Rachel Held Evans vs. John Piper: Both Miss the Point
As a liberal, it isn’t too surprising that Rachel Held Evans repudiates the Reformed understanding of tragedies like the Moore tornadoes. Essentially, we join Augustine in proclaiming that God feels it better to bring good from evil, than to eliminate all evil.
What started this is a tweet by John Piper (now removed) that quotes Job 1:19. Here, a great wind topples Job’s house and kills his children. Piper is, quite obviously, applying it to the recent tornado that ripped apart Moore, Oklahoma.
Is that insensitive, as Evans says? You bet it is! Remember: I’m more Piper’s fan than Evans’. I think Evans is a whiner and a drama queen. Why she has any influence at all mystifies me. How she sells books mystifies me.
Evans first plays pop psychologist to explain why Piper behaves in this Pat Robertson fashion:
That’s because Piper and many in the fundamentalist neo-Reformed movement are working off of a perversion of the doctrine of total depravity that not only teaches that human beings are depraved—that is, that our humanity is marred by sin—but that this depravity renders the world’s men, women, and children into valueless objects of god’s wrath, worthy of nothing more than eternal torture, pain, violence, and abuse.
I’ve tried to find where Evans has set us straight on total depravity, but I can’t. So all I can do is operate from my examination of it. We sin, and even after becoming regenerate, we still seek to gratify the desires of the flesh. Or, as Paul put it:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3, emphasis added)
So, unlike Evans’s contention, we are deserving of God’s wrath simply by nature. That actually is the doctrine of total depravity, not a perversion of it. Sin is both our being and our actions.
Both human ontology and human ethics are radically corrupted (as RC Sproul put it). Mind you, we aren’t as evil as we can be all the time. Some of the most evil people have good in them — look at the BTK killer, who was by all accounts an honorable husband and even a deacon at his church. He wasn’t morally depraved at every moment of every day.
All of us seek to satisfy both the Spirit and the flesh. Each of us has moments of weakness and we gratify the flesh rather than the Spirit. For the Christian, however, this creates distance a relationship with God (Jms 4:4). We are not somehow incomplete or lacking in our evolution as a species per the Emergent Church Movement Evans seems to hail from; rather, we are dead in trespass and sin, and the only cure is Jesus (not further evolution).
Even if we leave aside our competing contentions on total depravity, Evans still misses something important. The response Jesus gave to tragedy is eerily similar to Piper’s. Piper tells folks that the overriding reason for calamity is a call to repent. Evans responds:
Piper’s god is like an abusive father, filled with unpredictable rage. His family must walk on eggshells, afraid of suddenly enraging him. Should he be provoked, this god will lash out with deadly, earthquakes, tsunamis, violence and war. When his family cries out in anguish, he reminds them that they deserve no better. They are despicable, rotten to the core, so even in their pain they are doing “better than they deserve.” The fact that any have been spared merely proves his “love.”
This theology is, in a word, abusive, for it blames the victim for whatever calamity, abuse, or tragedy she suffers and says it is deserved. According to this theology, the children who died in Oklahoma this week got what they “deserved.” The victims of the Boston bombing got what they “deserved.” The people caught in the Twin Towers on 9-11 got what the “deserved.” The victims of the Holocaust got what they “deserved.”
There is some sense which she’s right to criticize Piper’s reply. But there’s a bigger picture that Evans is missing. Jesus’ reply is close to Piper, albeit a tad more sympathetic:
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Lk 13: 1-5)
My conclusion: both Piper and Evans miss the point, but for different reasons. Piper should choose his words more carefully, and be more sympathetic with people who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, and Evans needs to go back to Theology 101 because tragedy is a call to repentance.
As for the remainder of Evans’s piece, it is an unrelated rant on Sovereign Grace Ministries. The rant is designed to show how Calvinistic theology is abusive because it can be used to facilitate a cover-up of sexual abuse. Well, that would be a serious misuse of Calvinism, and the misuse of something shouldn’t color our opinion of the thing itself.
