Shapeshifters Invade the USA

(At the invitation of David Anderson and Don Ayotte, I have returned to post on Delaware Politics.  Below is the substance of a recent article from American Thinker with some meditative thoughts on the new transgender laws.  I may not have time to reply to comments, so please bear with me if I do not answer your contribution.  Most of the posters here are thoughtful.  Some, however, need to be reminded that they should at least read the article they comment on.  Thanks in advance!) One of the most persistently alluring but frightening themes of science-fiction films features creatures able to transform themselves into any form they’d like. The power to shift one’s self into any form at any given moment by a sheer act of will, also a theme of traditional mythology and folklore, means that for the shape-shifter, nothing is permanently solid material. “Reality” is illusory because it is infinitely malleable. Who would have thought even a few years ago that the conjectures of ancient mythology and modern sci-fi would become “reality” as the world’s most powerful nation reverts to pagan ideals by enacting laws that essentially acknowledge the rights of shape-shifters? Mostly unbeknownst to most of us mortals, a modern day shape-shifter can become the opposite of the sex he or she was born as, transforming into a man or woman in an instant. It doesn’t matter if the biological assignment given at birth remains. Proclamation of one’s sexual identity is sufficient for one to change from a man to a woman or vice versa. One’s gender can be established by fiat even without resorting to sex reassignment surgery. Even small children may change sex just by proclamation, as the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary School guidelines affirm, stating that even if a child physiologically resembles a boy in every respect, but decides to be a girl, his new identity is to be acknowledged as the “real” one. Just to be perfectly clear, lest anyone accuse the district of discrimination, it is not necessary to declare one’s self male or female at all. A student can essentially check the box “Neither:”
“A transgender boy, for example, is a youth who was assigned the sex of female at birth, but has a clear and persistent identity as male. A transgender girl is a youth who was assigned the sex of male at birth but has a clear and persistent identity as female. Gender nonconforming youth range in the ways in which they identify as male, female, some combination of both, or neither.”
Unlike some sci-fi shape-shifters whose transformation is depicted as completely involuntary — the film classic The Thing* affording the perfect example of alien creatures transforming humans into beasts that lie seeded within — the new shape-shifters change their identity by a voluntary act of will. The men who were transformed by the “Thing” were enslaved by their new identity, completely disabled as humans and turned into devouring monsters. But the new shape-shifters see their new forms as a means of liberation, of equality; and as a way to attain new abilities and opportunities hitherto denied them by the formerly impenetrable barrier of the biological assignation of their sex. For example, gender-shifting can allow a man to enter into areas formerly forbidden to him. As the Greek mythological tale relates, the god Zeus disguised himself as a woman in order to become safely acquainted with the unsuspecting Callisto. When the god had her entrapped, he turned himself into a man and raped her. The modern-day equivalent of the gods visiting unsuspecting women unawares in areas where they thought they were safe from male predators just might be the ladies’ public bathroom, now open in an ever increasing number of states to any man who self-identifies as a woman. The 6’4″ hairy guy who just came into the women’s bathroom to relieve himself is not at all what he appears to be. No; no! He is a sort of god in disguise. He has by mere will transformed himself into a woman. Move along, ladies. There’s nothing to see — or fear. Don’t believe your lying eyes. (Lest the dear reader think the author is resorting to hyperbole, please take the time to look up the case of the 45 year old male who decided to expose his male parts to underage girls.  He had proclaimed himself a woman, and so was given access to women’s facilities.) Actually, the new mania of self-identification does confer a godlike status, for it moves beyond mere shape-shifting to apotheosis, to divinization by means of an act of will, sort of the way Caligula proclaimed himself a god. All one has to do is to announce his or her new status, be it sexual, racial, or anything else. In the meantime, the rest of society must conform to the shape-shifters’ demands and rules, accommodating the new gods’ demands. By embracing the magical thinking at the heart of mythology, which has been a weltanschauung the West has long rejected in favor of realistic acceptance of and examination of a material world, shape-shifters deny not only the world that continually asserts its material exigencies on us, including our sexual identity at birth, but modern science and the Judeo-Christian worldview as well. In the case of the madness of transgender transformation by fiat parading as civil rights, the entire societal structure is at stake. The eradication of sexual identity in the supposed interest of “equality” produces liminality, a disorientation and ambiguity preceding the collapse of society in preparation for the new gods replacing the God of Judaism and Christianity. The political and cultural changes demanded by the new gods involve the dissolution of social hierarchies, the trashing of tradition, and the complete disjointing of male/female relationships. In addition, they add total uncertainty when contemplating and planning for the future. Of course, the total confusion concerning identity may well be what is actually purposed by those who wish to enable the establishment of new institutions reflecting the new rules of the new gods. Ultimately, we are talking about the complete usurpation of the present paradigm and the substitution of a new one–an insane, anarchical one. (This is to say nothing of the wrecking of women’s rights, but that is another article.) A compelling narrative is necessary to persuade the currently numbed populace that radical change is good and necessary. The creation of a new mythology helps to attain the societal malleability necessary to destroy the old order and to establish a new one. The current narrative says that you, too, can be a god. You can be anything you want to be. It is your civil right and constitutionally guaranteed. As for those who will not bow to the new order and who will not accommodate themselves to the worship of the new divinities, they are the ones to be persecuted as abnormal. After all, one must always be ready to welcome the gods who come in disguise lest those gods be offended. And, as all common folk now know, the new gods are easily offended and will take people to court if some protest they see mere men parading as women and vice versa; mere mortals and not gods or goddesses. At the heart of all the efforts to be other than we were created is the Devil’s lie: “Ye shall be as gods.” The promise of Satan is that the human being can by his or her own volition rise above the gritty world of human reality and earthly material to soar to heights formerly reserved for the Divinity. It is the lure of rising above and even ruling over the masses, creating the world according to one’s own design, establishing a new order before which mere humans are to bow. How ironic that those who laugh at and scorn the miracles of Jesus Christ as unbelievable should demand we take on faith the miracle of transformation of women into men and men into women; boys into girls and girls into boys. How amazing that those who scoff at the idea that Christ has the power to transform men and women into “Sons of the most High,” as fantastical beyond belief should believe they can change themselves into entirely different creatures by the mere words of their mouths and the thoughts of their hearts. That laughter you hear is not the Devil’s. The Devil knows only ridicule. He knows nothing of genuine humor, which requires humble acknowledgment of human limitations and human folly. No, that sound probably comes from the God who is described as sitting in the heavens and laughing at the idiocies of humanity, but who still loves the men and women he created so much he gave His Son so they might know their true identities as His children. Those who reject the grand account of Genesis, which declares God made men and women as complementary but mysteriously and irrevocably divided by their sex, reject reality. They who create a new myth, attempting to force society to accept it and to retrofit institutions to accommodate it should not be surprised when their gods fail to keep us mere mortals’ loyalty and devotion. They should not be surprised when we simple-minded human beings think their gods must be crazy — or that we think their gods will and should fail. (*Hat tip to Nathan Bird, film aficionado extraordinaire.)

