Did You Hear the Thing That Guy Said?!
“Did you hear about that speech that the player from some football team gave? I don’t know his name, the quarterback, maybe? The team was called the Chiefs or something.” So began a conversation over dinner with my daughter the other day. She was of course referring to the by now (in)famous commencement address given by Kansas City Chiefs placekicker (not quarterback) Harrison Butker at Benedictine College in Atchison, KS. My daughter has never watched an NFL football game in her life. But she knew about this football player’s speech (and she had a few opinions). Which I found interesting.
The content of the speech was, shall we say, not universally well-received. Butker expressed some quite conservative views on human sexuality, gender roles, abortion, and the role of the Catholic church, to name just a few. It was a bold speech. My daughter agreed with him on a few things, disagreed with him on a few others. She also noted that the speech seemed to be having a very polarizing effect (is there any other kind of effect these days?). Some people (including, it seems, many of the students to whom it was addressed) loved it; some people hated it. And social media had its usual conflagration before moving on to the next shiny object.
“Why do people have to get so angry about everything and just try to cancel people they don’t agree with?” my daughter asked. Well, good question. A conservative Roman Catholic saying conservative Catholic things at a Roman Catholic educational institution isn’t really that remarkable. Is it? I would expect a very different kind of speech at, say, Oberlin College. This is the world we live in. Different kinds of institutions that represent different kinds of values exist. People exist inside and outside of these institutions that have varying levels of agreement with this or that thing that is said from this or that platform. Sometimes people say things that we don’t like or that make us uncomfortable. Sometimes this is because they’re wrong. Sometimes it might be because we’re wrong or at least less right than we think we are. Sometimes the wise thing to do might be to not instantly react with the hot take and maybe think on it for a while.
Alas, this is not really an option for many people. The perverse incentives of social media nurture this bizarre impulse whereby every opinion that does not comport with our own must be screamed down. We must demonstrate immediately that we are on the right side of whatever issue has floated to the surface of the sludge we daily scroll through. It’s not enough to just say, “I disagree with Harrison Butker’s vision of family life or the role of women.” He must be the embodiment of all that is evil and misogynistic and retrograde. He must be a threat.
I find this instinct strange and unsettling. I did my undergraduate degree in philosophy. Almost every day, I encountered views from other students and faculty that I disagreed with, particularly when it came to things like the existence of God, the role of religion, the problem of evil, etc. And they disagreed with me. So, we bashed it out in debates and arguments and papers, we ground through the logic, exposed the argumentative holes, examined the implications of accepting this or that proposition. Sometimes we got to the end and realized we were at a genuine impasse.
This is what citizens of a pluralistic culture do. Or at least should strive to do. We understand that we share space with people who look at the world differently than we do. Sometimes very differently. And so, if we want to avoid perpetual warfare, we do what we can to try to persuade. We listen (like, actually listen, not just hunt for ammunition for the imminent take down). We learn, we grow. Some edges are blurred, others are sharpened. We perhaps modify our views. And, if we are wise, our worldviews gradually become able to take on board the complexity of a complex world where the right thing to believe or say or do isn’t always blindingly obvious.
Or, we just scream self-righteously and mostly ignorantly at each other on the internet. This, too, is an option, and one that many are availing themselves of. We are rapidly becoming a profoundly malformed species, thanks in no small part to the devices we carry around in our pockets, the content they are constantly serving up for our consumption, and the instincts and impulses that they are designed to feed.
As I spoke with my daughter about the Harrison Butker commencement address, I couldn’t help but pine nostalgically for a world in which a speech given 2237 km from where I live in an institution rooted in a tradition that is not mine, an institution where I am not employed and where neither of my children attend, could simply pass by without me noticing or commenting on it. A world where isolated snippets of it don’t show up back-to-back with videos of dogs and drunk people and advertising and political hot takes in a constantly updating feed of content algorithmically engineered to make me outraged, offended, or anxious. A world where my daughter would never have heard of that football player that said that thing that lit the internet on fire that day.
Image source.
Rumblings 
I too miss a world in which I only heard about the big earth shattering things (Earthquakes, elections (and even then, mostly only ours & possibly yours with only a few others showing up in the paper,) big world events, ya know?)
