Does our nature determine our actions, or do our actions determine our nature?

Can you really, accurately, objectively determine a person’s nature based on subjective observations of part of a person’s public actions?

Is a “good” deed done for a “bad” motive really qualify as “good”?

Can the same action be good or bad depending on the circumstances or motivation?

If we’re defined only by our actions, then what’s the magic number to be considered “good”?

Trans Phobia on display?

 Homosexuals won recognition of their rights because, ultimately, the rest of society changes very little in allowing gays to marry, hold jobs, & be free from harassment/violence. It’s a stable movement because heterosexual people didn’t have to radically alter their lives for us. 

The gender movement is an inverted movement. Rather than basic protections common to all people, members of the mvmt are demanding that all of society make radical changes to policy, personal habits, language, parenting, professional (inc. medical & scientific) practice, & more. 

Homosexuals asked that we be allowed what everyone is allowed — That we can marry the (adult, consenting, unrelated) person of our choosing, that we can raise our children, keep our jobs. We asked for inaction in the form of not seeking to punish us for our personal lives. 

The gender movement is demanding that we convert to their ideology and practice their beliefs. You can employ a gay person without voicing moral agreement with them. But current non-discrimination practices for trans employees demand you live as though you share their beliefs. 

This is an unstable movement because it will never not require brute social and political force to maintain. There’s nothing organic about using pronouns that conflict with natural speech. There’s nothing sustainable about asking every person you meet how they “identify.” 

& the gender movement is demanding far more than any true human rights movement in history has. We’re meant to enact scientific & medical practices that aren’t evidence-based. We’re being told to compromise our privacy, our sexual practices, our religious beliefs. 

It’s distressing in the short term and unsustainable in the long term. People won’t accept this indefinitely. It will be torn down, along with every movement that’s being falsely associated with it. This will hurt gay rights, and disability rights, and women’s rights. 

The modern era of social justice thrives on upheaval, & I understand why. It’s thrilling to see old institutions come down. The feeling of seemingly unmovable objects being moved... It feels like anything is possible. But history shows us that not all societal shift is positive. 

Never in history has forcing a population to practice a belief system against their will been a positive change.

Violating freedom of thought, speech, association, assembly — that has never indicated progress toward justice. 

I never believed in gender — this idea that “man” and “woman” are internal feelings separate from chromosomal and reproductive sex. But I supported trans people anyway, because I didn’t feel required to agree with them. I didn’t feel required to submit to their doctrine. 

I used the pronouns to be polite, and because those pronouns weren’t the loaded prospects they’ve become.

But now there’s this “gotcha” quality to it, as if “she” = trans women are women = literally biologically female = all rights are now gender- rather than sex-based. 

I feel betrayed by this movement. As a lesbian, I advocated for trans rights along with my own. Now trans “lesbians” march in opposition to me and my sisters. They demand our resources, our spaces, our platforms, our emotional energy. They demand access to our bodies. 

But I said “she,” & that’s supposed to make the rest of it okay.

So I don’t do the pronouns anymore.

For me, individually, the demands of the movement were unsustainable, and I had to withdraw my support. And other people will do. Every day, more people are. 

But those demands won’t go away. We can’t wait for or expect that.

What we must do is make clear - loudly and often - that homosexuals, women, the disabled - we are NOT asking for people who believe differently than us to affirm us by living as if they agree. 

Feminism is a stable movement. And so is gay rights, and disability rights. We seek to live as ourselves without forfeiting our human rights. That’s all we’ve ever asked for. Society can give us that without infringing on the rights of others. It’s the right thing to do. 

The gender mvmt isn’t limiting itself to protection of human rights. It’s demanding society assist the transgender person in feeling secure about themselves by transitioning our own speech, beliefs, & personal practices.

Freedom from emotional insecurity isn’t a human right. 

We must stop this now and carve out reasonable, respectful protections for both trans-identfied and gender-nonconforming people, protections that don’t infringe on the rights of others or damage our society’s progress in medicine, science, basic human equality, and the law. 

If we, the left, the moderates, the libertarians - & anyone else who believes in universal human rights protections - if we don’t take control of this and resume the fight for APPROPRIATE rights for people of ALL gender expression, collapse of multiple movements is inevitable. 

