Search

Search this blog


Rebecca walks into your office distraught and despondent.

You’ve seen a lot of sad faces as a high school guidance counselor, but even by teenage standards Rebecca looks particularly hopeless. Not wasting any time you pull out a chair, pour her a glass of water, and push a box of tissues her way.

“Thanks,” she sniffles.

“It looks like you’re having a hard day, Rebecca.” You try to sound concerned (which you are) without seeming alarmed (which you might be). “What’s the matter?”

“Well, I’m not sure I want to talk about it.”

“It’s okay. Go ahead. I’m here to help if I can. But I’ll start by just listening.”

“Okay. The thing is, I hate the way I look. I hate my clothes. I hate my body. I hate myself.”

That doesn’t sound good, you think to yourself. “I’m really sorry to hear that, Rebecca. What else can you tell me?”

“Not much really. It’s just that I’m horribly fat. I’ve always felt fat, ever since I was five years old. I can’t remember a time when I didn’t wish for a different body. I’m fat and I’m ugly.”

“But Rebecca,” you start to interrupt, only to have her interrupt right back.

“I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say I’m fine the way I am. Or you are going to tell me I’m too thin. Or that I’m beautiful. Or some other garbage line. I’ve heard them before. Nothing will change how I feel. I’m fat. That’s why I have to wear these baggy clothes. That’s why I hardly eat anymore. That’s why whenever I do eat I find a bathroom and puke up whatever I just ate. You don’t understand. No one understands. I’m fat. I’ve always been fat. Why won’t anyone let me be what I am?”

At this point there is a pause in the conversation that seems to go on for hours. It lasts only a few seconds, but in those seconds a flood of thoughts enter your mind. You think about trying to get to the bottom of Rebecca’s feelings. You think about scheduling another meeting for tomorrow so you could call her parents and ask her what they’ve been doing to help Rebecca. You think about telling Rebecca what you see with your eyes, that she’s a perfectly normal looking, sweet 15 year old girl. You think about mentioning how concerned you are that it looks like she’s gone from 125 pounds to 95 pounds since the beginning of the school year. You think about presenting the biological facts about a healthy BMI and the importance of daily nutrition. You think about how you want to make sure no one is picking on her and how you’d like her friends to help Rebecca see what she can’t seem to see. Most of all, you think about how you wish Rebecca didn’t feel this way and how you want to do everything in your power to help her understand the way things really are.”

But then another thought enters your mind.

“Rebecca, thank you for sharing. I can’t imagine how hard this has been for you. I just want you to know that I believe you.”

“What?” Rebecca isn’t sure she understands.

“I believe you. I believe everything that you’ve told me. If you tell me you’re fat, I’m not going to stand in the way of you accepting that identity. You’ve suffered too long. You’ve struggled too long. I can see how hard this is for you. But it doesn’t have to be this way. You are fat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. It’s who you are.”

“Well, I guess that makes sense. No one has ever told me that before. People have always tried to convince me that my body is fine the way it is, even though I desperately wish it were different.”

“I’m really sorry to hear that,” you continue. “A lot of people are prejudiced toward people who identify as overweight. That’s their problem. No one can tell you what’s right or wrong with your body. After all, it’s your body.”

“Wow, that’s not at all what I thought you would say.” Rebecca is genuinely puzzled. “So what do I do now?”

“Great question. First, I’d suggest you act in accordance with how you feel. If you feel fat, then try to eat less. Second, if you continue to feel this way, I’d talk to a doctor about bariatric surgery or some other procedure that will help you get the body you would feel good about. And finally, I’m going to talk to the school board about making some changes around here.”

“Like what?”

“Well, for starters, I want everyone to know it’s okay if you don’t eat much for lunch. Weight is only a social construct. Fat is a feeling, not a fact. And then I want to make sure none of your classmates or teachers try to tell you you’re thin or you’re pretty or you look unwell. That would be really painful to hear.”

“Wow, that sounds really good. For the first time in a long time I feel a little better. Thank you for all these amazing suggestions. I hope more people will learn to accept me like you have.”

As Rebecca walks out the door, your first reaction is to feel a deep sense of satisfaction. She left your office feeling better than when she came. That’s what you like to see. It’s always gratifying to have helped a hurting student. And yet, there’s another thought you can’t quite shake. When you think about her rail thin body, and how desperately she needs food, and how everything must change to conform to her reality, you can’t help but wonder: was this really love?


