September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Challenge Response: There’s a Contradiction at the Core of Christianity | Main | Links Mentioned on the 8/26/16 Show »

August 26, 2016


I had been thinking about this crisis in our culture just the other day and something occurred to me that may help us think differently about things such as the rise of sexual deviance as being considered 'normal' and especially Gender ideology:

It is really a Superstition.

Especially gender ideology is a Superstition. There really is no scientific or logical basis for it and I think we should start trying to help people see it as it really is (a superstition). If the secularists hate religion for being superstition, they should hate Gender ideology for the same reason.

and try as they might, they haven't really proven beyond doubt that we're really born being gay or trans- and even if it is true: So What? All it proves is that we along with the rest of creation are marred.

I was born with a Cleft Palette, so I have a birth defect too; I never pretended it was normal. God didn't intend to make me this way, sometimes bad things happen. God certainly doesn't want me to allow this to hold me back in life by being self conscious about my scars.

You nailed it, Amy.

This has nothing to do with progress. It has everything to do with the masses being indoctrinated by elite government influencers, the media, and the educational system into a nihilistic Rortian worldview of atheistic and relativistic reconstruction of reality in contrast to the traditional Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian worldview that is reviled by government and academia.

Quoting from the late Richard John Neuhaus:

The goal, in this way of thinking, is self-actualization, indeed self-creation. The successful life is the life lived as a novum, an autobiography that has escaped the “used vocabularies” of the past. This argument has its academic strongholds in literary criticism and sectors of philosophy, but it undergirds assumptions that are increasingly widespread in our intellectual culture. If personal and group self-actualization is the end, arguments claiming to deal with truth are but disguised stratagems for the exercise of will and the quest for power. Whether the issue is gender, sexual orientation, or race, we are told that the purpose is to change the ideational “power structure” presently controlled by oppressors who disingenuously try to protect the status quo by appeals to objective truth and intersubjective reason.

The only truth that matters is the truth that is instrumental to self-actualization. Thus truth is in service to “identity.” If, for instance, one has the temerity to object that there is no evidence that Africans discovered the Americas before Columbus, he is promptly informed that he is the tool of hegemonic Eurocentrism. In such a view, the “social construction of reality” (to use the language of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann) takes on ominous new dimensions as it is asserted that all of reality, without remainder, is constructed to serve the will to power and self-actualization.

These elite influencers do not even care about truth, equality, or rights. They use these eminently Christian terms as euphemisms to further their agenda of abolition of humiliation of mankind because it works with the masses, but in reality it's a power play that aims at deconstructing and reconstructing what it means to be human.

When we engage in conversations with them, we cannot let them frame the debate with the fantasy that their view is progress and the Christian view is the intolerant and bigoted past.

We need to express upfront that this is utter nonsense. What the debate is really about is between two worldviews, the rational Judeo-Christian worldview and their relativistic, nihilistic, absurd, degrading, pseudo-tolerant, Rortian worldview pushed by government and academia to turn society into a combination of 1984 and Brave New World.

So you guys think homosexuality is entirely a choice people make? Someone can just pick whether they're hetero- or homosexual as if by whim?

I just want to check, because I always thought there was a pretty significant physical component.

It's more complicated than that. The science behind it is not well understood.

According to Jeffrey Satinover in the book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (recommended reading), there are at least five contributing factors to people becoming homosexual, including both nature and nurture, such an the mother's hormonal mix and psychological stresses while pregnant, the child's relationship with his parents, childhood sexual abuse, the environment's attitude towards sexuality, and ultimately choice. It's about how the person reacts to all the contributing factors.

So you guys think homosexuality is entirely a choice people make?

John, was there something in the post that led you to ask that? If so, let me know so I can clarify (if the following doesn't). I don't think we consciously choose our desires. We do, on the other hand, choose whether or not to act on our desires. So either we have an obligation to conform our behavior to a standard that is set for us (according to what it means to be human), or we are autonomous and self-defining. For more on the worldview issue (beyond the links I posted above), see what Sam Allberry (who is same-sex attracted) had to say about this.

Amy, in your post it says this:

"Either we are completely autonomous, self-defining human individuals ... or we enter into a world given to us in a certain condition, shaped by certain factors outside our control ..."

Which one is the Christian view?

In my above comment, I explain what I meant by that: Either we ought to conform our behavior to a preset pattern, or there is no preset pattern and we can autonomously choose whatever use of our bodies we like. The Christian view is that we do not get to define proper sexuality and what it means to be human; sexuality was created for a purpose and there are proper and improper ways to use our bodies that we ought to conform ourselves to. That doesn't address the question of whether or not homosexual feelings are chosen.

But I think I see how you were reading it now. You were looking at it in terms of choosing or not choosing sexual feelings (i.e., either people autonomously choose their homosexuality or they enter into a world where they are homosexual beyond their control). But what Meador was referring to in this quote was whether being human means something beyond our control (which is the case if we were created by God) or we are completely self-defining (meaning we can rightly define our own sexuality however we like, which would be the case if there is no Creator).

I think the three links I put in there at the end will clear things up for you as to what was meant by this quote. I hope that clarifies things for you.

The historic progress inevitability was used, for instance, also by the Italian Communist Party tens of years ago, but the final result was that it disappeared anyway, so I would not be so worried about that. Truth will triumph if we do not stop fighting for it.

An well-written article on this topic. Well worth reading.

The comments to this entry are closed.