Home » Posts tagged 'sex'

Tag Archives: sex

PART FOUR

Separation of Powers

Whom we call the founding fathers of the United States designed into the government checks and balances and separation of powers. They also formed a system of federalism that divided power between the states and the federal government. Their understanding of man’s sin nature grounded their desire to limit the concentration of power in one entity. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in Federalist 51 wrote:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The states could impede the nation and one branch could obstruct another in the tendency of consolidating power. Even within the legislative branch, the Senate could thwart the House of Representatives and vice versa.

Private Property Ownership

God founded private property ownership. Even though He owns everything, He designed the concept of ownership itself. When Israel entered the land, God divided up the property among twelve tribes. Then among the tribes, families received their own pieces. God also established with laws rights of private property.

Dividing land by boundaries could separate and check evil. You can see this in the concept of landmarks in the Old Testament. Proverbs 22:28 says:

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Fathers set these landmarks, which is a smaller governing unit. Under fathers were sons and grandsons. Bigger than fathers were clans and larger than clans were tribes.

You probably notice how that globalists attack the family unit. When Hillary Clinton said, “It takes a village,” she sees the elimination of basic separation. Heavy taxation inclines toward government ownership of property. You hear this in a statement, like President Obama famously said, “You didn’t build that.” The government has ownership of what it contributed toward building.

Globalist Agenda

Public Education

The fathers of public education, Horace Mann and John Dewey, saw educational reform an efficient mechanism for social control. Public education standardized curricula and centralized the disbursement of funds. It restricted competition. Public schools seized on the influence of making children wards of the state. Education then became a department of the executive branch of the federal government.

Common Language

Nations have languages. God confused the languages at Babel to cause separation. The United States is an English speaking country. Requiring English represses globalism.

Obscure Sex or Gender

In a rudimentary way, obscuring differences in gender eliminates a significant substructure of separation. On the way to one world is one sex or gender. Each sex has a role and eradicating those roles also erases a God-ordained boundary.

Common Currency and Free Trade

On a larger scale than federalism and the separation of powers, nationalism checks globalism. The elimination of borders portends the loss of God-designed natural separation. Even if it is not physical boundaries like the line between the United States and Mexico, it is economic ones like separate currencies and cultural ones like unique ways of life based on founding principles.

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:21), “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Globalists pour their efforts into a life of physical things. They are materialists who prioritize the natural universe and the planet. Most of them don’t care about national boundaries. They don’t want separation of powers.

National boundaries prevent greater wealth. Globalists don’t want trade protectionism and economic isolationism. They want unfettered ability to have and take. Free trade means buying and selling across borders with little to no intervention or inhibition. Worldwide companies grow more powerful making it more difficult for solely national, state, and local businesses to compete. Fewer companies control more until only a few men can control everything, like an Antichrist and his handpicked, loyal subordinates.

To gain more power and stay in power, globalists gladly offer limited security to the masses. They market protection and a very basic quality of life. Adherents trade freedom and opportunity for safety. Greedy globalists also play on greed by offering a certain stipend and free education and healthcare. Without compliance, occupants or residents lose privileges and finally life.

Censorship

To keep safety and security means control of communication. Censorship becomes the rule with few exceptions. Censorship says “no” to preaching the gospel. Jesus said the truth shall set you free indeed. The Antichrist will round up and destroy those speaking the truth.

Antichrist Versus Christ

The human leader of a future one world government is the Antichrist. He’s called the Antichrist (1 John 2:18). In that way, he has something in common with Christ. Christ will rule the world. The Antichrist wants this just as the power behind him, Satan, wants this. Globalism fails because of sin.

On the other hand, Christ saves from sin. He brings world peace. Everyone lives in harmony one with another with safety and security. However, the kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth comes only through Christ, not the Antichrist. Until Jesus sets up His kingdom on the earth, all globalism rebels against His plan.

God the Highest and Its Ramifications

July 5, 2023 / 2 Comments on God the Highest and Its Ramifications

Our Father, Which Art In Heaven

The model prayer of Matthew 6 and Luke 11 begins with the words: “Our Father which art in heaven.” Very often, I will follow this model and pray something like the following: “Dear Father, I ask that you will be praised. You are high and far above us.” What does this describe?

Separate from Sin

That God the Father is in heaven says that He is separate from sin. He is far away from anything sinful, because the third heaven, the location of His heavenly throne room, is at least as far away as the furthest space, which we know is many light years away.

The Highest

That God the Father is in heaven says that He is the highest. “Highest” is a scriptural name and description of God the Father.