The constant disagreement on everything is getting tiresome & I am weary beyond belief.
I wish we could go back to honest dialogue and smoothing out the sharp obsidian edges.
I am increasingly thinking that the only way we can “go back” (understanding, of course, that whatever we are feeling nostalgic about was likely never as good as we remember it!) is to radically rethink our assumptions and habits around technology. So much that we once imagined would unite us is having the actual effect of tearing us apart.
Yes, I do agree with that. Tech is not always the progress they make it out to be. I minimize my exposure to info on my phone, but unfortunately it isn’t possible to really limit it the way I would like. I also remember in 1991 when the rallying cry was “Can’t we all just get along?” So it was a problem even 35 years ago. I know we had fights in my high school in the 80s because different groups felt some kind of way. But I do remember adults having more level discussions than we do now. But maybe, just maybe, we might be on our way out of all that & coming into a time where we see “others” as people worthy of having decent discussions with & not just villianizing them because they don’t agree with us. That would be nice.
It would indeed, Micki.
Amen! Well said/written Ryan. Thanks.
The, “pastoral pivot” on full display. So many of you lack the faith and wisdom of, Mr. Butker.
Mr. Butker speaks from a place of faith in Christ. He speaks honestly through the Holy Spirit of God. Contend with that spirit, pastor Ryan. You are a man of God, not a secular sociologist or psychologist
Believing that the means through which we communicate are responsible for the moral degeneracy of our times, is like blaming the gun for the murder.
It is the heart of the speaker, it is the heart of the murderer that we must contend with. Technology, like the poor, will always be with us. We need not worry about it in of itself. People of true faith in Jesus Christ will always use technological advancement for good. Faithless people never will.
Be a, “fisher of men” pastor, Ryan. If you don’t have faith in yourself, so be it. Have faith in the one who sends you.
“Or, we just scream self-righteously and mostly ignorantly at each other on the internet.”
Haha! Yep! One of the things I appreciate about this space is the tact and respect you display while engaging with indignant comments. You are teaching me a lesson in patience and providing great reads along the way. Thanks for that, Ryan.
Thanks, Joshua. Appreciate this.
The stakes are salvation, Joshua. Yours, mine, everyone’s. Confrontation is unavoidable and quite frankly, necessary. The Christian worldview is collapsing. The only bullwarks are communities that take sin and the call to repentance seriously. Christian men must reclaim their moral responsibilities and become the leaders God calls them to be. Our world is literally dying for the lack of good men; courageous men.
If you wish to criticize, engage directly with the person you disagree with. Otherwise remain silent. Mockery and innuendo are signs of weakness.
@erahjohn If mockery and innuendo are signs of weakness as you say, why are they so often included in your contributions here? This seems an absurd way to approach discussions around faith (particularly from someone concerned that the Christian worldview is collapsing). Instead, have you considered your pugnacious approach to faith-based conversation is keeping you ostracized from vibrant Christian communities online and/or locally? When I lean into challenging dialogue with a willingness to listen, to understand – my life has been enriched time and time again, praise God. By doing so, you may find connection to the good, courageous men and women that you mentioned are lacking in your life. Not all of whom will share your exact beliefs and practices. It’s a hard pill to swall at times, but there are more important things we can devote our attention to anyways; family, church, a good book. In any event, it seems what I wrote in my first comment has resonated with you, 😉 so perhaps that is your sign to lead with kindness and compassion next time you share your views. It’s as good a way as any to demonstrate yourself as a courageous leader of God. Our world is literally dying for them after all. Otherwise, you’re just another troll screaming self-righteously on the internet, and where’s the moral responsibility in that?
Hoisted on my own Petard? You’re free to think so. I’m not perfect, that’s for sure but I’m really not interested in engaging you in a “I know you are but what am I” type of discussion.
I appreciate the directness and honesty of this response. It is always better to talk to a person then about them, especially on line. As for your speculations about my life, they are mostly innaccurate but there is always room for improvement.
“Moral responsibility” I don’t think that term works. The concept of morals, in our modern society, like truth, has become malleable and personal. If we cannot agree on definitions we cannot debate the concepts.
Faithfulness ( imperfectly but honestly) to the word of God, is a better way to understand, “morality”.