I could misuse Evans’s position on egalitarianism to say that she is for reshaping our society into a matriarchy. But that isn’t really her position, and I don’t think she argues for or favors such a thing. I think she just wants women to have the same recognition and opportunities as men, and that’s a laudable goal (I’m a complementarian, by the way).
That means her entire rant on SGM is nothing but a strawman. It serves no purpose here. Hence my contention that Evans is a whiner and a drama queen.
A mixed bag of inconsistency, as I’ve come to expect from the Emergent Church Movement. I’ve read two of Rob Bell’s books, and I saw the same sorts of wishy-washy inconsistency in both. And the drama queen aspect, too, interestingly.
Posted on May 29, 2013, in Sin, Theology and tagged Calvinism, divine grace, doctrine of total depravity, Emergent Church, Ethics, John Piper, logic, moore oklahoma, Rachel Held Evans, Reformed, Religion and Spirituality, Theodicy. Bookmark the permalink. 71 Comments.
“tragedy is a call to repentance”
Not according to Bart Ehrman 😉
I can’t remember which review it was but I remember reading one of the negative reviews (3 or below) that said he addressed seven different answers to the question. I should read this instead of Homosexianity.
And apparently, Hugh Ross has found several more different reasons such as God’s free will and people’s faith being tested or Satan running a muck and causing chaos, etc.
Any way, I have a similar view to that of Evans as you do. She’s a whiner and a misrepresenter.
But I am not a complementarian. I believe it is sexist and enforces a “one-size-fits-all” mentality that is deadly and harmful to human health.
And the APA agrees with me! 😉
Oh yes, another good point to be made is in regard to the baby that was flushed down the toilet. What did it do to deserve being flushed down the toilet? Was God trying to call this baby to repentance or something?
Wow. Ignorance to the millionth power. Pol Pot. Stalin. Mao. Corruptions of something should not lead us to negatively judge the thing itself. Those guys don’t mean atheism is evil or wrong. Cults, therefore, do not mean religion is evil or wrong.
There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his “virtue” is evil in the sight of God.
God sends the rain on the just and unjust Jesus says. Of course in modern understanding he only “sends” it indirectly in the sense that he created the laws of nature that cause it to happen. Anyway, the point is, Jesus is saying the weather is neutral. It doesn’t care if you’re righteous or unrighteous. Duh.
This book is the best theological book that I have read in about five years. I grew up a Southern Baptist and I have maintained my Southern Baptist views, however over the past decade Calvinism has grown within the SBC. Many folks in seminary have only two views of doctrine. Either Calvinism or Arminianism. This book defines what true conservative, Southern Baptist heritage is…doctrinally speaking. The books quotes John Leland who in 1791 said, “I conclude that the eternal purposes of God and the freedom of the human will are both truths, and it is a matter of fact that the preaching that has been most blessed of God and most profitable to men is the doctrine of sovereign grace in the salvation of souls, mixed with a little of what is called Arminianism.”The introduction alone is worth the price of the book as it deals with the rise of Calvinism within the SBC. The chapter on Congruent Election is a good read and helps to clarify election and free will, and not shying away from difficult passages.I highly recommend this book.
I’m sorry… what book?
The best theological book that I’ve read in five years is Koffman Kohler’s Jewish Theology.
Evans is neither a liberal nor does she cite liberals. She is a theological conservative/wannabe liberal. There are many of those around such as N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, and Edward Fudge.
I’m not sure if “liberal” was originally used in the political/moral or mainstream Protestant theological sense in that comment. One can certainly be a “conservative” theologian believing in the virgin birth and so on and yet be a liberal on morality and support abortion, and the other way around one can be a theological liberal and deny the virgin birth while being morally conservative and opposing abortion and so on.
I would highly doubt N.T. Wright supports abortion considering that he doesn’t even support gay rights.
What “rights” would those be? Nobody is preventing gays from practicing their perversion in their bedrooms. But they have no “right” to marry someone of the same sex any more than you have a right to marry a goat.
“they have no “right” to marry someone of the same sex”
and he asked:
“What “rights” would those be?”