85 thoughts on “Shapeshifters Invade the USA”

  1. “By embracing the magical thinking at the heart of mythology, which has been a weltanschauung the West has long rejected in favor of realistic acceptance of and examination of a material world…”

    Says the author, who has embraced the magical thinking at the heart of Christianity, and who otherwise has little good to say about “the West” and its “realistic acceptance of and examination of a material world.”

    It’s always amusing to see a believer of one set of unprovable assertions criticize others for doing the same thing.

    Beyond that, one wonders what the author would have to say about the small but persistent percentage of people who are born hermaphroditic. Should one suppose that in those cases, God simply couldn’t make up his mind?

  2. We live in a deviant, violent, regressing culture. The producers are ridiculed and the parasites applauded. Eventually, all that will be left is the latter and ESPN.

  3. The producers are ridiculed and the parasites applauded. Eventually, all that will be left is the latter and ESPN.

    Probably.

    There’s probably a reason that the Aztecs wound up with ball games at the base of their pyramid schemes.

    Surrounding the court were areas for spectators, nobles and judges. The structure would often include skull racks (tzompantli). These had a base with upright wood posts. Bars ran from post to post, adorned with the skulls of sacrifice victims. Sometimes the walls would show reliefs of the winners and losers of the past.
    ….
    During the Aztec ball game, gambling was common among the spectators. Gambling reached high levels in the Aztec empire. Just about anything could be gambled, from ornate feathers to land to children.
    ….
    The Aztec ball game had a lot of ritual significance. It was mean to mirror the ball court of the heavens, this being the ball court of the underworld where the sun passed each night. The game represented the battle between day and night, and sowas also related to the human blood sacrifices that were intended to keep the sun moving in the sky. Aztec History

    Fun times?