Kindness and compassion wherever possible but not always. I believe that confrontation and rebuke are as frequent a biblical expression, as are kindness and compassion. So much so, in fact, that confrontation and rebuke are components of what it means to be, kind and compassionate.
“Better a man lose his eye, then have his eye cause him to sin” Sounds a lot more pugnacious then anything I say. Prioritizing politeness when sin abounds, may be pleasing to others and lead to our inclusion but where does it leave us with God?
The Lord our God hates sin. Until we hate it also, how do we dare speak for God and to his people.
And this is why I confront those who dare to assume leadership and who refuse to confront the decadence and sin that have permeated our culture.
Mr. Butker is a voice for God. He gives voice to God’s word. He brings “light” to our present moral condition. Of course our enemies will attack his character and bring, “heat” as a response. It is to be expected. “Blessed” is Mr. Butker for having the courage to speak as he did. Their condemnation is his glory.
What shouldn’t happen is men of God responding with nostalgic pleas for a return to a time when Mr. Butker’s speech could have remained unheard and ignored. Praise God for the internet and the platform it provided, Mr. Butker.
Men of God must confront his words. Agree or disagree and in so doing reveal their true loyalties and allegiances.
here here!
Lolol…sorry Elizabeth but I can’t resist the laugh. Your comment now being positioned here is clearly not what you intended.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.😀
I agree the Lord works in mysterious ways after you accused Ryan of censoring that particular comment. Clearly he didn’t and in the past he has also explained he has no ability to do so anyways. I would think an apology is in order.
Social media platforms can flag and or remove comments and commentators. Perhaps it is an issue like X, where the use of too many characters prevents a response from being posted until it is reviewed. My comments are frequently, “reviewed”. Ryan is aware of this.
Well, it appears my response to you hasn’t met with Ryan’s approval. No surprise.
I’ll be brief. If you affirm, “reproductive health rights”, specifically abortion, you affirm Satan. If you affirm fornication, sodomy and gender reassignment, you affirm Satan. If that offends you, good. It is meant to.
What gives you or Mr. Butker (or anyone) the right to speak for God? From my view, Mr. Butker is expressing his interpretation of the Lord’s teachings. He is entitled to do so. You may wholeheartedly agree. But to suggest that either he or yourself speak for God? You’ve lost me there. We cannot anoint ourselves and others as Prophets each time we hear an opinion aligned with our own views. In a similar vein, what gives you authority to denounce that folks who disagree with your beliefs affirm Satan? “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Be very weary @erahjohn, as it is potentially dangerous for your Spirit to confuse opinion(s) with truth.
Regarding improvement, I’d urge you to brush up on logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques, starting with the gish gallop. This will strengthen your debate skills and make it difficult for opponents to poke holes in your arguments (which in my opinion, are deeply flawed).
I hope we don’t wind up talking past one another. Truth is such a scarce commodity. For it’s sake, for God’s sake, I hope we can enlighten one another. I hope we can share truth.
For the record, I’ll take no offense to any personal criticisms you may direct towards me. The issues we address are contentious. The truth we might share speaks to the essence of our being, of our understanding of ourselves, others and our worldview. Trying to tell the truth can often lay us bare and vulnerable. It is easy to become agitated and defensive in these situations. A disposition tilting towards forgiveness seems to me to be the right approach.
I think it was Kurt Vonnegut Jr. who said something like, the best stories always beginning at the beginning, so just begin…
St. Paul tells us that the gifts of the Holy Spirit exist; are real and true and then goes on to describe several of them. One of them is the gift of prophecy. You can and should question (test the fruit) of anyone claiming prophetic knowledge but if you accept Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures as the revealed truth of God, you must accept the reality of prophets. A true prophetic revelation isn’t opinion, it is truth. It doesn’t come from the mind of a man, it comes from the mind of God through the heart of a man and eventually revealed to the man in his mind. A man may wrestle with prophecy, try to ignore it or even run away from it but eventually he has no choice but to speak it. Worse still no one need tell the man that the audacity of his claims reek of madness and some sort of self aggrandizing pathology, he feels all of that and more without being told. And it gets worse lol given the fact that even upon revealing what he believes to be a, “word” from the Holy Spirit a man is more likely to receive ridicule and scorn than he is gratitude. So it seems to be in the kingdom of God. The beatitudes and all that.
