So Arizona State University, all its faculty and students, must adhere to your interpretation of the Christian faith or risk condemnation by Owen Anderson? An institution of higher learning funded (though only in small part) by the state of Arizona should be committed to "completing the Great Commission"? Really? This is the argument of a "philosopher"? Is this not height of intolerance and unbecoming of someone who calls themselves "Dr." at every opportunity?
"This rejects the belief that God created man, male and female, in His image and that gender is an aspect of the moral law God has written on the heart of man. The moral law teaches both man and woman about how to live in their respective roles of being fruitful and multiplying, having dominion, and completing the Great Commission."
You offer it as grounds for condemning the freely-chosen practice of how someone signs off on an email (as it that were a major threat to civilization as we know it). If rejecting "the belief that God created man..." is somehow the problem, then you are arguing they must accept it -- or face your Substack condemnation. I don't think you're looking for Christian fundamentalism in the right place, if you're expecting a bunch of Ph.D.s in their various fields to play along.
I have failed to encounter a good argument for understanding gender separate from biological sex. The one in use now suggests it’s arbitrary. It’s not arbitrary but what is arbitrary is allowing people to change pronouns depending on how they feel each morning.
So Arizona State University, all its faculty and students, must adhere to your interpretation of the Christian faith or risk condemnation by Owen Anderson? An institution of higher learning funded (though only in small part) by the state of Arizona should be committed to "completing the Great Commission"? Really? This is the argument of a "philosopher"? Is this not height of intolerance and unbecoming of someone who calls themselves "Dr." at every opportunity?
Can you show we where I said any of that in
my article?
"This rejects the belief that God created man, male and female, in His image and that gender is an aspect of the moral law God has written on the heart of man. The moral law teaches both man and woman about how to live in their respective roles of being fruitful and multiplying, having dominion, and completing the Great Commission."
Where in the quote does it say everyone at ASU must believe that?
You offer it as grounds for condemning the freely-chosen practice of how someone signs off on an email (as it that were a major threat to civilization as we know it). If rejecting "the belief that God created man..." is somehow the problem, then you are arguing they must accept it -- or face your Substack condemnation. I don't think you're looking for Christian fundamentalism in the right place, if you're expecting a bunch of Ph.D.s in their various fields to play along.
So I don’t say anywhere that everyone at ASU must accept it. Thank you.
I'm not sure you understand how your own argument works, then -- that may be the most troubling thing of all.
I have failed to encounter a good argument for understanding gender separate from biological sex. The one in use now suggests it’s arbitrary. It’s not arbitrary but what is arbitrary is allowing people to change pronouns depending on how they feel each morning.