Scientists Say You’re Wrong
Scientists Say You’re Wrong
“Scientists say you’re wrong…”
That’s what you’ll hear from time to time when someone wants to try to ignore what’s obvious by insisting that “experts agree,” or “studies show,” or “recent polling indicates…”
There’s two kinds of information: The kind that brings clarity to the truth and the kind that distracts from it.
Subject matter experts and polling data can be very instrumental in helping to guide and reinforce sound judgement. But when you intentionally distort the criteria you use to gather and analyze your information, not only are your conclusions flawed, but they have the capacity to make a bad situation worse because of the credibility that’s associated with institutions that are assumed to be unbiased.
When it comes to transgenderism and homosexuality, you have a perspective that is supposedly informed by educated sources that insists these things are either normal or explained by anomalies that cannot be criticized, only accommodated.
Ryan T. Anderson received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He went on to receive his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.
In his book, “When Harry Became Sally,” he reveals the contradictions and the harm being suffered by those who are being encouraged to subscribe to am sustainable distortion of reality, all in the name of “science.”
He makes a great point by saying, “On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.” (Transgender Ideology is Riddled with Contradictions. Here are the Big Ones)
You can’t acknowledge Biology as a definitive science, and, at the same time, say that it becomes subjective, depending on the way a person feels. That is the fundamental claim of the “science” supporting transgenderism. In that context, transgenderism isn’t supported by science, as much as it’s refuted by it. It’s like a detective who isn’t looking for evidence, as much as they’re trying to create a verdict. In this instance, however “complex” the problem might be, you’re not bringing clarity to the truth as much as you’re distracting from it by insisting that a man can have a uterus.
How Does This Concern You?
Attempting to introduce a bottom line that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is toxic to some people because of the way submitting to the reality requires a willingness to be held accountable to something greater than yourself.
You can’t champion that kind of approach directly without sounding either selfish or foolish. But you can effectively avoid being revealed as not having a rational argument by accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being either overbearing, hypocritical, or unethical. At that point, the focus isn’t on what’s being said as much as it’s the supposed character flaws of the one who’s speaking.
You see that approach manifested in several comments: “You can’t force your beliefs on me,” “What’s true for you isn’t true for me,” “I’m not hurting anyone,” or “How does this concern you?”
Embedded within each statement is a dynamic that implies truth is based on preferences more so than principles. Therefore, any attempt to assert a reality that cannot be altered based on a person’s disposition is an inappropriate act of aggression that is hurtful and disrespectful.
It can easily shut down any legitimate dialogue because of the way most will rush to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.
You can, however, counter those tactics by bringing the conversation back to the subject matter being discussed and emphasizing how the truth isn’t something you can ignore just because you don’t like the way it’s packaged.
For example, when someone wants to discredit your platform by suggesting that since you’re not being impacted, you have to reason to be critical…
Same sex marriage – tf you’re not personally impacted by two people of the same gender getting married, why would you criticize their behavior?
You can respond by saying you don’t have to be robbed to oppose stealing. Just because someone’s not currently breaking into your home doesn’t mean that you need to refrain from condemning the idea that a person can take something that doesn’t belong to them.
Should they choose to say that since they’re not hurting anyone, any criticism is unnecessary, you can remind them that, more often than not, that phrase is used by people who’ve decided that regardless of the problems their choices produce, if it doesn’t matter to them, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. That’s not making an argument, they’re just declaring their indifference.
When it comes to homosexuality, you’ve got three things going on simultaneously.
1) Not good for you
From a physiological standpoint, you have a lifestyle that represents a parade of STDs, some of which are lethal. You also can’t procreate, which qualifies your perversion, not only as something that’s detrimental to your health, but also as a complete departure from the way the human species is designed.
2) Bad for the team.
This is coming from SAGE Publications, the world’s largest independent scholarly publisher. This captures both the physiological problems as well as the problems that impact society in general.
Are homosexuals “not dangers to society” and is homosexuality “compatible with full health”? To answer these questions 4,340 adult respondents drawn via area probability sampling from 5 metropolitan areas of the USA self-administered an extensive sexuality/public order questionnaire of over 500 items. Bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) as compared to heterosexuals: (1) more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g., sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces); (2) exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (e.g., more frequently admitted to participating in orgies, reported considerably larger numbers of sexual partners); (3) more frequently reported participating in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls); and (4) more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating). From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health.
3) You have to pretend there are no rules.
When you’re a part of a team, you have a responsibility to contribute in a way that benefits the team as a whole. You don’t just wear the jersey, you play in a way that helps move the ball down the field. But if you’re determined to believe that there are no rules and you can play however you want to, that puts an unnecessary strain on the team’s ability to succeed. In that context, you’re not incapable, you’re just selfish.
The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute will not confess to being selfish, however. Instead, they’ll insist that their rights are being violated – that they are victims of an intolerant society. They won’t admit to being irresponsible or negligent, instead they’ll say that there are no rules and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or cruel.
The problem with that mindset is that it ignores reality. They want to pretend that they can speak a standard into existence, simply because they want it to be true, rather than submitting to a standard because it is true.