So when I tell you what I claim to be true about political feminism and the LGBT movement, I claim it as prophecy. And when I hear another express the same concerns I hear another prophetic voice. Neither of us are sharing an opinion, we are sharing a revealed word from God and if Mr. Butker is anything at all like me it probably took him some time before he had the courage to speak.
As for your seeming hostility to this idea, I’m sorry but I have to question either the depth of your faith or your formation in faith by those who taught you, if in principle, you reject this distinction between truth and opinion.
(To be continued)
So for you to say, “what gives us(me) the right to speak.” Is to completely misunderstanding the context. I don’t have a right to speak a word from God, I have a responsibility to speak a word from God. However that shakes out for me is irrelavent.
As for your next complaint, again you misapply scripture. I am not judging, I am discerning. In love we are explicitly instructed to confront our sin and sin in others. In fact if we ignore the sins of others we become a party to the sin and Jesus, and Jesus alone will pass judgement on the sinner and on us for our silence.
That being the key distinction, identifying sin is a process of discernment and a responsibility for all believers. The sentence handed down, is the judgement and the complete preview of Jesus.
(To be continued)
Fallacy #1
“If we who are abiding in Christ have hoped only in this world( and not the Resurrection) then we are of all people most miserable and to be pitied.”
1 Corinthians 15:19
Fallacy #2
“Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”
John 3:3…
“Although Nicodemus was wise in the things of the world he could not understand this simple statement of truth”…
Don’t confuse or conflate the material world with the spiritual world. The material world is complex beyond belief. The greatest minds only understand a fragment of what there is to know.
The spiritual world isn’t like that at all. The spiritual world, the, “real” world at it’s deepest and truest meaning, is binary. Good and Evil, life or death.
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Satan is not the way, the lie, the death.
The spiritual world sometimes seems more complicated than it is as a consequence of the work of Satan. There is only one path to salvation (The narrow gate) but there are literally a billion ways to lie and a billion ways to die. (The wide road)
Don’t prioritze the trivial, my friend. Leave logical fallacies and gish gallops (sounds like a parade of effeminate horses) to those preoccupied with the material world. We are in the world but not of the world. We belong to Jesus.
Worship, pray, fast, learn. God will teach you. If he teaches a fool like me, he’ll teach anyone.
(To be continued)
..And God said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I sanctified you… I had a plan for you…
Jeremiah 1:5
Who do I belong to?
Am I my own? Do I belong to others? My mother? My father? My wife? My children? My community?…
In the deepest, truest sense, I belong to God and only to God.
God alone decides the time of my conception and birth. God alone decides when it is my time to die. For anyone to interfere knowingly and willingly with my destruction is to commit murder. I am not theirs, they cannot decide. I belong to God…
And so it is with abortion. Abortion is murder. And it is likely true that we all have a hand in the killing.
A profane sense of entitlement exhorted persistently by the feminist movement. An obsession with lust and sexual gratification without consequence or constraint and outside the bonds of holy matrimony. A cold hearted indifference to the child in the womb and perhaps worst of all, the thundering silence of most, within Christian communities.
“Whatever you do unto the least of mine”…
Is there any more, “least” than the chld in her mother’s womb?
I could say more, much, much more but it breaks my heart and enrages my spirit. So I will try to be brief.
I say one last thing, with all the conviction I can muster in my heart. Abortion is simply the worst of all our sins. It is the moral equivalent of genocide. It is an on-going, deafening silence of screams from the most vulnerable among us. It is a perpetual death camp, affirmed, celebrated and codified.
GOD HAVE MERCY!
And if that isn’t from Satan, nothing is. He doesn’t exist.
“Unless you come to me like little children”…
So it turns out there is a final act. Just not the one I planned. Lol Someone a lot wiser than me always told me, we have our plan and God has a better one.
I’ve often wondered about the Garden of Eden story and the, “fall”. I mean why deny man the fruit of the tree of knowledge? And if so, why put the tree in the garden at all?