View Comments

Comments:


119 thoughts on “A Transgendered Thought Experiment”

  1. Andrew says:

    Kevin Dejong, this thought experiment is stupid and offensive. Arbitrary social norms aside, anorexia and transgender are apples and oranges, and not recognizing that on any level makes this comparison completely absurd. The whole exercise completely loaded, and not something a reasonable person would waste time arguing about. Not to mention, this piece is so vague, that the title serves more as a target then as a coherent argument. It’s only transgender because its relevant. Why not racism, child discipline, addiction, or euthanasia?

    And that what offends me. There no attempt to convince anybody on the fence here. A person who is willing enough to accept the ridiculous premise is already convinced. You don’t get into any biblical reason for opposing transgender people, which you just seem to take as an assumption as this point. The issue is completely artificial, and to the cynic at me just seems as a way of mobilizing unloving, ignorant and arrogant people into (and within) your church/institution. As a minister, can’t you understand how that takes our Lord’s name in vain!

    Please respond.

  2. Andy says:

    I love this analogy! It should make proponents of transgenderism see how ridiculous and nonsensical their position is. Feelings don’t trump reality. We don’t get to define our own reality. Reality is objective. It exists, whether we are willing to accept it or not. Happiness requires living in accord with reality. And love requires that we point people to reality. God made people, male and female, in His image to glorify Him.

  3. Malky Moo says:

    Apologies Floyd, I work odd hours as a YW and sometimes I cannot give lots of time to such things. Below is just a qick run through of what you asked, it is gone midnight here and it has been a long day; 9am until now and tomorrow is similar, so don`t expect a quick reply to any answer and I`m sorry you seem to think I am going down rabbit holes (I gave up ferreting years ago).
    First, your example of comparison is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. You presume that a different mental picture of one’s gender and AIS are the same. As Kevin does when he generalises about gender and anorexia. You provide nothing to support your hypotheses but simply make a connection without any evidence or reason. You also show you have not done your homework. Your description of AIS and its corollary in the opposite sex is incorrect. As is kevin and the above.
    Let’s first examine your comparison and back up several steps. With AIS, there is an organic enzymetic (lack of production) disease or androgen bonding issue in the womb that leads to conditions in the male and female respectively. This is far different than a person having a mental picture of what one wants to be. The first (AIS) is biological while the second is philosophical and bad philosophy at that. One can have a mental picture that one is a dog or cat. Does that mean that such a mental picture is in fact true of one’s true self? NO. Yet someone who has the sex organs of a female yet is male may feel female because culture says that they are outwardly female yet inwardly they are male, in either case the person is in turmoil and using your analogy, they mentally picture themselves as a certain gender and they are not, so your assertion is wrong.
    Furthermore, a biological condition does not change the truth that God created male and female. Notice that no one ever claims that one is something other than a male or female. People do not imagine one is a wombixale or a malwim(WHAAAAAAAAAT? Come on, give a dog a bone mukkah). Rather, those who claim to be other than their current gender are claim to be a male or female. Those are the only choices. This human makeup simply confirms how God created humans – male and female and not male, female and wombixale or some combination. God also made humans different from animals and place His image in individuals to reflect Him. Just because a male has a mental picture that he is a female inside his head does not change God’s creation. Unfortunately the Bible does not agree with you; Gen. 6:19 tells us that there are only two of each creature that entered the ark, yet we have animals that can reproduce without the addition of male gametes. This would appear to be in contradiction to the male-female reproduction ethic.
    So then, how do mutations occur? Mutations have bothered scientists since the beginning and have not been conclusive. Just as the Bible affirms God’s original creation of male and female, it also affirms humanity’s rejection of God as I explained earlier, which you seemed not to have read. All creation was affected by the Fall of humanity. God created all things good, but the Fall made things bad. As humanity moved farther away from God, humanity’s ways of living affected everything about them so that deterioration occurred both physically and mentally. The introduction of rebellion did this and there is overwhelming evidence of this in the world in alienation and its consequences. Along with the fall and it`s bad news for all of creation, we have genetic mutations and mental disorders of all varieties, these are not the sins of that person, it would be abhorrent to think it so. It is how we love the person that suffers from consequences of sin that are not theirs that counts. I have a plank in my eye, I do not tell my neighbour that theirs is bigger or smaller, I simply ask how I can help
    You simply have not thought through the implications of your hypotheses and fail to consider the biblical worldview in all its implications. I feel you also fall down in the way you answered this, and this is not done out of malice, I just do not have much time to attend to these spats as YW is a demanding profession.
    Nope, you misread Kevin’s conclusion. Kevin was not proposing a subjective relativism, but that the character in this short story was desperate herself to transform to her [own] reality, a relativistic fiction, and only an objective love could bring her to see an objective reality that was much different from the one she created in her own mind.. It is little wonder that you and so many others went off on tangents trying to argue for fiction when facing a fantasy. Again Kevin has subjected us to a logical problem; he gives us no other option than to follow his perceived solution, yes it is a thought experiment, but it too becomes a non-sequitur
    Finally –
    As Rebecca walks out the door, your first reaction is to feel a deep sense of satisfaction. PRIDE, pure and simple. Would you do that as a youth worker, no! Stop sending us down a one-way street Kevin.
    She left your office feeling better than when she came. That’s what you like to see. As above.
    It’s always gratifying to have helped a hurting student. 3rd time, busted!
    And yet, there’s another thought you can’t quite shake. Another one way street, how could you think the above and this? This is not reflective practice.
    When you think about her rail thin body, and how desperately she needs food, and how everything must change to conform to her reality, (Really? How little meat and bone there was in the conversation with Rebecca. It was not love, it was not professional and it was a really silly thought experiment) you can’t help but wonder: was this really love?
    Lotsa love; Exasperated, of Scotland