The result is a compromised collective. It’s not about a lack of variety or an intolerant authority, as much as it’s an unnecessary increase in pain and problems that stem from a resolve to reduce truth to a tradition.
The LGBQT community requires that husbands and wives, along with moms and dads have to be redefined as social constructs as opposed to fundamental institutions. They dismiss the consequences of their perversion as “risks” and any objective evaluation of their behavior as “discrimination.” This is the only path that can be taken if their approach to the human experience is going to make any sense, and it is the same kind of path that is used by everyone that wants to normalize a flawed way of thinking: Replace what’s real with a manufactured reality where there are no bottom lines and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.
The Fundamental Dispute
At the end of the day, there’s more to these disagreements than a competing collection of facts and studies. The fundamental dispute comes down to how you define truth. You define it either according to what’s real or how you feel. If you define it according to how you feel, you’re inevitably restricted to what amounts to an unsustainable hypocrisy. If you’re determined to justify yourself by saying that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then you can’t logically disagree with someone and say they’re wrong if there is no right or wrong.
LGBTQ, Socialism, ProChoice – all of these things depend on a perspective that maintains the individual as his own bottom line. Any policy or personality that threatens the authority of the person who’s empowered themselves to dictate the difference between right and wrong is going to be first criticized, then ignored, and then, silenced.
You don’t counter that kind of agenda without incorporating an approach that addresses the philosophical poison that refuses to acknowledge the boundaries of truth, common sense, and sound reasoning. You’re not questioning their logic, you’re challenging their authority and apart from asking those questions that reveal the self-defeating aspect of their philosophical foundation, in their mind, they’re either different or they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.
Johnny the Walrus
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
Same Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)
Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order
Are Some People Born Gay?
Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World
What is That Feeling?
What is that “feeling?”
Why do you “feel” a dark presence when you walk into a situation that is celebrating something that God has defined as heinous?
When you’ve got God’s Spirit living in you, it impacts, not only the way you think, but it resonates in that place that constitutes the sum total of who you are (1 Cor 2:12; Eph 1:13-14).
The Bible calls it your heart (see sidebar). It’s more than just your brain or a mere emotion. It’s an awareness that is as unmistakeable as it is substantial.
Jesus references it specifically in John 16:
When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (Jn 16:8-11)
In verse 13 of the same chapter, He says:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (Jn 16:13 [see also Matthew Henry Commentary])
What Does it Look Like?
You can see examples of the way the Spirit guides a person in the way Simeon was “moved by the Spirit” so that he could meet the promised Messiah…
25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: 29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace. 30 For my eyes have seen your salvation, 31which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” (Lk 2:25-32)
You also see the way the Spirit prevented Paul from making his way into Bythnia…
Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. (Acts 16:6-7)
No doubt, this gets into subjective territory, but it is real nevertheless.
Paul talks about us having the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). In Romans, it talks about how the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). So, when you combine the Biblical Realities of God being able to speak through the thoughts you have in your head, as well as the deep seated conviction that the Holy Spirit triggers when God wants to get your attention, you have an empirical basis for the “feeling” you sometimes get when you walk into an environment that doesn’t have God’s approval. Generally speaking, those are not healthy scenarios and you want to remove yourself from that situation, not just because it might make sense to do so, but because you want to be obedient to what God is telling you.
Conviction of sin is one of the rarest things that ever strikes a man. It is the threshold of an understanding of God. Jesus Christ said that when the Holy Spirit came He would convict of sin, and when the Holy Spirit rouses the conscience and brings him into the presence of God, it is not his relationship with men that bothers him, but his relationship with God. (Oswald Chambers)
1. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, p466
Apologizing to a Fool
How do you handle someone who insists that you have hurt their feelings, despite the fact that you’ve done nothing wrong?
It seems to me that there’s more to that kind of situation than what some insist is a blanket command to “confess your sins to one another,” in order to fulfill the biblical command to be Christlike.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:23-24)
OK, but if your brother, in this case, is a fool that’s trying to leverage a situation in a way that doesn’t so much help him recover from being wounded, as much as it helps him promote his agenda, that’s not someone who wants an apology, that’s someone who wants power.
In that instance, you want to ensure you’re applying the whole of God’s Word, and not just those portions than can be manipulated in a way where the end result falls short of the Truth.
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. (Prov 26:4)
If I’m talking to a fool, I’m interacting with a person who’s not hurting as much as they’re hunting for opportunities to conceal their true purpose by posing as someone who’s in pain.
I’m not being Christlike by endorsing a sinful perspective. I’m being complicit, which is neither wise nor obedient.
Why is American Christianity so Disgusting?
That was the question on quora. com.
Sometimes, it’s hard not to speculate that those kinds of questions aren’t anything other than just an invitation for atheists and agnostics to spew their discontent with the Reality of Biblical Absolutes.
But this was my response…
It depends on what you mean by “American Christianity.”
There aren’t different versions. You’re either a Christian or you’re not (Rom 10:9–10).