The first question is easier to answer for me. Or I have some limited understand of. Lol
Knowledge isn’t man’s pathway to the Father. It is his impediment. The Father is the, “word”. The Father, is, among other things, the sum total of all knowledge. We are not. And even if we could be, we dare not approach the altar of the Father as an equal or with the idea that we can, by our own learning, achieve equality with God. To do so is to be Satan.
The Father is creator, we are creature. He made us. He knows what He wants from us. He knows what we need. What makes us work. What fulfills us. We don’t know any of that.
The Father wants relationship. Love through faith. That’s what He wants. That’s what we need. We don’t work any other way. We die any other way.
In the end the, Father’s commandment distills down to an offer. An offer of a shared love and a shared eternal life. It’s something of a paradox because His offer is our commandment. We need to be told. We need to obey. What starts in fear, ends in love. The pathway is through the heart not the mind…
Why the tree is there to begin with, I don’t know. A test of faith? Likely. Perhaps at a later time after the more important understandings of faith, love, and all the virtues were ingrained in us, maybe the fruit of knowledge, would be made available to us.
And then I think, we were born pure. Pure and beautiful. Just the way a perfect Father would make us. But we were corrupted by life and our choices, along the way. So we must be, “born again”. Only this time we choose. Can we surrender, what we know, what we think we know and return to purity?Return to a child like state?
I hope so, for each and every one of us, I hope so.
Ryan, when you have the time, could you please retrieve my last comment. It did not post. Thanks.
I wonder how many times over we will prove the point of Ryan’s post with our squaballing? Ah, well. This keyboard warrior has one more round left in ’em! Since it was referenced in the post, I will take a stab at using philosophical reasoning grounded in logic to refute your arguments (which in my opinion, remain littered with logical fallacies and void of persuasion).
Here are some of the holes in your rationale that I see:
– When you say things like, “If you affirm, “reproductive health rights”, specifically abortion, you affirm Satan. If you affirm fornication, sodomy and gender reassignment, you affirm Satan.”, you’re displaying the False Dichotomy fallacy. By doing so, you misrepresent several complex issues, suggesting that there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes. I’ve seen this tactic used in formal debate to limit options for argument, which often leads to flawed or entirely false conclusions unfortunately. Now, by your own words, this comment was meant to offend – not enlighten nor teach – which also by your own words, we should strive for. You’ve then gone on to quote a few passages that support a Pro-Life view, but I don’t think you’re making as profound a statement as you think you are. This is the cherry picking fallacy, which occurs when an argument highlights evidence that supports its own conclusion, while ignoring significant evidence to the contrary. Someone on the Pro-Choice side of things could do the same using Exodus 21:22-25, wherein a pregnant woman miscarries because of a struggle with a man, but the man is just fined (not treated as a murder). In numbers 5:11-31, a priest may cast a spell on a pregnant woman if she has committed adultery. If she had committed adultery, her thigh would rot and her child would die. Also, Genesis 38:24 where a pregnant woman is burned to death. In these cases, the life of the unborn is given no consideration. Since we can use Scripture to argue for either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice views, it is a good idea to come to this conversation with data to validate our argument instead. For example, one arguing in favour of abortion could cite the State of World Population 2022 report, released by UNFPA (the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency), which states that over 60% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion and an estimated 45% of all abortions performed globally are unsafe. This causes 5 – 13% of all maternal deaths, thereby having a major impact on the world’s ability to reach the SDG (sustainable development goals), which in this case, is gender equality. Do you see the difference here? We can all passionately express our interpretations of Scripture, but compelling arguments should be supported by fact wherever possible, especially if our goal is to move the needle on our opponent’s beliefs.
– Circling back to your first comment now. When you begin generalization like, “So many of you lack the faith and wisdom of, Mr. Butker”, as a way to prove that what he says is correct, this is called Ad Hominem. You’ve attacked the person (those on the other side of the argument), and not the argument itself. You do not offer a logical explanation, or source reputable evidence, to validate why you and Mr. Butker are correct and others are not. You merely criticize those who disagree, and call their faith into question (without knowing anything about that at all). You rely on Ad Hominem again when you attack my faith, suggesting that it could be lacking if I do not agree with your particular explanation on prophecy as it relates to opinion/truth. Since we have only exchanged 2-3 comments online, I can say with certainty that you do not have any insight into my faith or relationship with God, so it is easy to spot this gap in your logic. The trouble with the Ad Hominem fallacy in my eyes, is that it can prevent discourse from advancing productively. I think of it like bait; something meant to distract your debate counterpart from their original claim, and pull them into an exchange of criticisms instead. Why take this route if you hope to enlighten me through our discourse? I must say it feels counterintuitive to jab rather than educate.