  4. Floyd says:

    Moo,

    >>>”You presume that a different mental picture of one’s gender and AIS are the same.”

    I actually said just the opposite. You did not read my post correctly.

    >>>”As Kevin does when he generalises about gender and anorexia. You provide nothing to support your hypotheses but simply make a connection without any evidence or reason. You also show you have not done your homework. Your description of AIS and its corollary in the opposite sex is incorrect. As is kevin and the above.”

    Non-sequitur. This statement does not follow your initial premise above. Since you begin with a non-sequitur, nothing else you say is relevant. You need to state a premise and work from it rather than go off topic as you do. I have no idea what you are rebutting of the point you are trying to make. You need to start again with a clear and precise premise and work from it. You meander from one thought to another without making much sense.

  5. I have followed with interest this thread. To me the whole issue is a rabbit hole with many tunnels. I ask myself what is Gods yard stick for His creation. We know when he had finished His creation he said it was very good. Now to the present day (following the fall of mankind into sin and Christs Death and Resurrection), from my understanding of scripture, Christ accepts us in our current state (which includes any categories mentioned in regards to gender and gender change) because of grace and love. We as ministers of reconciliation are to treat all equally, offering Christs love to believers and non believers alike. Their current state is not as relevant as you might think when it comes to knowing Christ. True changes occur after salvation, but such changes take time as we conform to the image of Christ. The human condition is very diverse and at times very troubling but isn’t that why Christ came as described in Luke 4. Love must be applied to all as hard as that may be. Having ministered to many people from the categories mentioned in this blog the business God does with them is very private and specific. The result I leave up to God and the persons desire for acceptance, love and change.

  6. Floyd says:

    Grahame>>>”rom my understanding of scripture, Christ accepts us in our current state.”

    No He does not. Your understanding does not align with the Bible. That is the reason Christ calls for repentance. That is the reason Paul said that we must be renewed “in the spirit of our minds and to put on the new man.” That is the reason that Jesus also said, “You must be born again.”

    Those who do not repent and believe the gospel are doomed to eternal death.

    Your view does not stand on the Bible.

  7. neville briggs says:

    Floyd, Jesus called people to come to Him. ” Come to me all who are weary and heavy burdened and I will give you rest ” He said, ( quoting Jeremiah ). Jesus didn’t require people to stop being weary or heavy burdened before coming, simply come in faith, which I think is reasonable to include repentance, as you said.
    Is repentance the same thing as our current state. It seems from Jesus call that repentance is a desire to change not a state of being.
    Is the gospel a message, or is the gospel Jesus. The gospel is Jesus I would argue and we are called to a relationship. Is it not the living Lord who will change our state of being. As you quoted, we must be born again, which Jesus emphasised was a work of the Spirit. We can only come as we are, in faith, and allow His work to take place as we walk with Him.

    Perhaps we can understand more clearly if we contemplate how Jesus associated with the tax collectors and sinners and a Samaritan woman.

    And perhaps it will help if we encourage lost people to come to a loving Lord who wants to forgive and heal, rather than challenging people with threats of eternal doom.