No one, aside from the most fervent believers in gender, is impressed by the turn this situation has taken. We look like proof that allowing us our rights was a bad idea.

We’re endangering basic liberties like medical decision-making & parental rights for the sake of pronouns. 

The protections we ask for must allow for belief systems other than our own. They must consider the rights of groups we don’t belong to.

We do not have the right to punish people for disagreeing with us, or for saying so.

We do not have the right to compel or stop speech. 

And don’t come at me with “freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequence.” To a large degree, that is EXACTLY what freedom of speech is.

You know how speech is repressed under oppressive regimes? With CONSEQUENCES. 

The gender movement is a movement without perspective or empathy. It disdains compromise & ignores any interests it doesn’t share. Because no group (except maybe women) will work against its own interests indefinitely, the gender movement will fail.

I refuse to go down with it. 

This is a lengthy Twitter thread by a woman named Lara Adams-Miller.  Her bio describes her as a "Writer, lesbian, mother, biological healthcare professional, domestic violence and sex trade survivor, MH reformist, gender free".

I have no reason  doubt her characterization of herself.  

This is a great example of how the group identity politics of the Left appears to be self defeating.  

Interesting Article

I don't always think that CT is quite what it used to be, but I thought that this article was interesting.



https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/early-church-thrived-amid-secularism-we-can-too.html

Straw men and proof

I'm noticing a trend recently.  More and more frequently I'll see someone construct their version of someone else's position, then proceed to argue against the made up version, rather than the real version.   I understand why this happens.  It could be anything from simple laziness to intentional falsehood.  Ultimately it happens because it's easy.  It's just easier to construct a straw man and dismember him, than it is to do the research and argue against reality.  What's surprising is that people somehow think that this sort of thing is persuasive or effective.    When the entire premise that you are building from is false, then who cares how brilliantly the false premise is demolished.

This is frequently accompanied by demands for proof.   Yet how often do those who demand proof, fail to provide proof.  Hell, they usually can't even define what the level of proof they demand is.   This is usually accompanied by a lack of subjecting themselves or those they agree with to a similar level of skepticism.

The classic instance of this is, "Prove that Julius Caesar existed?" 

The reality is that it's virtually impossible to prove to a 100% certainty that he existed.  Yet, virtually no one denies his existence.  

This demand for proof, doesn't seem to be coming from a sincere desire to gain knowledge, but rather from a position of obfuscation.

I guess I'd just say that if you're going to demand that others provide proof, then you should define he standard of proof you expect and be prepared to respond in kiind.

I'm not a fan

I'm not a fan of either Kanye West or Kim Kardashian.    I certainly respect the fact that they've been able to have success, but not much else.

However, there's been some buzz recently about Kanye's turn to Christianity.   As with other celebrity "conversions", I am hopeful that this is a real thing and that Kanye actually has turned himself over to God, yet I remain skeptical at this point.

Recently there's been some controversy over Kanye's comments about Kim and her willingness to put her scantily clad, or unclad, body out for every one to see.   Some would argue that this is her brand, and they aren't wrong.

Kanye's problem is that he's reached the conclusion that maybe some aspects of the people involved in a marriage should be only between them as a couple.  That by posting these pictures, she's sharing a part of the marriage that maybe shouldn't be public. 

As a Christian, I'm sympathetic to his position.   But, I think that in a world where porn, hacked naked pictures, and lingerie pictures are literally available instantly that Kanye has touched on a relevant question.   On the one hand, this could be looked at as a question to be answered by individual couples for their individual marriages.   But, on the other it seems like there might be some "best practices' for those who are married.  

I'm not trying to make this about "you must follow my rules' or anything like that, I'm merely suggesting that there is a worthwhile conversation to be had about what constitutes a marriage (especially a marriage between Christians) and what things people might avoid in order to give their marriage the best chance for long term success.  Or maybe if the long term success of a marriage is even desirable or valuable?  

I guess I'm always interested when someone raises these sorts of questions in the context of our society.

Judge not.

“This is the generation of “don’t judge me, Jesus loves me.” And while this is true, Jesus loves you so much that He would tell you some of the sin in your life needs to stop because it’s literally killing you. You’d probably feel judged. But that’s true love. That was Jesus.”