Um, yeah they do have a right to marry someone they love just like you have the right to marry someone you love. The problem is that Christians on the conservative side don’t acknowledge concepts such as “separation of church and state” and “freedom of religion”. News flash: There are pro-gay Christians such as the Episcopalian Church. I’m thinking about joining them.
As for bestiality, don’t even use that against LGB people. Racists have compared blacks to animals, Gentiles were compared to dogs (Mark 7:27) and even interracial marriage has been considered equivalent to bestiality. Thus, marriage is a right that gays should have or marriage is a right that no one should have. If you think logically, you’ll find that whatever your belief about homosexuality is, there is no logical reason to use your belief to deny their equal marriage rights.
If you want to join the Episcopalian church then join it. I’m not stopping you.
“As for bestiality, don’t even use that against LGB people…interracial marriage has been considered equivalent to bestiality. “ Don’t use the illiteracy of a few rednecks against people who have a brain. The Bible clearly states that no less than Moses married an Ethiopian woman. So clearly the Bible doesn’t consider interracial marriage to be bestiality. Intermarriage with other religions was, however, prohibited to the Jews, of course, meaning a Jew who wanted to marry an Ethiopian had to find one willing to leave polytheism behind.
Now, What about polygamy? Before homosexual ‘marriage’ is legalized polygamy at least should be. The poor Mormons.
And if its going to be a “hate crime” to make fun of gays, it should also be a hate crime to make fun of virgins. Why should perverts get all the protection but those who do the right thing and wait for marriage be treated like crap? If the libtards want to legalize their favorite perversion, let them first take all the necessary steps which I have outlined, or let them eat cake.
P.S. Found this interesting diagram.
Looks like in Nevada, I do have a right to marry a goat if I want to.
“And if its going to be a “hate crime” to make fun of gays, it should also be a hate crime to make fun of virgins.”
I’m assuming you are referring to much of the conservative Christian groups who have been considered a hate group on the issue of homosexuality. Actually, if you dig a little deeper, you would find that experts don’t consider any Christian organization a hate group for their stance on homosexuality but rather for their lies, misrepresentation, and will to promote violence against gays. Like I said, obviously, not all Christians are like that.
“Now, What about polygamy?”
Polygamy was first promoted by God in the Bible. Allegedly. 2 Sam. 12:6-8 has God and no one else giving David his wives and not a singular wife.
“Why should perverts get all the protection but those who do the right thing and wait for marriage be treated like crap?”
When I informed one of my friends recently that I was a virgin, he responded and said “Hey, stay as long as you want!” Does this sound like I was being treated like crap? I’m thinking I’ll keep his advice and stay a virgin even if I do get married! 🙂 Really, all kinds of sex runs the risk of obtaining an STD. Perpetual virginity should be lauded regardless of what you believe. And I know plenty of LGB people (I myself am bisexual) and they are not “perverts” as you would identify them as.
Look, I can see where you’re coming from. For a long time, I had trouble accepting my bisexuality because of my religious views. I wanted to hide it from others. I wanted to say it wasn’t true but I just find both men and women to be hot. It’s difficult at times to leave a viewpoint you hold as a core center of your life. I understand.
“Perpetual virginity should be lauded regardless of what you believe.”
I certainly agree with that. This is one thing Protestantism lost in rejecting the Apocrypha. Wisdom 3-4 is particularly interesting.
I don’t understand, however, why one would define themselves by their “sexuality” if they are a perpetual virgin..because in a way by not being sexually active they don’t really have a sexuality. Attraction, but not sexuality per se.
I guess in the Episcopalian churches in Nevada there will be dudes making out with their goats on the back row.
Idk what their position on bestiality is. I would assume they hold that an animal is not a soulish being, hence, bestiality is incompatible but you would probably have to check into Bishop Schori’s position on that.
That’s because one’s sexuality is not defined by their behaviors. It is defined by their attractions.
As defined in the World English Dictionary:
heterosexual – “a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex”
homosexual – “a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex”
bisexual – “sexually attracted by both men and women”
All definitions can be found on dictionary.com. Thus, one does not actually have to have sexual intercourse to be bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual. I’ve seen religious people saying that homosexuality is the most misunderstood sexuality out there. I agree with them. It’s misunderstood by them though.