  8. Floyd says:

    neville, faith without repentance is not faith. They are two sides of the same coin and are inseparable. Modern culture has split them and divorced them from their cultural context. In the Jewish mind, faith was action and not simply some intellectual assent. That action was repentance. Confession is pregnant with the meaning of repentance. It means to agree with. Agreeing is turning from sin to God. The “come as you are” is a Western concept that ignores the work of God in the new birth and its consequent outcome of faith/repentance. It also rejects the truth of our human condition as slaves of sin. God does not want us as we are, fallen creatures steeped in darkness and destined for spiritual death. We do not and cannot come to Jesus by our own will but only through the new birth (John 3:1-3; 6:44). When the Spirit gives us new birth, we turn in faith toward God. That turning is repentance. One cannot exist without the other.

    The hymn we often hear at Billy Graham crusades, “Just as I am,” is misleading and not very good theology. Romans 3:11 claims, “No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, no even one.” That is the human condition this song ignores. It does not even recognize that man are slaves to sin.

    When Jesus associated with sinners, He called them to repentance. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” That is repentance.

    >>>”Is it not the living Lord who will change our state of being. As you quoted, we must be born again, which Jesus emphasised was a work of the Spirit. We can only come as we are, in faith, and allow His work to take place as we walk with Him.”

    You seem to draw a division between the work of the Spirit and the work of Christ. That work of Christ cannot be divorced from the work of the Spirit. Both accomplish the same thing since they are the second and third persons of the Trinity. It is wrong theology not to see all three persons of the Trinity involved in salvation. The Father draws people through the Son (John 6:44), and the Spirit regenerates them through the new birth, giving them the gift of faith and repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25). The work of God is faith and repentance.

  9. Floyd says:

    Neville>>>”Jesus didn’t require people to stop being weary or heavy burdened before coming, simply come in faith, which I think is reasonable to include repentance, as you said. Is repentance the same thing as our current state. It seems from Jesus call that repentance is a desire to change not a state of being.”

    Neville, you miss several things in your statement. Your quote from your uncited reference (Matthew 11:28) is out of context, and therefore you miss the entire message Jesus taught. He was speaking against the unreprentant (11:20-30, pronouncing woes). He also never said people were to “come as they were.” He was not directly citing Jeremiah 31:25. Editors of various versions of the Bible place such references in column notes as cross-references. Even if Jesus were citing Jeremiah, the context of the prophet must be considered. The prophets’ messages were always about repentance. In Jeremiah, the LORD called the people to “turn” (22 times) from their evil ways to Him. “Desire” does not stand alone and is not of faith.

    Repentance is also not a “reasonable” thing. It is a biblical mandate. Making it reasonable relativizes repentance and makes it optional, because one may consider something else “reasonable” in the future. It is reasonable not to run a red light, but how many people have you seen do it? Desire follows action. How many people desire not to run a red light but do it?

    When reading and citing the Bible, you must do so within the various contexts or you will get the message wrong and relativize its teachings and make them options. God did not give Moses the Ten Options and informed Israel that they could continue to be as they are – idol worshipers before that golden calf. Our current state is not an option, because God calls it unholy.

    Because of our unholy state, God knew that rejection of Him is the norm. Therefore, He created the exception – the new birth with its consequent outcomes. The Apostle John identifies these outcomes in 1 John:

    1. Practice righteousness, 1 John 2:29
    2. Does not practice sin, 3:9; 5:18
    3. Loves, 4:7
    4. Believes, 5:1
    5. Overcomes the world, 5:4

    In each case, the verb, “born of God,” appears in the Greek perfect tense, indicating a past action (“born of God”) continues on into present and future outcomes (as stated above. Coming to Jesus is the consequent outcome of the new birth. That coming is indicative of repenting. That is the message of the gospel. If repentance is removed from the gospel, there would be no gospel.

  10. neville briggs says:

    Hello Floyd. Chapters and verses were never part of the original biblical texts. There are many ” uncited ” references in the NT. probably because scripture is better understood as a conversation not a workshop manual.

    If you think I discount repentance then you have misread my post.

    Isaiah Ch 1 vs 16-20.
    …..Cease to do evil, learn to do good……
    “Come let us reason together “Says the Lord. “Though your sins are scarlet, they will be as white as snow. …..if you consent and obey you will eat the best of the land, if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword ”

    God’s message to Israel shows clearly that repentance is reasonable. It’s the old, if this then this, or if that then that. It’s a very simple appeal to reasonableness of cause and effect. God’s message also assumes that natural people have the ability to hear and choose. The Calvinist doctrine of total inability is debunked all through scripture.