Psalm 18:13, “The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.”

Luke 1:32, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.”

Authority

God the Father’s highness relates to His authority. He is over everything. Numbers 24:7 says,

He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.

“His king shall be higher than Agag.” He has greater authority than Agag. Psalm 89:27 also states this truth:

Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

He is better. He has greater authority than the kings of the earth. Highest means the highest authority.

Immutability

That God the Father is in heaven reflects James 1:17:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Nothing can effect God the Father’s perfection. Without anything able to effect Him, He is immutable. Everything is relative to Him, but He is absolute. Whatever comes from Him is good. It is untainted.

Majesty

That God the Father is in heaven reveals His majesty. Majesty relates to His holiness. He is separate by being the highest. However, He is not common or profane. God the Father is distinct. He shows forth the perfections of all His attributes, manifesting His glory. Everything about Him is greater.

Judgment

God is judge. That God the Father is in heaven gives Him a vantage point. He can see everything. God perches above all. If God is higher and better, than something can be judged to be so. With things higher, better, and distinct, God requires judgment. He will judge, but so should we.

The Ramifications of God, the Highest

When God is highest, He is higher than anything. That is the automatic enemy of egalitarianism. God is of the highest value. Nothing is better than Him. He is far above anyone and everyone.

For people to do what they want to do, it helps if no one or nothing is above them. It is a Satanic version of utopianism. Every man is his own god. No one is better, greater, or higher than anyone else. No one wears a different uniform. Gender or sex doesn’t exist.

Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” God is incompatible with communism, because He is the ultimate authority, higher than everyone. When people judge according to God, this act overthrows communist thinking.

If one individual cannot be better than everyone, then he at least wants no one to be better than anyone else. Everyone has his own truth, his own goodness, and his own beauty. Every standard is relative to himself. Nothing is absolute. Of course, all of this is a lie.

The Two Story View of Truth and Gender Identity: Matt Walsh on Dr. Phil

January 25, 2022 / 2 Comments on The Two Story View of Truth and Gender Identity: Matt Walsh on Dr. Phil

A conservative commentator, who works with and on Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro’s new media company, showed up for the Dr. Phil show with two transgenders (the term “non-binary” was used). This interaction has been big on the world wide web. I didn’t hear about it until today, even as I write this. I know who Dr. Phil is, but I’ve never seen his show. I only heard of Matt Walsh, because I’ve seen him on the roster for Daily Wire.

I did know that Walsh had written a children’s book, Johnny the Walrus, to help parents with the gender identity issue with their children. It became a bestseller at Amazon and in particular with LGBTQ, which became a kind of joke for Walsh, bragging that his book might show up in the LGBTQ category.

Walsh, I can see, has now become a unique target for leftists, because he wrote Johnny the Walrus and he showed up on Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil had on his show these two transgenders, who are “married,” it seems, then a pro-transgender professor, two different parents, a mother and father, who both don’t want this taught to their children in school, and finally Matt Walsh.

Everyone was “nice” to the transgenders except for Walsh. It’s not that Walsh wasn’t nice. He was just truthful in a matter-of-fact, unapologetic kind of way. Others insulted Walsh at will, while he insulted no one. Walsh took the position essentially everyone not long ago would have agreed.

https://youtu.be/iw075B9iqxw

(If you would prefer not to watch anything with a sexual subject, do not watch this video. If you do not want to watch transgenders, do not watch this video. I provided the video so you could hear what Matt Walsh said, which does give some good talking points on this issue.)

As good as Matt Walsh does, he misses something that should be more obvious. I agree with everything he at least says on the show. As for Dr. Phil, I get why he is popular and has stayed on TV for so long. He takes a neutral, non-judgmental role in his questions, but picks out guests with sharp disagreements with each other in order to facilitate a battle. Something like this then goes viral on the internet.

The transgenders provide a definition of “sex” and “gender” that is false on the gender side. I’m not going to say what they said. It relates to regions of the human body to distinguish what sex and gender are, including that gender is between the ears. Gender is not between the ears. The professor on the show said that sex is nature and gender is nurture. Gender is not nurture.

Sex is the biological component, what some might call “the science.” Both sides of the gender issue will very often agree on a definition of sex, something related to unique physical traits of the male and the female. They do not agree on what a man and a woman are. A man is an adult biological male. A woman is an adult biological female. They can’t say that.

In the discussion on Dr. Phil, the transgenders would not define a woman a biological female. They asked Walsh to define woman, and he said, “an adult human female.” Then they asked what a female was, which he answered, “Someone with female reproductive organs.”