– As for your claim to have received a prophecy from God, this may be true. But how would I know? The above stands for me too; we have exchanged 2-3 comments online and I have no insight into your prayer life or relationship with God. What I do know, is that when you give yourself ultimate authority on a matter, and provide no evidence to support your own claim, you are demonstrating the Just Because fallacy. Stating that “St. Paul tells us that the gifts of the Holy Spirit exist; are real and true and then goes on to describe several of them. One of them is the gift of prophecy… if you accept Jesus Christ… you must accept the reality of prophets.”, suggests the reality of prophets, sure. However, it does not prove in anyway that you or Mr. Butker are prophets of God. You’ve demonstrated the Non-Sequitur fallacy here by trying to use your preceding point to jusity your prophetic claim, but it is not actually factual evidence.
– The Gish Gallop is used in attempts to overwhelm by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. It is similar to the Proof of Verbosity, which is when someone uses an excessive number of words and eloquent language to overwhelm and make their point seem more convincing than it is. It’s a shame you did not heed my earlier advice as both are present in your latest string of comments. Awareness of both sides of a given issue will deepen your understanding of the topic, and you’ll be better able to persuade your opponent to reconsider their views.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the holes in your arguments, and again, I urge you to explore philosophical critical thinking and reasoning strategies so you can identify these yourself and improve your ability to debate. Of course you don’t have to, but, as you said above, that stakes may be salvation. In my experience, when you yell loudly for long enough, it will eventually clear the room. You’ll be smartest person in it, but alone, and frankly, I feel that is a disservice to myself, my peers, and most importantly, to God. If no one is listening how can we do what He has called us to do (spread the word of the Lord)? This is why I expressed worry for you in an earlier comment @erahjohn. By the lack of engagement on your comments here, from Ryan and other readers, my concern is that you may be trapped in your own echo chamber; only your grandiose proclamations about faith, God and how we all ought to believe in Him get through. I hope you haven’t duped yourself out of the thoughtful insights others may have to offer, which may help you grow in faith.
wow, you’re a challenge and a half lol. I will try to meet you on your ground. Otherwise as earlier noted we will simply talk past one another. For the record I am making a spirit directed case and not a rationalist/ philosophical one. The essential difference between them, as I see it, goes something like this. Man is fundamentally a spiritual and fallen being. His intellect matters and is an important component of his being, but apart from faith in Jesus Christ through grace he is denied eternal life and condemns himself to death.
Philosophy, is at times a fascinating hypotheses of what a man could be like but apart from faith, apart from the love that true faith inspires, it is at best trivial understanding and at worst an impediment to Jesus and eternal life.
That being said, I’ll respond to your last post.
Cherry picking, as any good cherry picker will tell you, all comes down to how good the cherries you pick, are. So when the pro life argument begins with, “God says” you have to contend with that argument directly and either affirm that God didn’t say it or that it doesn’t mean what I’ve interpreted it to mean. What you don’t get to do is assert that the action of human beings elsewhere in the Bible refute what God says. God also says, “Many will call me Lord, Lord…and I will say depart from me you evil doers, I do not know you”. Or that Jesus saved some of his harshest criticisms for the temple leaders of his day.
The words and actions of people, even people who claim fraternity with God do not compare to God’s own words.
Bad cherries aren’t worth as much as good cherries.
If advocacies promote sin and sin is of Satan then your job is to either show me why they aren’t sinful or that sin isn’t of Satan. Ironically, I hear gish galloping, verbosity something and false dichotomies in your rebuttal. I don’t see you engaging with my perspectives so much as I hear you discredit the way I make it. I’ve tried to explain why I think what I think and where you have responded to the argument I’ve made, I’ve responded on point and while I don’t prioritize the way you approach the debate I’m sincerely not trying to impugn you character.
Ad hominem is a two way street. You seem to walk it frequently enough.
