than they are. Or I could say that I think pronouns refer to sex and that after a sex change the other pronoun is acceptable. Or I could say pronouns don’t matter so I can use whichever one it’s not a big deal.
I think you’ll have to make an argument longer than two more or less confusing sentences.
Malik, I don’t doubt the straightforward is confusing to you, but it is a willful confusion on your part. You prefer talking around the question at convoluted length, but I’ll try… “… I can simply say I don’t agree I think I can disagree while still using their pronoun as this is different than saying that they are a different sex than they are. ” Now, speaking of confusing, I really am not sure what you are saying there, but it appears to be disagreeing with the preferred pronoun, nevertheless using it. Which is dishonest. Anyway, mark that response “Disagree”… Read more »
It is not that the strait forward is confusing it is that we are starting in completely different points. You have to convince people sometimes, not everyone agrees with you. I feel like too many live in an echo chamber and never learn how to do this. I simply don’t agree. If you want me to change my mind you have to make a complete argument, you can’t just say your opinion and when I disagree say that I am not logical. On every one of your statements I can simply ask why, and it falls apart. You have to… Read more »
Malik, among other things you seem to want me to prove to you the principle of non-contradiction. I do not have the time to write an essay on it, but look it up. No, points are not invalidated, arguments do not fall apart, just because you ask “Why”? Anybody can play that game, I could apply it to any answer you want to give to any question, and I could do it endlessly. Some statements, such as the one that prompted your why?, stand on their own and do not require elaboration. If you “simply don’t agree” with something, like… Read more »
You still have made no argument that requires any response. I think it is not dishonest to use someone’s prefered pronouns. And you have provided no reason that it would be dishonest. You have to make a case for it, that’s the point.
My daughter mentions to me that she read an excellent article on privilege. It turns out it was yesterday’s post.
So if my daughter is now recommending Wilson to me, have I succeeded as a father?
The transgender pronoun issue in this letter is raised hypothetically. I am wondering if Doug thinks the employee’s refusal should extend to actual transgendered co-workers, managers, or supervisees in the workplace. If, for example, you happen to know that a co-worker was born male, has transitioned, and is living as woman, should you refuse to use female pronouns? What about preferred first name? Even under Trump, a teacher who refuses to use preferred pronouns can be in trouble with the OCR for harassment. Do you think teachers (and other workers) have some wiggle room on this issue?
In the case of someone who is transgender, if we accept the Christian premis that physical markers indicate your sex and gender then would not a trans person be their new gender?
“In the case of someone who is transracial, if we accept the Christian premis that physical markers indicate your race then would not a transracial person be their new race?”
Race encompasses much more, and we don’t have a surgery to do that, but if surgery could make you a different race then yeah, you would be another race by definition. Then as long as you grew up in the culture than great. Like I said race is getting harder, I have a friend who is ethnically Japanese but was born and raised in Argentina and is as Latino as you get. What race is he? Probably Latino. Japanese too ig but see it’s complected.
I think that gender encompasses much more than race. Acculturation can modify racial differences. I think that what you are saying, and what people here are rejecting, is that one’s sexual identity as male or female is based on individual choice rather than on DNA. Leave religion out of it for the moment, and think in terms only of self-acceptance on one hand and body dysmorphic disorder on the other. I believe that gender awareness is on a continuum and that some men (and women) feel that they would be more comfortable in their own skins if they had been… Read more »
I can definitely see your point. However, gay men’s brains look more like that of a girl and vica versa with lesbian women. So the thing is that, in my opinion, these feelings are stemming from a very real, physical, non conformity. I also think that transgender surgeries are very poor, and in most cases a bad decision at the present time, however there are instances of successful operations, the prominent one that I would point to being the trans woman who was just elected. Also, in my expirience gender is more of a spectrum rather than two baskets, and… Read more »
Malik:
Malik again:
Well OK, then!
Those are different things, and not contradictory
If you say so!
I do????
Jill, good points. It boggles the mind. If you have a patient with a healthy body and a diseased mind, why in the name of all that is holy would you consent to mutilate the healthy thing instead of recommending treatment for the diseased thing? Those guys should be struck off.
Two things, neither particularly related to the letters.
1. My third child, Joseph, was born last Friday. Three kids under 4 now, with a wife in surgery recovery. I am blessed…….and tired.
2. I’m getting a new strange error when trying to log in with facebook to comment. Anyone else having the same problem?
Congratulations, Justin!
Congratulations. Best wishes for swift healing and settling into a new rhythm.