Saturday, 25 April 2015

A "female soul" - ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11562749/Bruce-Jenner-I-was-born-with-body-of-a-man-and-soul-of-a-woman.html

The following paragraph, from an article promoting (the only word to use - there's zero journalistic critique, only breathless passing on of every utterance as fact) former Olympic decathlete Bruce Jenner's decision to declare that he is in fact female, contains a very important element which a lot of people have missed in considered the question of "transexuality":
"Breaking his silence in his first interview on the subject, the 65-year-old decathlon gold medalist told ABC's Diane Sawyer that he explained it to his six children by describing the feeling he was born with a male body and a "female soul"."
The entire theory behind "gender re-assignment" is that sex and gender are separable. i.e. That your body may be male, but that "the real you", your "gender identity", can be female (or vice-versa).

Have you ever considered what's implied by that?

Let's take a step back. According to atheistic materialism - the dominant way of thinking in our society - you are your body. We are genes, we are DNA, we are physical beings only, controlled by physical laws. There is no soul - or, to use their pejorative phrase, no "ghost in the machine". Do you see the implications of that? If that's so, then there is no "real you" - you are your body, and your body is you. This being so, it follows that the whole idea of gender identity, as something separable from body sex, is a myth. It is a mental construct, but mental constructs correspond to nothing ultimate: they are simply chemical states in your brain. They are only the arrangement of different entities in the lump of meat in your head. All talk of "who I really am" is essentially meaningless. And neither can there be, in an atheistic, materialistic universe, any objective ideal of the "male" or "female" to tap into. There is nothing out there that "the real you" can correspond to. Atheism and Platonic ideals do not mix. In materialism, there is only matter, and everything must eventually be described in terms of the arrangement of matter and the physical laws governing matter.

If you believe that you have "a female mind trapped in a male body", then you cannot do so, without denying materialism. The idea of a "real you" essentially implies the real, objective existence of the non-material. In particular, it implies that humans are not simply matter, but are a duality - or, in other language, there is a body and there is a soul. There is a "real you" which is very closely related to the body, but which is not the body.

Our society both promotes materialistic atheism, and complete sexual autonomy. You can both choose your gender identity... and you also are nothing beyond a body. These two don't go together. Whenever the language of transsexual theory is used, body-soul duality has to be affirmed - as Bruce Jenner shows us. It's impossible to explain the idea that Bruce Jenner, who is plainly male, "is actually female," unless you refer to ideas which necessarily imply the actual, existence of a non-material part to human beings. Body and soul.

And having conceded that, it's time to abandon the idea that sexuality is a global free-for-all in which we choose our own identity, and ask what the will of our Creator is. On that question, the Bible is clear. God made mankind male and female, and instructed us to embrace what he had made us. Body and soul may be separable as intellectual concepts, but the concept of "male body, female soul" has absolutely zero Biblical basis. It is the ancient heresy of Gnosticism which seeks to separate God's physical world from its unseen underpinnings, as if you can prefer one to the other, or use one to over-throw the other. The two, in Biblical thought, are simply not in conflict: they are in harmony. We are created, and we can either embrace the facts of our creation, or rebel against our Creator. There is no middle ground where we can embrace the Creator and reject creation.

The Bible contains many clear commandments for us to embrace what we have been made - e.g. Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22, Ephesians 5:21ff, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 11:1ff, Romans 1:26-27. For such reasons, our forefathers in the faith warned men against the sin of effeminacy, as documented here: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/04/calvin-clement-alexandria-and-apostle-paul-effeminacy/

A man is not to masquerade as a woman, or a woman as a man. "Gender re-assignment surgery" is a myth: it mutilates the body that God made. It cannot change us from male to female (and even on atheistic grounds, that must be conceded: XY doesn't become XX just because you pump in hormones and wield surgical knives). It is a lie, and it is a lie which insults our Creator.

In a fallen world, all kinds of confused feelings and desires can arise, and circumstances and life experiences can twist them in all kinds of ways. But the gospel redeems us: it straightens out what is bent. It teaches us to struggle to be what God has made us to be, not what our sinful desires are leading us into. It tells us that we are not to be identified with the helter-skelter of emotions and desires within us, but can be identified instead with the Son of God as he re-makes us. We are not our desires: we are fallen but being rescued. Men are not called upon to decide that they are women, and to abdicate their manly responsibilities and burdens: they are called, equipped and enabled by the saving power of the Son of God to embrace them. That may not be easy - that narrow way never is. It does, however, lead to life. It affirms God's good creation, and looks forward to its recovery and restoration. It accesses the soul-saving power of Jesus Christ, sitting at God's right hand. On the other hand, embracing the evil practices of transsexualism is creation-denying, and leads only to spiritual and eternal death. Our forefathers in the faith warned of this plainly, as does the Bible: let us take heed.

Monday, 6 April 2015

The day after Easter...

Christ has been crucified... Christ has been raised... Hallelujah!

What next?