I’m not sure you understood my point, or maybe I worded it wrong. You say you’re a bisexual but that you are a perpetual virgin. Why associate yourself with a perversion you don’t intend in actually engaging in? What’s the point? Nothing but to be a rebel and spit in God’s face.
I identify myself as a bisexual because even though my current plan is not to engage in sex, I would like to experiment in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Thus, I would say that I am attracted sexually to both the male gender and female gender. For instance, there are homosexuals who choose to pursue gay relationships and become actively sexual and there are homosexuals who pursue chastity. There are also heterosexuals who choose to pursue heterosexual relationships and become actively sexual and there are heterosexuals who choose to pursue chastity.
You and I obviously define sexuality in different ways. I define sexuality as an attraction. Thus, if you are attracted to people of the same gender, you are gay. If you are attracted to people from a multitude of genders, you are bi. If you are attracted only to the opposite gender, then you are heterosexual. You do not have to be actively engaged. I choose to identify myself as bisexual because I don’t want to pretend to be someone I am not. I used to live a lie about my bisexuality.
Do you do any drugs?
Of course not. Unless you count caffeine but I’m trying to quit.
Were you attracted to the same sex before you started watching pornography?
I don’t watch pornography. Pornography grosses me out. There is no cause of one’s sexual orientation. There is no cure for one’s sexual orientation. It is something that they discover. For instance, I like more athletic girls. And I prefer guys who have long hair.
If that is the case its not that you’re really attracted to guys. You’re attracted to girls, and when guys wear their hair like girls there is some brain fart you are taking too seriously.
“If that is the case its not that you’re really attracted to guys. You’re attracted to girls, and when guys wear their hair like girls there is some brain fart you are taking too seriously.”
First premise: That I cannot tell the difference between males and females. I can.
Second premise: That guys who have long hair are wearing it like a girl. Hardly. For the most part, they still have beards.
So let me ask you what you mean by attraction. By attraction do you mean simply a mental evaluation like “that person is not bad on the eyes” or do you mean you have thoughts of desiring to have sex with them?
Were you molested as a child?
If you are trying to fish out a link to my homosexuality and what most Christians I have heard have attributed to the “cause” of homosexuality then no. There really is not universal stereotype for all non-heterosexuals. I was not molested as a child.
“If you are trying to fish out a link…then no.” So the answer is only “no” if I’m trying to fish out a link. That’s interesting.
No. Just in general. Because all the stereotypes of non-heterosexual orientation really have not applied to me.
There is no cause.
Are you a man or a woman?
Did your parents or grandparents put you in dresses when you were a toddler?
No. I am 100% certain that the answers to all of your questions is going to be a “no”.
At what age did you realize you were attracted to guys and how old are you?
I would say in high school though I tried to repress it because of what I knew of homosexuality. A few years later (20 now), I’m accepting of my bisexuality.
That is sufficient to explain it. You grew up in the age of homosexual propaganda. I narrowly missed growing up in this age, since I am 30.
Let me ask you one more thing. Do you drink a lot of tap water or do you drink bottled water?
Are you seriously saying this? I was not propagandized or coerced to be bisexual. I just am bisexual. And tap vs. bottled water has absolutely nothing to do with it either.
Who said tap vs bottled water had anything to do with it? And you may not have been “coerced” but you certainly were “propagandized” — or are you telling me that you never watched TV or movies? Let me ask you this, did you grow up going to the movies as a kid or did you only start once you were a teenager or older?
The movies I have seen have predominantly heterosexual propaganda in it. I have no idea what you are talking about by being propagandized. Sure, I’ve seen lesbian relationships in TV shows but no male-on-male sex. My guess, people are grossed out by male-on-male sex. And why ask about tap and bottled water if they have nothing to do with it?
“The movies I have seen have predominantly heterosexual propaganda in it.”
