Tag Archives: man
If you’re like me, you’ve watched with curiosity as our culture has celebrated people that deny reality in favor of their feelings. You’ve looked on with interest, trying to figure out how it’s possible for a rational, intelligent society to be excited about men that call themselves women and white people that claim they are black. All the while wondering what’s next; because something is always next.
What’s next is beyond disgusting. It’s insidious in every way.
The scene unfolded on an episode of “Celebrity Big Brother UK” when one of the cast members, India Willoughby, lamented that man don’t want to date “her” because she is a transgender woman. Ginuwine commented that such a decision was a personal choice and he would choose not to be with a transgender person. That sentiment set off a conversation in which Ginuwine was attacked for his personal decision.
Let’s analyze several of the comments made regarding this issue.
Lets be clear. No amount of feelings will change your biological gender. You can really want to be the opposite sex all you want, but there is nothing you can do about it. The surgeries are like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It doesn’t really change what’s going on inside.
The view concerning man’s will is one of debate among Arminians and Reformed theologians. Arminians believe that man has the ability, the free will, to choose Christ. Reformed theologians believe that due to the bondage of the will to sin, man does not have the ability to choose Christ without the regenerating work and effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. This distinction has been the source of much debate between these two theological groups.
Before moving forward, it is important to understand that it is a universally agreed upon fact that man has a will and can make choices based upon that will. However, what is not true is that man has the ability to freely choose Christ based solely upon his own free will. Let me explain the difference.
If I was a woman, training to compete in national and international competition, I would be concerned. I would recognize that I am about to compete against biological men that will have a natural advantage over me. So we now have to wonder, where’s the outrage from feminists over this obviously unfair treatment of women?
What would you do if you walked into the women’s locker room at your local pool and there was a man standing there?
Suppose you took your kids to the pool for a relaxing day of fun in the sun. Everything is going great when you need to make a run to the locker room. As you walk in, you see a man standing there, in a women’s bathing suit, staring at the women in the locker room. What would you do?
That’s exactly the situation one mother faced. The video below, shared by the Family Policy Alliance, tells her story about taking her kids to the local pool and walking into the women’s locker room to find a grown man standing there looking at the women. When this confused mother went to the employees of the pool they politely told her that “he must identify as a woman” and that he was welcome to use the women’s locker room.
In the video, the shocked mother explains that what she saw was a man, watching the women in the locker room, and looking down at his phone. I won’t pretend to know what the man was doing, but it certainly raises serious questions. Furthermore, as a husband or father, how would you feel if you knew there was a man in the locker room looking at your wife or daughter as she changed for the pool?
Efforts to change bathroom laws are not something to be quickly dismissed. It is a dangerous policy position to allow men into women’s facilities. Not because transgender people are inherently dangerous or known to assault women or children, but because perverted individuals will take advantage of such laws.
Watch the video below and ask yourself what you would have done in this mother’s position.
This post will likely be deemed “offensive” and “hate speech” by some. It will certainly be considered politically incorrect. Those realities make it all the more necessary and bewildering.
It seems Caitlyn Jenner, the new identity of the man formerly known as Bruce Jenner, will be named “Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine. Now, there is so much packed into that statement that needs addressed, it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s consider the state of a society that celebrates and throws parties when a man is named “Woman of the Year.” It seems our culture loves embracing confusing ideas that aren’t based in realty. And by doing so we have become hypocrites that loathe the truth. We tell a man dressing as a woman that “she” is courageous and beautiful. We then tell people that believe in God, heaven, and eternity that they are “anti-science.” Even though biologically Bruce Jenner is a man and, therefore, scientifically he is living a lie. Our culture says we should celebrate his decision and support him in his confusion. But don’t you dare claim to pray or believe in divine intervention because that is unscientific.
Speaking of science. It has been shown, scientifically, that unborn babies have a heartbeat by 8 weeks. They can hear sounds and have recordable brain activity by 12 weeks. And by 20 weeks they can feel pain. And yet our President and many others praise Planned Parenthood for killing unborn babies. All the while, Planned Parenthood (and many abortion advocates) can’t really say when an unborn child really becomes human. You know, scientifically speaking. But let’s go ahead and tell a man dressed as a woman that he is in fact, a woman. Because, you know, equality and all.
What are the consequences for the church (and Christians) to accepting homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation and lifestyle?
Wouldn’t it be easier and more pleasant for us all if the church would simply recognize that it made a mistake on the issue and embrace the “love” of Jesus in accepting people? That seems to be a dominate talking point in our culture currently as liberal Christians increasingly call for other Christians and churches to accept and affirm homosexuality as a good and right lifestyle. Their conclusion is that the church has interpreted Scripture all wrong for centuries. But – hallelujah – Scripture has finally been properly interpreted and homosexuality is no longer a sin.
Just imagine how much easier life would be for everyone if the church and Christians would embrace these new interpretations of Scripture. No more lawsuits. No more media smearing’s that ruin people’s lives. No more death threats by activists. Our society could join hands under a rainbow banner and finally come together for a common cause.
But exactly what are the consequences for the church of accepting what – historically – the Bible and the church have taught is sin?
Writing at The Stream, John Zmirak seeks to have a conversation with a pro-gay Christian and answer that very question. He starts laying some ground work:
My frustration with churches on the issue of homosexuality is simply that they seem to avoid the topic altogether. The issue of gender, sexuality, and marriage may be the most critical of our day and yet pastors don’t seem to want to talk about it. The consequence is a congregation that is ignorant of biblical teaching and unable to engage or help people struggling with this sin.
More specifically, the consequence of the silent church is people that are either so filled with “truth” that they are hateful legalists, or people so “loving” that they are willing to compromise scripture and justify sin.
And still pastors and churches are silent, conveniently skipping over passages like Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and Revelation 22; which clearly speak of homosexuality as sin.
Having a biblical theology creates a biblical worldview which, should, create a biblical sexual ethic that includes a proper view of gender roles, sexuality, and marriage. This proper, biblical sexual ethic is critical in addressing the needs of people in our current cultural climate. Being able to address the struggles people are facing concerning sexuality is perhaps the greatest way the church can serve people in their community.
What is marriage?
That appears on the surface to be an easy question to answer. Perhaps you already have a clearly defined answer at the ready to share with anyone that might ask.
But if we go deeper in this discussion we will inevitably arrive at the root question of “where did your definition of marriage originate?”
Did you get your definition of marriage from your parents? Maybe it came from your church? Perhaps it comes from your understanding of social order and function. Regardless of where it came from we can be certain that our definition of marriage is influenced by its source.