12:1-2, using the passive sense of the word “conformed” to speak of how one is pressed into the mold of this world’s system of thought. Paul speaks of this quite candidly in Rom.
To be fair, we are all shaped by environment to some degree as we come to embrace the ideologies we do. In her subsequent reasoning, she actually gives a bit of her own personal history and reasons, to some degree, that how she came to the conclusions she currently holds are shaped by this reality.
However, given that she does address the topic of gay rights in her book, Burk’s question is not only appropriate, but part and parcel to assessing her work “on its own merits.” And here is where things really took an interesting turn in Kristin’s response, which I would invite you to read (linked to above). Don’t misunderstand me as saying it would be unimportant-it is and would be even if the book didn’t touch on homosexuality in any manner. Now, had Denny Burk asked this question apart from a context that is germane to homosexuality, it might be considered a blatant red herring.
For one to be guilty of committing this fallacy, they must discredit the argument based on the history of the one making the argument or their moral credibility, rather than the argument itself. I find it interesting in her response that she appeals to the genetic fallacy in some sense, but she does so through a faulty understanding of what the genetic fallacy actually entails. His question wasn’t an open-ended question, but rather, a “yes” or “no” question, to which she equivocates on what should be a relatively simple answer. To answer his question, Kristin Du Mez provides a 1,000 word response without a clear answer. Others have told me that you personally affirm the church's teaching that homosexuality is sinful. When I read your book, I thought you treated evangelical opposition to gay rights as a negative thing. In a recent exchange between Denny Burk and Kristin Kobes Du Mez on Twitter regarding her book Jesus and John Wayne, a relatively simple question arose:
0 kommentar(er)
