« The Eyewitnesses | Main | Knowing Jesus Makes You a Better Thinker »

June 11, 2015

Comments

Claim a biblical worldview all you want, but everything you have stated amounts to nothing more than your personal view of other people's world infused with fragmented references to biblical ideas. The self righteousness and lack of humility displayed in your writing belie a lack of grace that can only be attributed to a consciousness rapt in its own self importance. You are so taken with your ability to wield the bible in battle that you have lost sight of what it represents. If you truly wish to find God than you must realize that your time is too precious to spend looking for demons. Spread joy instead.

Hi Tiana,

I couldn't help but note that you said the author "lost sight of what the it [the bible] represents." I assume that you must have some kind of idea as to what the Bible does indeed represent. I'd be curious to know what you think that might be. Thank you.

I wonder what Tiana's response might be?

Dis gon b good

While we're waiting...

Tiana,

Notice that in this instance you felt it was more appropriate to rebuke the author, Nancy Pearcey, than to spread joy. So clearly you believe that in some instances it's appropriate to give a criticism rather than to spread joy. I assume that one instance in which you believe such behavior is appropriate is when someone's worldview or behavior will lead to less joy. Well, maybe Nancy Pearcey believes that the transgender worldview being promoted will result in less joy.

So transgender people are horcruxes?

Henry Frank and Coca-Cola, your images are disrespectful to Tiana. The internet has a sufficient quantity of flippancy to be in excess. No reason to add to it.

Tiana,

Shy of the phrase "You are so taken with your ability to wield the bible in battle that you have lost sight of what it represents" what in your statements to Amy and/or Nancy prevents them (the statements) from being self-referential? In other words, what in your statements reflects something other than "your personal view," "self righteousness and lack of humility," "a lack of grace," "self importance," and "looking for demons"? Also at issue is that while you attack Amy and/or Nancy for losing "sight of what it [the Bible] represents" you provide no justification for your claim (for example statements from the Bible that refute Nancy's claims, a counter understanding of relationship between person and body within the Bible, a consistent theme throughout the Bible from multiple authors that contradicts Nancy's point etc.). So one can acknowledge that Nancy used the Bible, but you do not have that "minor" benefit to the credit of your statements. Note, this is no mere tu quoque. The impression you give is that Nancy's statements should be rejected on the grounds you have presented (more on that below), and since the grounds you have presented apply to what you have presented, it seems to be consistent we must reject your statements as well.

It is understandable that this being an emotional and deeply personal topic for many people that there will be much reaction that is not first thoughtfully considered. Even if all of what you said were true, it would not affect whether or not what Nancy said was also true. Attacking her character is not the same as providing a counter to her arguments, and appeal to strength of emotion (even implicit) is not a reliable way to discover truth.

A correction to my statements:
I took Tiana's post at face value, and did not review Nancy Pearcey's article until after posting. Tiana mentions Pearcey's "ability to wield the Bible in battle" but neither the blog post nor Pearcey's article reference biblical passages. Pearcey references the Bible in the article to say
"Biblical morality honors humans as embodied beings."
and
"Biblical worldview offers a positive message that respects the whole person and is motivated by love and compassion."
I don't see what there is to disagree with given Tiana's appeal to peace.

However, I retract my statement that Amy and/or Nancy "have that "minor" benefit" of referencing Scripture (in this specific blog post/article).

Henry Frank and Coca-Cola, your images are disrespectful to Tiana. The internet has a sufficient quantity of flippancy to be in excess. No reason to add to it.

I see nothing disrespectful about it and since Tiana hasn't said she is hurt by it, and I'm not sure why she even would be, I also see no reason for you to play the white knight on her behalf. All this will do is drag the conversation down even more than you think it already has been.

transgender worldview
lol

RonH:

I'm waiting for an updated edition of the Summit Ministries' Worldview Chart with "transgender" as a added column, with explanations of "transgender law", "transgender economics", "transgender history", etc.

Laughing out loud isn't an argument. Transgender advocates are promoting a certain view of fundamental artifacts in the world: human nature, human sexuality, ethics, politics, and law. Nancey Pearcey explains some of this in the article.

How does saying "lol" show that transgender advocates are not adopting and promoting these fundamental artifacts?

Phil,

Never seen these sorts of things apparently: http://www.transgenderlaw.org/

http://www.amazon.com/Transgender-History-Studies-Susan-Stryker/dp/158005224X

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/economics-and-transgender-community

The idea of transgenderism makes no sense from a naturalistic point of view. To claim personhood, one must first assume a person, from that we infer consciousness and something that is inherently immaterial.
Now if my personhood is distinct from my biology, then I am not simply a material being, as a material being could be nothing more than biology. If I have an immaterial personhood that has the possibility of being separate from my biology, then there must be an entire realm of existence that is immaterial.
From there the argument must be made for an immaterial creator beign(or at least an immaterial substance).

The only way transgenderism could possibly make sense in a purely naturalistic worldview would be(in my view) to argue for a mental illness.

Phillip A,

:)

@ Tiana

Biological reality is a "personal view of other people's world infused with fragmented references to biblical ideas"?

Please explain that.

After reading Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, I can't help but think this sort of thinking has been inevitable since the Enlightenment drastically altered our view of what man is. The Sartrian concept of the Self as nothing but an autonomous will, implicit in many of the greatest Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment thinkers, was bound to rear its ugly head in the arena of sexuality and gender eventually. I daresay though that most Christians are not helping the problem by having conceded that fundamentally flawed view and attempting to draw different conclusions from it.

The comments to this entry are closed.