That's actually the question posed by the structure of the gospels. They end rather abruptly. There's a great task: to call the world to discipleship - to come to Jesus Christ, receive his forgiveness, and learn at his feet. The abrupt ending is a challenge: well, reader, what of it? The gospel writers don't say "and, all this was done." Because, it hasn't yet been done. Even Luke, who continues the account in Acts, ends that book in a similar situation: the gospel has reached Rome (then, the centre of civilisation). But what next? It must go from Rome to the ends of the earth. How will that take place, reader?

And therein lies the challenge, on the day after Easter. Christ has been crucified, Christ has been raised: and you, reader, are invited into the story of grace and the reclaiming of the nations. What of it, reader? Are you taking your part in the story, or are you still toiling away in your unreal, self-centred personal story that ends in unforgiveness and doom when Christ returns again?

Monday, 16 March 2015

Einstein's hereoes... all creationists

http://creation.com/einsteins-heroes

Something worth remembering when an Internet scoffer is loudly proclaiming that all people as clever as he/she is disbelieve the Bible...

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Jesus Christ is the true hero


One criticism made against Christianity by unbelieving scholars in the 20th century was that its central figure, Jesus Christ, too closely resembles other, obviously mythical/fictional, heroes from popular legend.

This criticism is hugely undermined by a) the complete disagreement on exactly *which* legendary hero he is supposed to be modeled upon - disagreement which occurs because b) re-examination of the details never finds as good a fit for any one particular legend's hero as the proposing scholar suggested.

Nevertheless, let's take the idea, and run with it. C S Lewis dealt with a similar criticism in a different way, turning it on its head. Here was the objection he faced. Why are there so many echoes of different pagan legends in the Christian story, unbelieving critics asked? Surely the Bible writers were just borrowing others' riffs when they wrote about Jesus Christ - and therefore their account was not authentic?

That does not follow, replied Lewis. If you're going to seriously consider the question of whether Christianity is true, then in doing so, you must open yourself up to the possibility that God revealed in Christ is the one who is in control of history, guiding it towards its purposes. Those purposes included the spreading of the Christian message throughout all nations. He intends history to bring the progress of the message and rule of Jesus Christ to the nations. In his providential guidance of those nations, what could be wiser than to have allowed stories about legendary redeemers - and legends they are, and the Bible never claims otherwise - that would help to prepare those nations for the coming of the true redeemer? What could be better than to structure creation so that there is, in all cultures, a yearning for a true hero, who, when he was preached, people would recognise as the real thing? Someone who fulfills every legitimate hope and longing that had been gathering through the centuries?

When put this way, the old objection takes on a new light: it's simply one more re-working of unbelief. Classical 20th century liberal scholars simply don't believe that there is an God who controls history. Their presuppositions forbid them to think of other answers than their own: that the Bible writers borrowed other peoples' ideas, instead of speaking through divine inspiration. But it only takes the tiniest amount of imagination to see an alternative: cultures across the world long for a redeemer and tell stories about redeemers who in some ways shadow Jesus Christ (whilst in other ways greatly misunderstanding him), because they have, somehow, an unshakeable feeling that they need one.

"Appearance of age"

If God created the world in 6 days, then does this mean that he would have (as many evolutionists insist this means) "deceived" people by creating with the false appearance of age? A useful distinction is made here in explaining a biblical answer to this question: http://creation.com/is-apparent-age-biblical

Saturday, 7 March 2015

Atheism doesn't work, concedes atheist philosopher

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/new-atheism-old-problems

The problem, as conceded by an atheist philosopher: atheism doesn't work. Proponents of the "new atheism" would like it to, but their arguments don't stand up to the test of reality.

"New atheists", he explains, are basically people who say what they wish was true: not what there's any good reason to believe.

There's a basic divide in the atheist camp: on the one side, there's "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins who say what fellow atheists would like to hear (a.k.a. preaching to the choir), but whose arguments are held by philosophers of any pedigree to be sophomoric nonsense. On the other side, there's "Old Atheists", like John Gray, who say it like it is: that atheism provides no coherent, rational basis for the world to work in the way that we feel it ought to.

There's a way out of this "dilemma", of course...

Friday, 13 February 2015

A reason to be thankful for the Internet...

The Internet is a segment of human life, and so includes all its dross; but here's the kind of resource that makes the Internet great: http://www.math-aids.com

Someone appears to have done this for free. It's high-quality, and well thought-out - and with the power of the Internet, anyone can do that, and anyone can benefit from it, with a few clicks. I just hope they'll make sure it doesn't die with them, if they're just an individual. You couldn't do that without the Internet: the dead wood would cost paper, and publishers have their expenses, etc.

Have you got any useful stuff you could stick online and share with the world? I've been pleasantly surprised to find people coming across stuff I did years ago, and sending a "thank you" note. It doesn't happen often - but in my reckoning, if you put the work in to produce something once, then you may as well squeeze everything you can out of it. If I stick it up there now, it might benefit someone in 20 years time. There's enough trivia on the Internet - do you have something, whether in the things of this world only, or things of the kingdom, that could be a blessing?