But they are sexualized; their purpose is to sexualize you, to make you think life is all about sex. I didn’t watch these kinds of movies as a kid. We had the old 70s Batman show, the Brady Bunch, Lucy. Ok, there was Charlie’s Angels, and wow were they hot, esepcially Jaclyn Smith! And there was Knight Rider and Micael was a lady’s man….but still nothing close to the TV shows of today where people are constantly disrobing and having sex on broadcast television no less. And when I was a kid my parents strictly controlled the movies I saw. I never got to see an R-rated movie unless it was on TV censored, and back then they would censor out even partial nudity. The first sex scene I ever saw was in high school in the Buffy the Vampire slayer TV show. And by modern standards its nothing. They’re way steamier in broadcast television shows now. You probably grew up watching this stuff right? If you are progagandized into thinking life is all about sex, it will take very little for you to end up being convinced you are gay or bisexual. All the media has to do is put the hint in your head that you could be, and since life is all about sex to you, you buy into it. Sex is such a peripheral thing in the way I grew up. Its on the outskirts of life; its not the purpose; its not the goal; it is not the be-all-end-all. I don’t think normally anyone see sex as having the inflated importance it is given today unless they are brainwashed into it. If previous generations had seen it that way, especially in the last 400 years, there would not have all the progress there has been because they’d have all been too busy pursuing sex sex sex and more sex, or watching porn and masturbating all day. When sex is pushed as the great virtue, and when you’re convinced that the more sex you have the more better or happy or whatever, and the more people you have it with the better–when you are propagandized to believe this, homosexuality is a symptom of the real problem: the virtual deification of sexuality.
One more thing: why would you only develop attraction to men in high school? I’m sure like myself you were attracted to girls from very early on. I was crushing on Princess Leia for as far back as I can remember. Why would attraction develop as late as high school? Clearly only by propaganda!
“And why ask about tap and bottled water if they have nothing to do with it?” Well I didn’t say it had anything to do with it. Yet it might. I read once that in tap water in most places they put a chemical that mimics estrogen. It could be a contributing factor. Who knows. The government does because they’ve probably planned it.
Or maybe by self-discovery. The movies don’t always match my views on human sexuality. My views on this matter are complex. Not simple like the movies or Christianity’s views on the subject.
Really? The government makes me gay? Ridiculous. I have seen your blog. It looks like a 16 year old wrote it.
I would wager also, since you said porn disgusts you, that you have looked at it before. And probably, growing up in the internet age, you looked at it at a much earlier age than any previous generation, and what you saw was much smuttier than any previous generation had available to them thanks to the internet. When I was growing up Playboy was the only source of “porn” around so far as I knew and it wasn’t readily available. Today, the most disgusting group sex videos are available to anyone of any age with an internet connection who knows how to go to google. And yet somehow its a mystery why there is a giant explosion in perversion.
“It looks like a 16 year old wrote it.” As for my blog, its not a real blog. Its more of a scratchpad. I just throw things on there haphazardly. And you’re not too far from 16 yourself, so I guess you could have written it if its that bad.
Well now I know it’s a scratchpad. Let’s talk there on your blog.
I suppose we can. But I’m satisfied that your affliction is a function of your age and the level of propaganda in vogue, so I’ve lost interesting in the discussion. About all I have left to say if that any authentic Christianity, rather than capitulating to the homosexual maffia, would make a serious attempt at challenging the dominant secular narrative of today, and would preach in the vein of Jesus’ statement “A man’s life does NOT consist in the abundance of things which he possesses” that “A man’s life does NOT consist in the abundance of sexual encounters that he has, NOR in the abundance of sex partners he has them with, NOR in the abundance of different sexual orientations those partners have.” Rather, many churches, the Episcopalian church, basically accept the secular narrative that “having lots of sex is the whole point of life” and then reason from that “hmm…since sex is all life is about, we must accept homosexuality as valid, since it provides more opportunities for sex partners, and more sex and more sex partners is the whole point of life.” But that’s not the point of life.
Sorry, it’s been a while. I found a better definition of bisexual in case you’re interested.
Form a YahooAnswers forum:
“A person has to have a liking or attraction to both sexes to self-identify as a bisexual. That attraction comes from the mind, heart and intuition – ‘above’ and NOT what’s ‘below.’”