For those who are to stupid to figure this out, of course this applies to me.   To assume that it wouldn’t Is simply prejudice filtered through stupidity.

Life

“A fertilized egg is alive, though.  But life isn't particularly remarkable.  Life is chemistry.”

I wonder why we as a society don’t value human life particularly highly.    I wonder what kinds of behavior this attitude might lead to.

Wealth and Trust

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?"

 
This is one of the instances where Jesus is quite clear in sending the message that people who are trustworthy over whatever they have been given (in most of the examples He uses it's money), will be given more because of their trustworthiness.


We see the same theme in Matthew 25 (the part most progressives ignore).

"
¹⁴ “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. ¹⁵ To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,^[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. ¹⁶ The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. ¹⁷ So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. ¹⁸ But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
¹⁹ “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. ²⁰ The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
²¹ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
²² “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
²³ “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
²⁴ “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. ²⁵ So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
²⁶ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? ²⁷ Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
²⁸ “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. ²⁹ For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. ³⁰ And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"

It's quite clear that the man (God) is rewarding His servants for increasing His wealth, while punishing the one servant for failing to increase His wealth.   



It seems that to simply take these teaching as a woodenly literal condemnation of  "money" or "wealth" is to miss the point.

I sat in a CE class the other day where the teacher was talking about how race based real estate covenants have denied people of certain races that ability to accumulate and increase generational wealth.   It seems like one side of the progressive tribe is advocating for increasing wealth (as do most of the folks doing micro lending), while another side is decrying wealth as bad.   

Just one more interesting progressive paradox.


Oh, and just one more instance of the progressives ignoring a seemingly clear reference to a Hell where people are in discomfort.

 

What

What does it say about people whose only responses are limited to straw men, ad hominems, and attributing their own behavior to others?

Apparent Contradiction

A friend of mine who is heavily involved in the “midwife” culture locally has a post on social media that’s interesting.

The post reads..,

“If you’ve had a miscarriage, you’re still a mother.”

Now I agree with her completely, but can’t help but not the fact that this contradicts abortion orthodoxy.    

What’s really interesting is that there is a 100% chance that she’ll vote for the DFL presidential candidate, who will certainly favor abortion after fetal viability.    I wonder if she’ll even notice the apparent contradiction.

Kill a cop, save a life.

We, once more, see the true colors of the tolerant, inclusive, pacifist, turn the streets of Minneapolis into a scene filled with flames, violence, and threats to the lives of the police.  

When will we see this behavior condemned?

At the same time we see the Irish Hispanic threatening to selectively pull the tax exempt status from churches, synagogues, and mosques, who don’t knuckle under to his demands.

I never thought I’d say this, but as I watch the left go insane, I’m considering compromising my principles and voting for Trump.  

I’m probably not representative of a significant number of voters, but if I am, the DFL has no one to thank but themselves if I do.

Unintended Consequences

Often we’re the victim of unintended consequences, we think we’re doing one thing when something we thought was in our favor isn’t.

For example, if you approach scripture backwards there might be some unintended consequences.   If you approach scripture by looking for support for your opinions you might find something that seemingly supports one position you hold, while contradicting other positions you hold, it doesn’t seem to be a helpful exercise.  

Further, if you have to read something into the text that isn’t actually there, that also doesn’t seem particularly helpful.

Maybe it’s better to start with what the scriptural text says, and try to follow that where it leads, instead of starting with a point you’re trying to prove and pulling scriptures to “prove” that you’re right.

I know it may not be a popular view anymore, but maybe it’s best to align ourselves with scripture rather than the reverse.

Classy

Class isn’t a word you normally think about in relationship to politics or social media.  But Ellen showed a tremendous amount of class when the liberal Twits attacked her for being friendly with GWB.    If you go back a few years and peruse the archives of various blogs, you’ll find that not all liberals are capable of that much class relating to Bush.

So, to Ellen and George W, well done.   Stay classy.


“Notice no one on the right, no Evangelical Christian leader, is mad at George W. Bush for being friends with Ellen because she's gay. “

Why

Why is Ilhan Omar in such a hurry to file for divorce?

Why is she so impatient that she’s filing her divorce from Burkina Faso?

Why is she in Burkina Faso?

