Christianity · Gender identity · Justice · right side of history · Transgenderism

My problem with AHA and the transgender arguments…

abolishnist-1
Yes, yes it is. Why doesn’t everyone agree?

My apologies, that was a deceptive and somewhat clickbait title. I’m actually not even going to give much of any reasons to what my problem is with AHA (Abolish Human Abortion).

65329973
First though I’ll make a few brief comments of AHA. The movement itself is something I identify with. I am not an advocate of many of the methods of the individual groups that hold to the moniker AHA, but I am absolutely, unequivocally, in every single instance apposed to and believe abortion should be punished. I am not a “pro-lifer”. I’m not a “pro-lifer” because of not what the position entails, but of how the groups identifying as such argue. Even the self avowed “pro-choice” camp claims to be “pro-life”. Both groups define the terms differently. So I want to avoid confusion.

I am for the abolition of abortion in the same way I am for the abolition of rape, prostitution, and dead beat fathers/mothers. It is sin against God and his human imagers, both themselves and others.

With all that said, the biggest problem I have with AHA (apart from it’s Church Repent project), is with it’s internal structure and “leadership personages”. As Christians (which the core group of “leaders” in the movement are), we should be using reasoned arguments and means to combat the utter abhorrence that is the murder of human beings that have no say in the matter. As it stands right now, I think the manner in which Apologia Church is directing their efforts towards abortion is done well and should be emulated. Now, moving on…

I’ve come to an interesting argument that I’d like to run by those of you reading this and see what you think.

First listen carefully to this exchange from Tucker Carlson and Zac Petkanas. There are a few things I want to highlight in brief and then get to the crux of my argument.

All Mr. Carlson wanted was a scientific definition (genetically speaking) of how we can know what gender objectively is. An honest question. Mr. Petkanas refuses to answer, and in fact gives a childish answer by saying,

“One’s gender identity is enough to show what gender they are and so if you’re confused about that I mean I leave that to your level of enlightenment…”
“Your level of enlightenment”? That’s not what the question was. Mr. Petkanas cannot, sorry, is absolutely unable to answer the question. And why? Because of the implications of the answer necessary.
Caitlyn-Jenner-900
This is a man in a dress.
And now where my argument is…
Christians whom hold to a Earth/Universe that is younger than 10,000 years old are commonly called science deniers. And in small part people who outright reject evolution are put in this camp as well–this is a whole other can of worms that I won’t get into right now, suffice to say it’s vast.
Fine, for sake of argument let’s let it slide…
Now in rebuttal I ask the one arguing thus to demonstrate, scientifically when human life begins. (Here is Ben Shapiro giving an admittedly weak foundational argument but putting the point I am making across quite well) Before exiting the birth canal or after? Before blood flows through the baby’s veins or after? Before there are neurons firing or after? Before implantation in the uterine wall or after? Every objectively written and researched scientific study concludes it is at conception, that is when there is a scientifically verifiable separate human being.
Next in rebuttal I ask the same question Tucker Carlson is asking. And I believe you see where I am going with this…
The argument is invalid for the individual calling the anti evolution/ YEC believer anti science because they themselves, without question are anti science. They are for only subjective science.
I am quite distressed that abortion and Transgenderism are the two major talking points in the western world today. While one is absolutely ludicrous and the other is straight up murder. Why is murder not obviously the one where there should be a unified abhorrence to? Why are people even seeking to defend it?
This is where Mr. Shapiro falls short. He only has a scientific argument. It will fail in the end and will help someone only in this life and ultimately, if they are happy who am I to judge otherwise?
Right?
Wrong.
I don’t decide why to judge, that is the Triune God of the Spirit inspired Scriptures (and for the governing authorities, but that’s for another blog post). I only get to decide when and how I go about it, but I surely must go about it. What much of the AHA community won’t allow is Gospel preaching Christian churches to decide amongst themselves when and how. And that is one of my problems with much of the AHA community… assuming their own ecclesiology and eschatology on the rest of the Church at large. I’m done ranting now…
What do you think of the argument? Thoughts?… … I’m listening.
Christianity · doctrine · Entertainment · Holiness · theology

If anything deep-fried tastes good, what about human flesh?…

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has grown to be one of my favorites… the Theological smorgasbord is why…

Christianity · doctrine · Holiness · Justice · Scholars · theologians · theology

RC Sproul’s “The Holiness of God” pt. 6

Continuing my series going through RC Sproul’s, “The Holiness of God.” Chapter six, Holy Justice To think about the justice of God is quite daunting. This is because, quite frankly, it is  rooted in His supreme goodness; if He is good He must have perfectly good justice, therefore all innocence is rewarded and all the guilty… Continue reading RC Sproul’s “The Holiness of God” pt. 6