GENDER

What about gender? Perhaps you have not felt the need to define gender in the past. Most people don’t feel that need. For me, gender has mainly been about noun pronoun agreement, which is either English or Greek grammar.

If you try to find a historic definition of gender, you will see that it is not a controversy. It was cut and dry. No one was separating sex from gender, like we see today. Webster’s 1830 Dictionary says that it comes from the Latin, genus, and means:

1. Properly; kind; sort; [obs.] 2. A sex, male or female.—3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives, and participles, to express the distinction of male and female.

The Latin gives a big hint, because genus means, “birth, origin.” In its root meaning, gender relates to how or what you’re born. You trace gender back to what you were born, because you were born with your particular gender.

In 1839 Oliver Beale Peirce wrote The Grammar of the English Language. In it he point blank wrote: “Gender is the distinction of sex” (italics his). He continued:

Gender being “the distinction of sex,” it follows, of course, that, as there are but two sexes, there can be but two genders. . . . Masculine means, not male, but pertaining to a male. Feminine means, not female, but pertaining to a female.

Peirce gives an example with names. He says that a masculine name is “John,” and a feminine name is “Mary.” This is the historical and traditional understanding of gender. Neuter is not gender, but the absence of gender. It is a grammatical category, but in definition, it is genderless, like an apple.

When the 1830 Webster’s defines “feminine,” it says, “soft, tender, delicate, effeminate, destitute of manly qualities.” For masculine, it says, “strong, robust, resembling man, course, bold, brave.” Since masculine gender pertains to a man, it would be what characterizes a man in contradistinction to a woman. Since feminine gender pertains to a woman, it would be what characterizes a woman in contradiction to a man. The existence of these genders assumes that we know what the distinctions are. We do.

DIVINE DISTINCTIONS AND REBELLION

Everything I’m describing about gender comes from a biblical understanding of the unique distinctions God created between a man and a woman. That is the truth. That is a truth that Matt Walsh won’t say, because it isn’t “scientific.” It is scientific. It is a view of total truth, not the two stories that place gender in the top, subjective story, and sex in the bottom, scientific one. God created this universe. God created man and woman.

In 1994 Suzanne Williams, ‎Janet Seed, ‎and Adelina Mwau wrote The Oxfam Gender Training Manual. In it these three women started unpacking gender on page 99, starting by saying: “Gender is an old word which has taken on a new meaning.” To begin the second paragraph, they say, “Sex is a fact of human biology.” A few lines later, they write:

On this biological difference we construct an edifice of social attitudes and assumptions, behaviours and activities: these are our gender roles and identities. . . . Unlike sex, gender roles are variable.

At the root of gender fluidity today, indistinguishable gender, is gender role confusion or indistinguishable gender roles. There is not distinct masculine or feminine role. It started with dismantling the roles, saying those are not biological or scientific, and now the identities themselves cannot be distinguished. If the roles were “constructed,” then so were the “identities.” You can construct both your own role, but also your own identity.

I did not watch the whole Dr. Phil program with Matt Walsh, so I didn’t hear if they questioned him on gender. What I did hear seems like Walsh connects gender with sex in an inseparable way. That’s fine with me, but sex and gender, although related, are not identical. God distinguished gender more than reproductive organs distinguish between male and female sex.

In the whole discussion of sex and gender, sex is the lower story scientific aspect. This is very often conceded. However, leftists treat gender different. They disconnect gender from science, gender being that which pertains to masculinity and femininity. This is like disconnecting natural law from moral law.

People will agree on gravity and the consequences of violating that law. They won’t agree on the consequences of violating moral laws. That is an upper story issue, that is relativistic and subjective, just like they treat religion and art of all types, calling them “values.” Everyone can have his or her own value, and each is just as good as any other. Anyone can have their own religion, their own Jesus, with no basis of objective judgment.

Walsh surely would agree on objective moral criteria, at least personally, but very little would he and his colleagues speak to this in public. A kind of eclectic or ecumenical roster at Daily Wire must keep the peace between one another. In a practical way, this turns moral law relativistic and subjective. They review movies and music, acting like objective principles must apply at least to the content, yet without treating this as inviolable laws or rules. Someone can judge, so there must be a standard.

The real problem with the full gamut of the gender issue is not intellectual. It is volitional. The real problem is lust. The only real answer is a powerful one that can change hearts, which is the Word of God.

WHAT IS TRUTH