Gender Stereotypes (Reinforced by Transgenders)

Why is it that in 2019, people who do not think they fit the "typical stereotype" of a male or female, somehow think there is something wrong with them and that maybe they are or ought to be gay or that they are or ought to be the opposite sex (or something altogether different and imaginary)? For all the years that people have been trying to do away with stereotypes (even though quite often there is a great deal of truth behind them), it seems that society has run itself upon the rocks and become more stereotypical. And, interestingly enough, the ones who are largely responsible for reinforcing these stereotypes are homosexuals and transgenders!

You do not believe me? Try reading or listening closely to a transgender describe the reasons why they "identify" as something other than what they are. Boys who have an interest in playing with dolls, or who were sensitive, or did not have an interest in rough-housing, etc. These boys somehow think that men are not sensitive or that you have to be interested in rough-housing in order to be a man. These thoughts are encouraging the very stereotypes that society (especially feminists) have been trying to rub out for decades!

I am an artistic individual; I have been drawing since I was 4 years old. I enjoy writing and being creative, though this blog and my published works are factual-based. I can be strongly firm, but I can also be sensitive. I never had an interest in girl's toys and such, but I also never had an interest in rough-housing. I have no interest in hurting my body, and have always been cautious with the things I do. I also do not enjoy hurting others, and if I am put in a situation where I have to defend myself physically, even though I triumph I still feel bad afterward.

Feeling bad about having to kick the tar out of someone who has a desire to physically harm me has never made me feel like less of a man. Being sensitive after causing undo hurt to my loved ones has never made me feel like less of a man. Having no desire to engage in rough-housing has never made me feel like less of a man. If you believe that not fitting the stereotypes somehow makes you not what you are, then you are mentally unstable (and perhaps you had a butthole of a father). A man is a man is a man, just as a woman is a woman is a woman. Stronger, weaker; firmer, softer; insensitive, sensitive; etc., etc., etc. Having more or less of these qualities does not make you less of a man or woman. The amount of melanin in your skin can make your skin either darker (black) or lighter (white), or anything in between. But having more or less melanin in your skin does not make you more or less of a human being.

Gender/sex is not a "construct." Gender/sex is not a "spectrum." Gender/sex are the same and interchangeable. The Y chromosome is what determines masculinity. Your gender/sex is already determined the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. Sperm come in X or Y, female or male. If you have your DNA analyzed, the fact of your gender/sex will be revealed. You are one or the other; male or female. You are a he or a she. You cannot be the opposite, and there is no in-between.

All through history there have been different types of men and women. The differences do not make them more or less of a man or woman. The warrior is not more of a man, and the scholar is not less of a man. Being more in touch with your feelings and having a compassion for others does not make you a female or relate you in any way, shape, or form to the female. You are a male in touch with his feelings, having a compassion for others. Being tougher and keeping your feelings in check does not make you a male or relate you in any way, shape or form to the male. You are a female who is strong and can keep her feelings in check.

For all the attempts at trying to eliminate stereotypes, homosexuals and transgenders are encouraging and reinforcing them. Their arguments are that if you do not feel like a stereotypical male or female, then you must not be a male or female and should "identify" as the opposite or something different and imaginary. And that simply is not true. Being "true to you" does not involve denying who and what you are. Being "true to you" means embracing all aspects of who and what you are. If you are sensitive and compassionate, then be the sensitive and compassionate man that you are. If you are strong and composed, then be the strong and composed woman that you are. Do not pretend to be something that you are not and will never be! And definitely do not demand that others pretend you are something that you are not and will never be!

It is 2019, and you would think that as a society we would be moving forward and advancing. However, society is regressing and becoming more uncivilized, resembling more and more the uncivilized tribes of the past: marking themselves up with ink everywhere, mutilating themselves with piercings everywhere, stretching their earlobes and other things out, etc. The small town I live in has more tattoo and piercing parlours than it has Tim Hortons (for Americans, imagine it being Starbucks). We have indeed returned to the Dark Ages, but instead of being ruled by Catholicism, we are ruled by Extreme Leftism, dissuading individuals from thinking for themselves or examining the facts and evidence of a thing in order to accept the truth and reality of it. Our society, thinking itself wise, has become extremely foolish, and the people go along with it because they do not have any sense of their own.

"The least deviation from truth will be multiplied later." -Aristotle

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." -Plato

"To find yourself, think for yourself." -Socrates

"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -Anatole France

"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." -Dwight Eisenhower

Why Atheists Lose the Debate Every Time

There is one extremely vital difference between the Christian Creationist and the Atheist Evolutionist. What is that difference? Study.

"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." Olin Miller

In order to be able to speak on or against something, you must actually look into it honestly and truthfully. Hearsay—parroting what some other fool has declared in utter ignorance—merely makes you look unintelligent and foolish. If you are not willing to put forth the time and energy to study something in order to know something about it and represent it accurately, then your mouth has no business being open attempting to say anything about it. How does the saying go? "Put up or shut up!"