    I think that Moses and the Ten options is a straw man argument. Sorry old boy.

    I admire your ability and dedication to study scripture, but remember that Jesus told those earnest scripture students, the Pharisees, that they missed how the scripture pointed to Him. Coming to Him is the end of it all, not knowledge of scripture.
    Jesus says ( Mark 2.27 ) “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath ” Now what does He mean by that , I wonder ?

  11. Floyd says:

    Neville>>>”Hello Floyd. Chapters and verses were never part of the original biblical texts. There are many ” uncited ” references in the NT. probably because scripture is better understood as a conversation not a workshop manual.”

    You commit two errors. First, you commit the logical fallacy of the straw man by attributing to me something I never said or claimed. Before you write, you need to think through what you have read, and you need to be careful in your reading. Besides, it is standard practice in writing style to give citation, and perhaps even translation. Otherwise, you could be ignoring context, as you did, as well as provide an ill-translated rendition. In you case, all you did is provide a reference translators give as cross reference rather than substantiate that Jesus actually did reply on Jeremiah. If Jesus actually did cite Jeremiah, you must give support that He did. You did not do this and therefore also committed an exegetical error. Second, your reference to the Scriptures as a “conversation” and “not a workshop manual” is another error in fact and a false comparison. It is neither. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and does not fit in either of your stated categories. Your claim denigrates the Scriptures to something other than what it is – the holy Word of God.

    Neville>>>”If you think I discount repentance then you have misread my post.”

    How? Support your claim.

    Neville>>>”God’s message to Israel shows clearly that repentance is reasonable.”

    That was not your original statements. You said, “I think…” What you think and what God’s message is are very different. Do confuse the two. Another logical fallacy of misdirection. Besides, you are wrong again, because you do not express the true meaning of the Hebrew but rather use the word “reasonable” according to Western modern English usage. That is not at all what Isaiah meant, and you fail to exegete the passage but rather quote it out of context. The Hebrew word וְנִוָּֽכְחָ֖ה (wə-niw-wā-ḵə-ḥāh) has little to do with reasoning or reasonableness. That is very different from the meaning you place on the passage. In fact, you read into the passage a meaning the author never intended. Rather Isaiah, as God’s spokesman, calls for repentance. That is the intent of the word within its context (judge rightly, that is according to God’s word). Review the context again. It screams out repentance. Besides, you are doing nothing but Scripture hopping and proof texting, both of which are exegetical fallacies. Stay on topic and stop taking rabbit trails.

    You bring up Calvinist, another strawman. I never made any reference to Calvinists. That is a non-sequitur and an evasion.

    Neville>>>”I admire your ability and dedication to study scripture, but remember that Jesus told those earnest scripture students, the Pharisees, that they missed how the scripture pointed to Him. Coming to Him is the end of it all, not knowledge of scripture.”

    The above statement is no more than a veiled ad homenim logical fallacy while also being still another logical fallacy of non-sequitur.

    Neville>>>”Jesus says ( Mark 2.27 ) “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath ” Now what does He mean by that , I wonder ?

    What does the above statement have to do with anything? Another non-sequitur.

    You really need to give thought to what you write prior to writing them. Your reasoning from Scriptures has much to be desired.

  12. neville briggs says:

    ” What you think and what God’s message is, are very different ” Floyd says.

    Really !!. Then by what process do I discern God’s message ?

  13. Floyd says:

    Neville>>>”Really !!. Then by what process do I discern God’s message?

    Glad you asked. Now you are asking the right questions. The Scriptures make clear how we discern the message (God’s will) of the Scriptures. Both Jesus and the Apostle John inform us that a person must be born again (John 3:1-8; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). Without new birth that comes from God, no one can practice righteousness, repent, truly love one another and God, place faith in Christ, or overcome the evil world. If God has not given new birth to a person, one cannot even rightly discern God’s will or the “the things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:14). In fact, the person not born of God does not even accept God’s will. Read the cited passage.
    Afterwards, a person needs to devote oneself to the reading and study of God’s word. That is a discovery process, a discovery of the mind of God through the agency of the authors. That is, we must always seek the author’s intent within the contexts in which he speaks. Scripture hoping and proof texting are not valid approaches to the Bible. Those ways are not the ways we read a regular book. We do not isolate a sentence or paragraph from a book’s context and then claim, “To me, in means…”