As for the rest, respectfully I’ll continue to increase my experiences of worship, understanding of scripture, contemplative prayer, fasting and the love relationships and service God has blessed me with and calls me to. Your advices seem to me be a pathway to sophistry and nihilism.
First seek the things that are the Kingdom of God and all that.
I don’t see the point of explaining why I find the LGBT ideology sinful, thus of Satan. I don’t think you’ll hear it.
Faith can be a rocky journey. All the best to you, Joshua. In the end, may God strengthen your faith and bless you with eternal life.
P.S.
For the record, when I am purposefully sinful, I too am of Satan.
May my offenses, offend me also and lead me always to God’s presence, His mercy and my repentance.
PPS.
And when you get married don’t use these debating tactics when you and the Mrs. disagree. If you do you’re a dead man!
I want to offer up some clarification on the abortion debate @erahjohn. So in simple terms, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and debate is the means by which folks can argue for or against this medical procedure. Supporters of abortion, often called pro-choice or pro-abortion, argue that pregnant women have the right to make autonomous decisions about their reproductive health and body, including ending the pregnancy by removal of the zygote or embryo or fetus. On the other side of the debate, pro-life or anti-abortion advocates, contest termination, maintaining that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a human being with human rights that cannot be overridden by the pregnant woman’s choice or circumstances. Proponents on either side may think themselves morally justified because of what Scripture says, but in the end, it is not irrefutable proof of either stance. I think the context of Jeremiah 1:5 is important; God is speaking to Jeremiah, sharing His special plan for one man, and does not say this is His general approach to reproductive rights, health or biology. One could discern (which by the way, means to show good judgement, but I digress) Biblical hyperbole, and point to a number of other passages to draw opposite conclusions. For example, one could draw on Corinthians 11:11-12 to argue the pro-abortion stance and make speculative claims that God is in favour of gender equality. “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” And what about Ephesians 5:21? Does this not suggest we are all equal too? How then, do we deny a woman access to a medical procedure she may desire? “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ… There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Ultimately, this is just interpretation of Scripture as I said, and not directly related to advancing the abortion debate.
Neither is what you are saying here: “When the pro life argument begins with, “God says” you have to contend with that argument directly and either affirm that God didn’t say it or that it doesn’t mean what I’ve interpreted it to mean.” You’re introducing a Red Herring. In simple terms, you are changing the subject of the debate which distracts from the topic at hand. Proving or disproving God’s existence and whether or not he said X is irrelevant because it neither proves or disproves the pro or anti abortion stance. It’s a totally different debate altogether, though a logical fallacy within itself. What you’ve gotten tripped up in here is called the Burden of Proof; you are failing to support your own claim (God exists and said X), but are demanding I disprove it, which of course I cannot do either. This is also an Appeal to Authority because you are giving God (whom you cannot prove exists or is qualified to determine or said X) the final say on abortion. Now that said, there is scientific evidence to support anti-abortion claims. When human sperm penetrates an egg, a zygote is formed. Each zygote has a genetic composition that is unique to itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother. For many who stand against abortion, this is a compelling argument against the claim that what is involved in abortion is merely between a pregnant woman and her own body. Does this example, affirming your own beliefs, help you better understand how arguments riddled with logical fallacies may weaken the message you are trying to spread?
Logical fallacies are not synonymous with incorrectness. By definition, a logical fallacy is a flawed argument. It lacks reasoning. It may lead to an unsupported conclusion. They appear in advertising, popculture, the Bible, discourse – and can even present in our own internal monologue! Even mental health practitioners have been known to teach patients about logical fallacies using cognitive behavioral therapy to help break cycles of anxiety, depression and delusion. Having awareness of them can strengthen your intellectual prowess by helping you develop a radar of sorts to detect when things may be unfounded. You’ve made claims about how approaching the Father with knowledge is somehow Satanic, misconstrewing what’s happening here once again. The reality is that I am challenging YOUR (lack of) knowledge and (in my opinion, flawed) conclusions. Unless you are insinuating (a sign of weakness though, apparently) that you are God (???), I would suggest to you that intellectuals cannot and in my opinion, should not check their brains and reasoning skills at the door when discussing “contentious” (as you say) topics.
