Apologetics


RachelDolezalI’m sure you’ve all heard of Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP president of Spokane Washington. She has recently been outed as a white woman. Her bloodline is Czech, German, and Swedish, not African. Yet, she has been posing as a black woman for several years now. According to her interview on the Today show, she has identified as a black woman since she was five years old.

What I would like to know is why those who side with the transgender are up in arms over Rachel Dolezal. She is simply transracial. Her true self is a black woman, but she is trapped in a white woman’s body. It is not her fault that she was born in the wrong body. Remember, the mind trumps the body. It doesn’t matter that her body is as white as they come. What matters is how she perceives herself. Since she perceives herself as black, she is black, and she ought to be able to undergo skin darkening treatments to align her body with her true identity.

Those who think transgenderism is normal, and the proper treatment is gender reassignment surgery, please tell me why you think that Rachel Dolezal is not black.  After all, race is not as fixed as sex.  There are only two sexes, but there are many races, and race is not as clearly defined as sex.  New races can be created by consistently mixing two people of different races.  The same cannot be said of sex.  Indeed, what is the racial identity of mixed race children?  If a Mexican woman has a child with an African man, is the child Mexican or African?  Something else?  Race and racial identity is rather fluid.  So if anything, we ought to be more supportive of the transracial than the transgender.

I know this is old news (May 24), but I am behind on my news and I am simply posting this for documentation purposes.

Ireland had a popular vote to determine whether the country would allow same-sex marriage. A full 62% of the country voted to approve the measure. They are the 20th country to create same-sex marriage, but the first country to do so by popular vote rather than the courts or the legislature.

TransgenderOddly enough, I don’t have much to say about Bruce Jenner.  Others have provided excellent commentary and I don’t feel the need to add to the mix.  What I will say is that my heart goes out to the man.  I cannot imagine what it is like to feel like you are a woman trapped in a man’s body.  While I think his decision to alter his body to make it look like a female’s body is a tragic one, I understand why he would do so.  He is trying to look like what he thinks he truly is, and he thinks that these alterations will make him happy.  Unfortunately, I think he’ll find out too late that it won’t bring him the happiness he thought it would, and he may even come to regret the decision.  While we should be firm in our convictions and position that his actions are wrong, we should never do so at the expense of his humanity.  He is a person.  A confused person.  A lost person.  A person who needs love, and not just words of moral condemnation.  This is a time that we need to proclaim the truth, but proclaim it with compassion and love.

What I would like to focus my attention on is why our culture is divided on the issue of transgenderism and gender-reassignment, and then show how the logic of the liberal view is applied inconsistently. (more…)

We rightfully bemoan the rise of the gay hermeneutic in which Christians are reinterpreting the Bible to allow for committed same-sex relationships, but has anyone ever stopped to think that what these liberals are doing to the homosex texts we “conservatives” have already done to the divorce and remarriage texts?  We have mangled Jesus and Paul’s teachings to allow for divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality, and to allow those who have divorced or have been divorced without grounds to remarry because we don’t think it is fair for people to be unhappy or alone.  We understand the strong desire to be in a loving, sexual relationship.  Our emotions become the motivating factor for reinterpreting (or ignoring) what would otherwise seem to be a pretty straightforward condemnations for most divorces and remarriages.

(more…)

There was an interesting exchange between Justice Alito and Mary L. Bonauto, one of the lawyers arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage before SCOTUS. Alito asks Bonauto how polygamous unions could be denied the right of marriage in the future if SCOTUS ruled in Bonauto’s favor given that the rationale offered for legalizing same-sex marriage seems to apply to polygamous unions as well. Bonauto’s response was…well…interesting.  After shooting herself in the foot, the best she could come up with was a statement of faith that it wouldn’t happen due to some practical and legal concerns. Not very persuasive. The fact of the matter is that once you dispense with the opposite-sex prerequisite for marriage, the idea of “two and only two” no longer makes sense. The rational basis for limiting a marriage to two people is that there are two sexes, and the sexual completeness of one man and one woman.  As Robert Gagnon has written: (more…)

Christian apologist, Tyler Vela, has observed that atheists like to define “atheism” and “belief” in very nontraditional ways, and these definitions lead to an absurdity. Consider the following: “Atheist” is redefined as someone who merely lacks the belief that God exists (rather than someone who believes God does not exist), and “belief” is redefined as holding something to be true without evidence (rather than a mental disposition concerning the truth of some proposition). Given these definitions, if God did something by which all people had direct and incontrovertible evidence that He existed, then no one could believe in God (since His existence is no longer an opinion without evidence). If no one believes in God because they know God exists, then they are atheists (because atheists lack a belief in God’s existence). Ironically, then, everyone would be an atheist precisely because they know God exists.

(more…)

In light of my recent post regarding religious freedom, Lowder with Chowder has a great video talking about this issue.  He illustrates it by showing what happens when a supposedly homosexual man asks a number of Muslim bakeries to bake him a same-sex wedding cake.  The end is great too.  He addresses the idea that people should not go into business unless they have no conscience or are willing to violate their conscience are willing to provide their services for any purpose.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 388 other followers