That definition would definitely describe me. One can also describe sexuality as romantic attraction. For instance, a bisexual desires romantic relationships with members of both sexes. Not necessarily that he/she wants sex with every male or female that he is romantically engaged with though this might include sex.
With respect to the homosexual “mafia” and whether or not I am actually “bowing down” to it, I am an advocate for marriage privatization. Marriage should be a private, government free, institution. That way both gays and churches can have their ways. And I’m bi, not homo 🙂
“And I’m bi, not homo :)”
Of course not because there is no such thing as a literal homosexual. Nature imposes on you that you will be attracted to the opposite sex. You can then choose to add same-sex-attraction to the mix after buying into the propaganda for it. But you cannot stop being attracted to the opposite sex. All homosexuals are actually bisexual, and so if I slip up and say “homosexual” you know I actually mean bisexual in every instance.
As for “marriage privatization” that’s just idiotic. You already have the right to screw around and commit fornication as much as you want with anyone you want whether of the opposite sex or same sex so long as they are of legal age and consent. What does “marriage privatization” so-called offer in addition to that? Nothing. All it does is destroy the public institution of marriage. Marriage is a public institution for a reason, or many reasons: one of which is to protect children. Another is for the purpose of inheritance of property and such-like. If “marriage” is privatized it ceases to be “marriage” and just becomes more screwing around. If a legal divorce is not required to end a marriage and dissolve the contract that makes this other person your heir in case of death, and that binds you to taking car of these kids, and whatever else — if its “privatized” and you can just walk away at any point with no financial liability as in the case of any filthy fornicative screwing around relationship, then how the hell is it “marriage” at all anymore? Use your brain.
I would imagine that without all the legal and governmental pressure put on a marriage it would be healthier. That, and it’s not like there won’t be witnesses to the marriage. It’s more a return to basic historic tradition actually. Historically, marriages have been private. Oh, and this is a position held by people who believe humans can function without the use of hierarchy so I’m not certain why you assume the existence of hierarchy. Divorce would be private too. Thus, a man or a woman can tell whoever has witnessed to their marriage that they are getting a divorce. The couple can then decide what to do with their possessions make divorce a lot less “messy”.
Going back to your comment that there is no such thing as a homosexual – there is. You argue that people are naturally hardwired to be attracted to the opposite sex. I have a friend who just simply does not find girls to be hot. He finds guys to be hot though. There are just some people that are not interested in the opposite gender. You should respect these people and accept as people. For who they are. If you believe it to be sinful, you can encourage them to be chaste, just don’t try to force your religion on them. There is no homosexual propaganda. I don’t know where you got that idea from.
I don’t buy it. And the use of the word “hot” is moronic to begin with and instantly lowers the intelligence of all who use it. Or maybe the intelligence must be lowered first and then it begins to be used. Pretty, attractive, cute, handsome, beautiful — the generation of retards has replaced all the old words with one meaningless word “hot.” What does it mean? Nothing. Hot is a temperature, not a description of a person’s looks.
There are people who just are not attracted to other’s of the opposite gender. Would you rather they find no one of the opposite gender attractive?
You need to buy their testimony. Just look at what happened to the Christian Church when they refused to but the testimonies of “witches”.
Please explain what you are talking about with this witch-testimonies thing.
I’m talking about how torture was used as an instrument to get the witch to confess to her being a Satanist. Despite all of her claims within the torture process to state that she/he was in fact a Christian and never gave up their faith, the Christian torturers honestly believed it was a demon.
You mean in one city?
Mostly referring to Europe. ALL of Europe.
“That has nothing to do with admitted homosexuals and the fact that all homosexuals are in actuality bisexuals.”
It has a lot to do with that. These “witches” were admitted Christians but the Christian Church said they were they actually Satanists. From that, we get torture to drive the demon out.
We look at the ex-gay community and we find the tactics of reparative therapy are really no different. Which is why Alan Chambers finally shut Exodus International, a leading ex-gay community, down.