Now even when I try to meet you where you are at, most of what you are saying does not make sense to me. Let me demonstrate. You called Mr Butker a prophetic voice for God. While I disagree you have the authority to make that assertation, let’s suppose for a moment that you are correct. How then, do you explain the following contradictions between what he says and what you say?
– Mr. Butker is a Catholic, and within this particular branch of Christianity it is understood that Priests speak for God. By Mr. Butker’s own words, “None of us can blame ignorance anymore and just blindly proclaim that “That’s what Father said.”. Why then, are you making arguments that begin and end with “God said so”, when someone you believe to be wise and speaking on behalf of Him, is urging us to think more critically than that?
– Mr. Butker embraces traditional Latin Mass, and expresses his love for the language, so I think there is some relevance in letting you know that philosophy, translated from Latin, means love of wisdom. You deduced that Mr. Butker is wise, despite his own admission that, “Everything I am saying to you is not from a place of wisdom, but rather a place of experience.” Which begs the question, how did you come to the conclusion that he is wise when even he does not think so? As someone with a personal love of wisdom, I am curious what techniques others may have to decipher it’s precense, if not taking a philosophical or rational approach.
– The thesis of Mr. Butker’s address – the whole point of his speech which I suspect you have missed – is the negative impact bad leaders have on society when they do not stay in the own lane. This is one of the very first things he says, and goes onto say 5+ times during his speech. He says, “It is essential that we focus on our own state in life… Focusing on my vocation while praying and fasting for these men (meaning church leaders) will do more for the Church than me complaining about her leaders.” How then, do you justify your persistent attacks on pastor Ryan here, and on many other blog posts that I’ve read? Have you considered doing the same as faithful and wise Mr. Butker does, which by his own words is, “…reflect on staying in my lane and focusing on my own vocation and how I can be a better father and husband and live in the world but not be of it… Being locked in with your vocation and staying in your lane is going to be the surest way for you to find true happiness and peace in this life.” Surely, if you passionately agree with the essence of Mr. Butker’s message, you can see that berating Ryan is complete lunacy because this would make you a bad leader for society by Mr. Butker’s definition, and you yourself are calling for men to be good, courageous leaders of God, right?
I will be the first to tell you that I have a rudimentary understanding of the Holy Bible, Christianity, faith, etc., and that is why I read read Ryan’s blog and am conversing with you. I want to grow and learn, which I am trying to do by asking you questions (which you don’t answer), pointing to the flaws I see in your conclusions (which you dismiss or say, ya so? See your comments re: picking better cherries), and by meeting you on your level (which you say you do for me, after dismissing the perspective with which I approach our conversation). I have reflected on your many comments, read and re-read the Bible passages you and I brought to our discussion, fact checked yourself and myself on the many points raised about faith, philosophy, abortion etc., and what I can say with confidence at this time is that you are pointing me to the conclusion that you don’t know much about the things you so passionately comment about. And while you may feel this to be a personal attack on your character (Ad Hominem), there is a difference between a personal attack and taking things personally. But luckily either way, you told me earlier you take no offence to the former and that you appreciate direct and honest replies, which is why I am speaking so freely.
Where do you think God stands on the abortion debate?Where do you stand?
Priests don’t speak for God, per se. If you can accept Catholic faith, you believe they mediate the presence of God through sacramental rights. While there is much I hold dear about my Catholic faith, in the end, I was dying in it. I need to be closer to God then the church allowed me to be. Simply put I believe in a God, man, church ordering. Not God, church, man.
The Latin Mass will reduce you to tears of holiness and the presence of the Lord. If the Catholic church, writ large, still worshipped in this manor, I would have never left. I would accept their authority/mediation. Latin Mass has become exceedingly rare and is openly discouraged by the present Catholic administration.
If Mr. Butker is truly arguing for, “staying in your own lane”, what in heaven’s name is a field goal kicker doing giving a speech advising young women that they have been lied to about their life’s priorities?
As for the rest, I let it go. You’re mostly just being a dick, anyways.
Try to do good, Joshua. You won’t always succeed but it’s worth the effort. Your worth it, people are worth it. Above all your God in heaven is worthy of your best. He gave you life. Give thanks.
Hi, Ryan. When you get the chance, can you post my last response to Josua. Thanks.