And while there are a number of people who’ve got it in their head that just saying they believe in the empty tomb somehow qualifies them as a believer, the demons believed that Christ rose from the grave. So, a belief in the resurrection, from a biblical standpoint, goes beyond acknowledging Christ’s having risen from the grave as more than a historical truth. It’s a personal reality that’s represented by the Spirit of Christ living inside of you (Rom 8:9–10; 1 Cor 2:16).
One thing that often gets distorted is the idea of “love.” In the absence of Truth, love is nothing more than selfishness and neglect. In 1 Corinthian 13, it says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” So, when you’re breaking the law and justifying it by saying that you have the right to be happy, or when you’re attempting to defend something perverse by saying that love is stronger than hate, that’s just a coward wanting to be accommodated rather than evaluated.
You can’t disagree with “love,” so you make that your storefront in order to conceal what you’re actually selling.
It’s the same thing with the way people either claim to be a Christian, or criticize Christians in that they want to maintain themselves as their own moral bottom line while simultaneously sounding “godly.”
Just like the gospel says that you are more than your mistakes, the Truth is more than a personal preference. And when that “preference” is threatened, it’s then that some will try to reduce institutions to traditions, and an authentic relationship with Christ to a flawed opinion.
Bad Bunny
A pastor posted his “struggle” in trying to identify which half time show represented the more Christlike response to the tension created by selecting Bad Bunny as the half time show artist.
This was my response…
Let me get this straight: You’re “struggling” to figure out if the TPUSA half time show option represented more of a Christlike response to the NFL that chose for its half time artist a guy who sings this particular song:
He’s acting like she doesn’t know me (Like she doesn’t know me; no, no, no)
But in my bed, I gave it to her on all fours and in all the positions (In all the positions),
eh I eat her out fully, no one is finding out (JHAYCO)
It’s not that complex. You’ve got a performer who celebrates sexual decadence in his music. That’s not someone I want to listen to and for it to be implied that unless I do listen to it and endorse it as “inclusive,” I’m somehow either a bigot or I’m not especially Christlike, is insane.
And you think because Bad Bunny references the fact that love is superior to hate, that somehow translates to something more aligned with the gospel than Kid Rock’s performance?
Here’s what the Bible says:
First of all, Satan quoted Scripture (Matt 4:5-6). Just because you reference a biblical Truth, unless it’s quoted in its proper context, it’s nothing more than a vice disguised as a courtesy. “Love,” as referenced by folks who see themselves as their own bottom line, are not referring to “love” as its defined in 1 Corinthians 13, in that their idea of love absolutely delights in evil.
The Bible says to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and to obey the governing authorities (Rom 13:1, 4). Bad Bunny has denounced the enforcement of immigration law and you can read some more his sexually perverse lyrics by visiting https://www.vibe.com/lists/bad-bunny-songs-translated-into-english/titi-me-pregunto/.
Kid Rock’s performance began with a rehearsal of what he used to be, followed by an extended string section that then segued into a tune where he sang about the transforming Power of Christ.
And you’re trying to figure out which of those most closely aligned with a Christlike perspective?
And let’s end this dilemma about “judging.” Jesus never said not to judge (John 7:24; Eph 5:11). He said not to make things worse by being a hypocrite (Mat 7:3-5). If you were to extend your interpretation of Scripture to its inevitable conclusion, you would be hard pressed to present the gospel because of it being seemingly “wrong” to address someone as a sinner.
You’re not wrong in recognizing that this tension is a spiritual one and it isn’t remedied by an alternative broadcast (Eph 6:12). But we are commanded to be salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) and both of those get totally lost when you endorse decadence as a ministry.
The choice was obvious to anyone who’s looking at the Bible as a whole, as opposed to some judiciously selected verses that conveniently allow a person to take a seat rather than taking a stand.
Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist
Jesus wasn’t a Socialist.
At no point does Jesus try to classify people into two categories, as far as those who own the means of production and those who don’t.
That’s the supposed problem that Socialism tries to solve – the idea that rich people are corrupt and poor people are oppressed. To solve that problem, Socialism controls both the supply and the demand and categorizes anyone who would attempt to disagree as being opposed to the concept of sharing and the common good.
The problem is that when you replace personal responsibility with a default corporate endorsement, the end result allows for a toxic level of mismanagement and neglect that leads to poverty and death.
Jesus praised and promoted industry, not subsidies in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30). In the same chapter, He emphasized accountability in the first 13 verses. The book of Proverbs is rife with condemnations of the “sluggard” (Prov 21:25; 26:13–14). 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
Thomas Sowell said that the strongest argument for Socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against Socialism is that it doesn’t work. Margaret Thatcher echoed the same sentiment when she said that the problem with Socialism is that you inevitably run out of someone’s else’s money.
Socialism appeals to two kinds of people: Those who want to appear compassionate without having to sacrifice anything, and those who want to be given what they would otherwise have to earn.
Sharing and Compassion are obviously promoted in Scripture. But sharing is not controlling, nor is compassion a subsidy. Both, in the sense that they are commanded in Scripture, are voluntary acts of service and obedience that are ultimately done as a way to honor God, not compulsory gestures of good will designed to empower the government.