    Devotion to the Scriptures does not simply mean reading and studying the, but also applying and obeying them. When we hold to the Bible as nothing more than a “conversation,” we devalue it for our lives and fail to understand how it applies to us. We cannot really know God’s will, though we can understand His message, unless we live faithfully in obedience to him. Obedience by faith gives way to true knowledge (Romans 1:5; 6:16; 16:26). One cannot really know the things and will of God without obedience by faith. One thing neglected in this discussion around “transgenderism” is it ignores God’s will and word, because it rejects it. It also overlooks faithful obedience to God’s will for our identity in favor of one looking inward for a fictitious identity. It does not seek to discover the identity God gave us but rather seeks to establish one’s own. The entire message of 1 Corinthians 2:14 elude those who follow this path. All the arguments in the world for attempting to justify one’s self-identity and lifestyle are arguments that reject God. In essence, they are atheistic. Arguments are not application or living by faith. Arguments over the Bible, lifestyles, and philosophical speculations amount to resistance to God and amount to arguments against His will and message.

    What follows the engagement of Scripture is then living by faith. As I mentioned before, faith subscribes repentance. If there is no repentance, there is no faith. They are inseparable. The faith that sets one’s sights on God involves repentance that turns to Him. Arguing over God’s word does not lead to a life of faith but rather to a life of speculative darkness.

    The gospel is clear. Christ died and rose again on our behalf to bring about faith in Him and remission of sins. Believing the gospel (good news) leads one from the bad news, the result of rejecting it – eternal death. Read carefully through 1 John, and you will learn how to know God and His will: a) the new birth, b) living by faith (repentance), c) practicing righteousness, and d) loving God and others.

  14. neville briggs says:

    Floyd. Just a couple of questions. Doesn’t the letter of Paul to the Romans teach that the unrighteous discern in their minds the things of God from the appearance of the creation. That their rejection of God is a wilful act of defiance against what they know.
    Isn’t that the basis of KDY’s ‘thought experiment” wilful refusal to face the evident truth.

    Another question ; Why did Jesus chide the unregenerate Nicodemus about the fact that as a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus ought have already understood ” you must be born again “.

    One last thought ‘The just shall live by faith ” ( Habbakuk and Paul ) agreed, that is unarguable.

  15. Floyd says:

    neville, before I reply to your last set of questions, I have a few myself:

    1. What is the point of your questions
    2. How does it relate to your post prior to your last one?
    3. How does it respond to my last post?
    4. Have you not answered your own questions, and you are simply presenting rhetorical questions?
    5. Have you confessed Jesus as Lord and Savior (Romans 10:9-10)?
    6. Do you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God?

    Interact with my previous reply, and answer the above questions, and I will entertain a reply.

  16. neville briggs says:

    Have I confessed Jesus as Lord and Saviour. yes I have, do you presume to judge that I might not.

    Do I accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. Yes, but I carefully examine interpreters words. There is no statement that I know of in the Bible that says a conversation from God is demeaning His word. I do not suggest that conversation means casual chatting.
    God has many conversations in the BibIe, some with others ( which we learn from ), some direct to us. As I understand it, our end of the conversation is what we call prayer.

    I am surprised that you don’t understand questions about how any person can use their mind to discern God , not just from the scriptures and before the Holy Spirit begins any work of regeneration.

  17. Floyd says:

    Neville>>>”do you presume to judge that I might not.”

    Is your query a question or a statement? You read into my remarks what is not there.

    You only answered one question, and the rest is irrelevant and a diversion. There is no more to discuss with you.

  18. Floyd says:

    Neville>>>”There is no statement that I know of in the Bible that says a conversation from God is demeaning His word. I do not suggest that conversation means casual chatting.”

    By the way, the above statement you made consists of two logical fallacies:

    1. The fallacy of the straw man – you twisted what I said into something I never claimed

    2. Argument from absence – you argue from a “no statement that I know.”

    You also make a claim based on what you do not know. That is also called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    You may wish to be a bit more thoughtful and logical prior to making statements.

    I will reply to no other remarks from you.

  19. neville briggs says:

    So I guess you hold me in contempt. Does that come from the doctrines of “grace”.
    No reply he says.
    Never mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


About


Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung


Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina. He is chairman of the board of The Gospel Coalition, assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte), and a PhD candidate at the University of Leicester. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have seven children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books