Does anyone know how Islam treats divorce?

Why does Elizabeth Warren get to lie with impunity?

How is performing an ultrasound on a pregnant woman akin to bullying?  

Isn’t an ultrasound part of normal medical care?

Sometimes Twitter isn’t crap

“There is an ugly dualism emerging within evangelicalism wherein some professing Christians are exhorting their brethren to pursue justice, while at the same time judging them for not doing so according to their subjective visage of what that pursuit of justice must look like. Pursuing justice begins with a proper hermeneutic of what justice is. Justice is not an arbitrary, man-conceived ideal. It is borne from the character and nature of God. As such, justice must be understood as God defines it and pursued as God dictates, not as society dictates. To whatever degree some Christians may be less vociferous or demonstrative than others concerning matters of biblical justice, it should never be interpreted as insensitivity, apathy, or passivity. For only an omniscient God knows the motives of a person's heart (Psalm 44:21). Apart from an understanding that justice, as a principle, originates within the nature and character of God, the pursuit of justice can easily become idolatry. It becomes idolatry when we judge the motives and intentions of others, thereby putting ourselves in the place of God. God is sovereign over all that happens in His world (Psalm 103:19) including the injustices that He providentially ordains (Lamentations 3:38). Scripture declares that the perfect and indefectible justice of a holy God will not always be a reality in this sinful and fallen world. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:24 (NASB), "The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after." Ultimately, justice belongs to God, not to us. It is God's standard of justice that His people should pursue, not our own standard. In doing so, however, one must resist the temptation to judge or condemn those brothers and sisters who happen to not be as outspoken or effusive as they (as if that were somehow indicative of what is in their hearts.) Silence should never be presumed to be indifference.”

Darrell B Harrison 

Forgivness

We've all seen the video by now.  The brother of a murdered man forgiving and embracing the woman who killed him and expressing a desire that she find Jesus.

The initial response was that this guy was amazing.  Much like the Amish community that forgave the man who killed a number of their children, this guy was truly demonstrating God's love and forgiveness to a woman who had wronged him greatly.

But hold on.  The woke, progressive, liberal, christians, just couldn't let this outrage stand.   This guy, who was presumably acting from the best of motives.  Who was expressing his grief in a way that was his.  (As someone who's lost a lot of family members recently, I've come to appreciate the importance of not criticizing how others grieve or react to tragedy.)  Is now the target of all sorts of attacks.   It's been turned into a racial issue, a religious issue, a justice issue, and all sorts of things.

What it hasn't been, from those on the left, is an issue of comforting of someone in grief.   Of allowing one individual to express his sorrow, loss, and grief, in his own way.

For a bunch of folx who claim to be inclusive, tolerant, loving, etc, y'all sure screwed this one up. 

Heartless.

PS

The FFRF apparently feels that this was so horrible that the court record must not be stained with the taint of anything that remotely offends their sense of propriety.

Heartless.

When science and liberal orthodoxy clash, guess who wins?

https://winteryknight.com/2019/10/02/survey-of-scientific-literature-finds-that-children-need-their-mom-for-first-3-years-3/



Let's not forget, these are the flx for whom "science denier" is an insult.

Impeachment

If perjury isn’t a definitive enough reason to impeach a president, I’m not sure what is.   But, if y’all are going to impeach, then go for it.    The question in this post is if an actual crime isn’t enough, then does the DFL have the evidence to actually get a conviction, and do they have the spine to actually do something.   It’s clearly easier to just throw accusations around to the point where it seems bad.  It’s something else entirely to actually go through the process.

Personally, I think the push to impeach this close to an election season might indicate fear that the DNC candidate might lose again.   I’d think that pursuing a strategy that is only going to be divisive isn’t smart, but what do I know.   I’d think the easy answer would be to just find a good center-left candidate and win the election.  But maybe this is a better option.

I’ve been up front for years that I’m fine with Pence as president and that the left will be just as nasty to him as they’ve been to Trump.    I’m just getting tired of the posturing.

If you think you’ve got enough to impeach, then let’s see the evidence.   Instead we’re seeing the DFL engaging in a virtual impeachment.   Essentially just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks.

If y’all can’t come up with a candidate that can beat this horrible human being, maybe the problem isn’t just Trump.