How many Atheist Evolutionists flapping their gums against Christianity and the Bible have actually looked into it fully? How many have actually read and studied the Bible, rather than regurgitate the false claim that there are "many contradictions" in the Bible? You see, the Christian will look into the claims of the Atheist, studying the evidence, which only strengthens his/her case. But the Atheist will never study the Bible because he/she is scared of it! Every Atheist who has ever honestly and truthfully studied the Bible in order to try and prove it wrong has ended up becoming a Christian.

Because Atheists have zero evidence to back their position, Atheists continually attempt to blame God for the human-created problems in the world. They blindly believe that man is basically good, denying the plain evidence their eyes and ears are constantly witness to. The world is in the condition it is because of sinful man. Suffering and death exist because of man. Things are corrupt and continue to be corrupt because of man. Do something about man and all of that ends.

Atheists who attempt to charge Christians with the accusation of equating Evolution with how life originated are being dishonest. They are being dishonest against the Christian, but they are also being dishonest with themselves. While Evolution does not completely have to do with how life originated, it does, however, address it, which makes it partially related. The fact that Evolution teaches that all life originated from "primordial soup" attests to Evolution's theory of how life originated. There is zero misrepresentation there by the Christian.

But over all, Evolution specifically addresses how one life form supposedly changes into another. This, however, has been disproved time and time again. There is zero fossil evidence of one life form changing into another. There has also never been observation of one life form changing into another. Every animal on Earth today has always been the animal it is today. It has never changed from something else. Bananas and pandas are not related. They do not have a common ancestor. The idea that a frog can become a man originates from a fairy tale. Supplementing one ingredient (time) for another ingredient (kiss) will not suddenly make it a reality.

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" likewise disprove and destroy the theory of Evolution. Even if it were given one trillion years, "natural selection" would never create a new species. Macroevolution is 100% false! Any "scientist" who is the least bit a scientist by trade, paying attention to actual science rather than blind imagination, knows that "slight changes" are impossible. Every mechanism must be there all at once or else the species would die. To educate yourself on the intricacies and complexities of several species, watch the documentaries Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution (Vol. 1; Vol. 2; Vol. 3).

For example, which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
3. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

Any "scientist" worth his/her salt knows that any one of these things without the others would not function properly. You need all of them or none of them. All need to be present at once, or none of them. Since genes are passed down from parents to offspring, and since inter-species reproduction is impossible (a cow and a horse will never mate), each animal will never be anything other than the animal it already is. The sinonyx never became the humpback whale. Dinosaurs (dragons) never became birds. Each possesses a completely different and unique set of genetics that are not compatible. Atheists are dishonest with the evidence, with others, and especially with themselves.

Atheists ask Christians to prove that God exists, but then deny the evidence presented to them. What the Atheist needs to do is define exactly what constitutes "evidence" in their eyes. That way, when the Christian presents it to them, they cannot back peddle and attempt to deny it (though they will anyway).

There are a million different questions that Atheists are unable to answer. Here are a couple more: How could an intelligent being come from a lesser being? Since science is a self-correcting process, and not an absolute, who created science?

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." G. K. Chesterton

The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage

In 2015, Michael Pearl published another of his error-filled books meant to deceive people and lead them astray. The title of this book was The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage. He writes:

"There seems to be a conflict in Scripture regarding divorce and remarriage. In the beginning God established the order of marriage--one man and one woman as long as they both live (Matthew 19:4-), no exceptions mentioned. Yet the Law of Moses clearly permits the man to divorce his wife and remarry simply because she finds "no favour in his eyes" or he "hates her" (Deuteronomy 24:1-3). In contradiction to the Law, Jesus declares that the only reason one can divorce and remarry is in response to adultery. But then the Apostle Paul asserts that one may remarry if s/he is "put away" (abandoned, divorced) by one's unbelieving partner--again adding a condition of permission that Jesus did not mention." p.9-10

There is no conflict except that which men create from their perverse hearts. Michael Pearl claims that Moses "clearly permits" divorce, when Moses did no such thing. You see, this is the problem you arrive at when you are a staunch KJV-onlyist and fail to do your studies adequately, correctly, and properly. Moses regulated the divorce that was already occurring, so that it prevented uncleanness. Concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch wrote:

"In these verses ... divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died. The four verses form a period, in which vv. 1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and v. 4 contains the apodasis, with the law concerning the point in question."

Michael Pearl claims that "Jesus declares that the only reason one can divorce and remarry is in response to adultery." Clearly Michael Pearl has difficulty reading and understanding the simple, plain text of the Bible, because Jesus declares no such thing! Observe:

"Everyone who divorces his wife . . . makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:32

"Whoever divorces his wife . . . and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9

"Whoever divorces his wive and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Mark 10:11-12

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Luke 16:18

Where in the timeline of events is adultery taking place according to these four texts? Is it before or after the divorce? It is after! In other words, those who remarry are said to be committing adultery. Quite the opposite of what Michael Pearl is attempting to assert. If he knew his Bible in the least maybe he would not make such colossal blunders. To finish addressing this erroneous paragraph, I will simply mention the fact that Paul did not give permission to remarry.