You would be wise to recognize that my position is homosexuals aren’t real: they only claim to be homosexuals but are not really. My position on witches is the same: they aren’t real; they only claim to have powers but they don’t. Magic is fake; homosexuality is fake. So, my position is the opposite of any crazy who is going on a witch-hunt, just as it would be the opposite of anyone going on a gay-hunt: neither witches nor gays exist in reality: only liars claiming to be such.
As such, I don’t think therapy for homosexuals makes any sense at all. They chose to be gay or to pretend to be; the only way to get out of it is to choose to stop. There’s no demon involved. Its not from a power beyond their control, neither a physical nor genetic power nor a supernatural power. The only power involved is free choice.
The “witches” claimed to be Christians. Not “witches”.
A homosexual is a liar now? You are trying to establish heteronormativity/heterosexism here. It’s going to take a lot of evidence to prove that to me.
The “witches” claimed to be Christians. Not “witches”.
Duh. Your analogy is flawed. Who is accusing anyone of being a homosexual while they are saying “No I’m not”? For your analogy is absolutely backwards.
The “witches” at Salem were falsely accused women who had no desire to be labeled witches. That doesn’t mean there are not women who claim to be witches, however, does it?
Some people somewhere may be falsely being accused of being homosexuals. That doesn’t mean there’s nobody somewhere who is claiming to be homosexuals, does it?
What is clear is this: anyone who claims to be either a witch or a homosexual is a liar. And I don’t need to prove what everyone with any sense already knows, that its impossible to really be a witch or a homosexual because magic doesn’t exist and you can’t erase nature.
My point was that there are people who claimed to be homosexuals. And that the last time the church didn’t trust someone’s claims, it didn’t work out too well.
There are homosexuals. They may not be a majority but there are homosexuals. I trust their claims because this is what they say. I’m not going to tell them they are liars.
And no one ever claimed to be a witch. No one wanted to be a witch. Being a witch was bad.
Your point doesn’t make any sense. Now if people were claiming to be witches and the church was all like “No, we don’t believe you because witches aren’t real” then you would have a parallel to saying to claimants of homosexuality “No, you aren’t because its not possible to only be attracted to the same sex.”
But you yourself claim that nobody ever claimed to be a witch, so you prove your point is nonsense.
But the fact is, of course, that some people do claim to be witches. You’ve never heard of Wiccans? Their claims are false and so are yours.
Wiccans don’t consider themselves witches. That, and they are a modern religion.
Again, you are clearly a heterosexist. There are homosexual people who only like people of the same gender.
“Again, you are clearly a heterosexist.” Thanks for the compliment.
“Wiccans don’t consider themselves witches. That, and they are a modern religion.” That’s not entirely the truth. Many Wiccans only go into it to freak out their parents and others and do claim to be witches, claim to worship the devil and so on. And as for those who aren’t doing it that way, those for whom it is a “modern religion”: its really not. It more like playing Dungeons and Dragons, except they do it outside in the grass more like playing Vampire the Masquerade except in the daylight.
It’s more like neo-paganism.
Besides this all being only in Salem. Here you are talking about women who were not witches being falsely accused by crazy Calvinists in one city. That has nothing to do with admitted homosexuals and the fact that all homosexuals are in actuality bisexuals.
One way or the size of your business handled, that does.
Compare contractor to the front lawn, or through online home improvement work done!
William Hague will give a customer or they will win some, you contractor may have worked with NASA-Langley as a down payment.
Contractor Pay ScaleIf you aren’t sacrificing quality performance.
At this same level of detail you track all the coarse
in work should only pay the introduction has taking place.
Painting contractors are professionals who hold
expertise in the hands of any roofing project.
The is a model that’s been making a decent amount of noise amongst NB’s classics catalog as of late. The collaborations continue to turn more people on to the model and the suede version that arrived at the end of last year was sort of a runaway hit. Next up is a subtle, almost USA looking colorway (a combo that seems appropriate given that they’re domestically made). Continue reading for a full view of the suede and mesh sneakers and if you approve then grab this New Balance 998 from now.
Pingback: Christian Gender Roles: Sacramental Life by Kiri Aho | ajrogersphilosophy