"Paul bolstered his revision of both the Law and the words of Christ by saying his view was based on the "Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:40). Paul "ordained" this remarriage doctrine "in all churches (1 Corinthians 7:17)." p.10

Paul never made any such claims. This is eisegesis at its best, folks. Something Michael Pearl is able to do in spades. Paul's direction, or what he "ordained," "in all the churches" was that men and women walk in the manner in which God has called them. How do we know this? Because he addresses it in verse 18.

In verse 40, all Paul says is, "and I think that I also have the Spirit of God," after stating that he believed a widow would be happier if she remained single rather than remarrying as the law of death allowed her. All Paul is saying is, "I think I know as much of the mind of the Holy Spirit of God, as either those who teach you otherwise, or who may have opinions contrary to mine in this case" (Poole), and "Whatever your false apostles may think of me, I think, and have reason to know, that I have the Spirit of God" (Henry). In other words, Paul thinks it would be best for widows and widowers to remain unmarried, and this, he tells them, was by inspiration of the Spirit. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

"[Most Christians who remarry] are not able to justify their remarriage from Scripture. This work should remedy that gap in biblical knowledge." p.10

That is quite the boast on Michael Pearl's part, despite the fact that his assertions and claims are false. The reason why most Christians who remarry are not able to justify their remarriage from Scripture is because there is no justification for their remarriage in Scripture.

"So we have Moses granting divorce even though it is contrary to creation. Then Christ contradicts Moses, and finally Paul contradicts both the Law and Christ. How do we reconcile the contradictions? By believing that all the words of God are inspired and carry equal weight, and then "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15)." p.10

Of course someone this far disconnected from God and the Scriptures would make such assumptions taken from false conclusions drawn from assumptions. Sadly, Michael Pearl does not know what "dividing the word of truth" looks like. As we discussed, Moses did not "grant" divorce; he regulated it to prevent uncleanness. Jesus never contradicted Moses; He said that one man and one woman are to join and become one flesh for life, and when questioned with Moses, He explained why Moses regulated divorce and then directed his audience back to creation. Paul did not contradict either the Law or Christ. Paul makes it very clear that God has said that if you divorce, you are to either be reconciled to your spouse or to remain single for the rest of your life. Contrary to the teachings of those perverse in heart, Paul would not have then turned around and contradicted what God had said by saying, "But I say..."

And now it's time for a shameless plug... If you truly and honestly want to know what the Bible has to say on divorce and remarriage, I suggest picking up a copy of my book, The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage. Not only does it contain more Bible than does Michael Pearl's, but it also contains actual exegesis of the biblical texts. If all that blank wasted marginal space were removed and proper margins used, Michael's 96-page book would be reduced to about a 50-page book.

Semper Reformanda

The church, in her current state of imperfection, ought to always be striving to bring herself in line with what God has declared in His Word, the Bible. The further we move away, the more He is dishonoured. If we catch ourselves becoming uncompassionate and unloving, we must swiftly move back. If we find ourselves too inwardly focused, we must recover a passion for souls. If we read the Scriptures and see an area of error, we must repent and quickly move back in line. If we discover that we have adopted a worldly set of guiding principles, we must look again at what God has declared in His holy Word and rebuild our foundations. The reformed church must always be reforming according to the Word of God. Our guiding principle should always be, "What do the Scriptures teach?" And then we ought to be conforming ourselves accordingly. To not do so is to live in rebellion and disobedience.

The Gospel - Central To All We Do

The Gospel should permeate everything we think, say, and do. Regardless of how great our creeds, confessions, catechisms, constitutions, etc., are, we always need to keep the Gospel central. Problem is, our churches tend to take our eyes off of Jesus and lose focus of the Gospel and start turning our doctrines and traditions into legalism, something we should be on guard against.

The moment our creeds, confessions, catechisms, constitutions, etc., crowd out the Gospel, we are on a slippery slope on dangerous ground. We should always be comparing our creeds, confessions, catechisms, constitutions, etc., against Scripture, and where these fall short of Scripture, they need to be rejected. Nothing is higher than Scripture!

No denomination has a monopoly on truth or right doctrine (some are more right than others, but none are 100% right), so we need to be aware that some of the things we believe and practice are wrong and not in tune with Scripture, and therefore need to be conformed to Scripture.

Remember, godly men from the past had personal opinions, too, and placed experience above sound exegesis (e.g., Romans 7). Everything they touched was not gold. As a famous quote goes, "The least deviation from truth will be multiplied later." Men following men following men will eventually and inevitably result in error. We need to be following Jesus by following His Word.