    I prefer baseball, the all American game laid out in the Masonic compass and square where “the base” men usually have no idea what’s going on or what sacrifices they’ve been incorporated into. Speaking of the occult, the hermaphroditic age that some seem to think America is headed toward these days was predicted by occultists about a century ago. But there won’t be solar powered ponies pooping rainbows of tolerance on everyone just over the horizon.

    It’s more likely that when that which creates life as we know it is perverted, denied or done away with… i.e. sex, that the Empire and demands for more shared sacrifices will grow. There’s a reason that America’s Masonic Founders laid out Washington’s Monument and the Capital Dome in a symmetrical and balanced fashion with reflecting pools for people to reflect on things.

    “When we call a man ‘manly’ or a woman ‘womanly’ we touch the deepest philosophy.” –Chesterton

  4. I do like the analogy of shape-shifters being likened to the modern day confusion of people wanting to switch genders because they firmly believe they are a man living in a woman’s body or visa-versa. Everybody seems to believe that correct gender people should just scratch their heads and say, whatever.
    Where the problem lies, is when somebody questions and demands a chromosone test to ascertain whether or not the person is actually an XX or and XY, which would determine the original sex of the person, not what the think they are.

    The real problem is, when I think I finally have everything figured out, they change the game on me. Oh! Pardon me, I thought this was just another video game. It seems that all of life has become a Sci-fi video game. But wait, God comes into the game, and just in time too. Ta Da!
    Thank Goodness, there is a God!

    Great Post

  5. Says the author, who has embraced the magical thinking at the heart of Christianity, and who otherwise has little good to say about “the West” and its “realistic acceptance of and examination of a material world.”

    Deeper magic? Either way, you’re ruled by people at 33rd Liberty Street that apparently believe in a different version of magick… one in which human sacrifice creates more false profits instead of one in which God provides the sacrifice no matter the cost.

    It’s always amusing to see a believer of one set of unprovable assertions criticize others for doing the same thing.

    Ironic.

    Beyond that, one wonders what the author would have to say about the small but persistent percentage of people who are born hermaphroditic. Should one suppose that in those cases, God simply couldn’t make up his mind?

    If it is to be said that people can supposedly use the magic of technology to transcend sex then why would seeking God’s will matter? Or do you have some glimmering of an understanding that people actually can’t afford to deny what they’re trying to use their wealth and technology to deny.. even on this side of the heavens?

    Some of what people are talking about these days is probably an artifact of wealth and technology, just as the Founders said it would be if they were successful. (We’re a long way from their philosophy and concern for posterity now. We’ll be lucky if our politicians can pass a budget that lasts a month.) Yet it’s likely that the tribe usually does what it believes it can afford and no more. I.e. if modern people were wandering around in the wilderness then their views on things like gender identity and homosexuality would be more “severe.” But people are trampling each other to death at Walmart and not wandering the wilderness, so they’re “tolerant.” And that’s all it amounts to in general.

    E.g., “There are STDs spreading in the tribe? Stone them!” vs. “Oh, we can afford to be tolerant now. I’m progressive… unlike our mythological Cave Man ancestors. I’m just full of love and tolerance too.” But strip all the wealth and technology away again and it might be: “Stone them!” Or perhaps have the first gay president assassinate 16 year old Muslim kids without trial, as a threat to the safety and security of the tribe and so forth. Some throw stones to try to keep the tribe safe, some use drones… but the result is the same.

  6. ” a chromosone test to ascertain whether or not the person is actually an XX or and XY”

    Okay, Don, and then what do you say if the person was born XXY, otherwise known as Klinefelter syndrome?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

    As noted above, some people are born with both sets of genitals. Can you explain what God had in mind in those circumstances?

  7. I do like the analogy of shape-shifters being likened to the modern day confusion of people wanting to switch genders because they firmly believe they are a man living in a woman’s body or visa-versa.

    Given that it’s known that people can rewire their brains more easily than change the rest of their bodies, it’s not entirely clear why the focus of many is on changing their bodies around their feelings, will and beliefs. Given the level of technology and so forth that people have, they could always try focusing on changing their minds instead of using technology to essentially mutilate their bodies.

    The apparent rules: You’re always born gay but you are not born as a male or a female. You can choose to be a male or a female but you can’t choose to be gay. You can use medicines, therapies and techniques to change your sex but not your sexual orientation. You can change your sex but not the brain that causes you to think that you need to change your sex.

    All of these rules seem to be united in one thing, a denial of this: “Male and female he created them.”

    If that had read: “Gay and straight he created them.” then there would probably be a different set of rules in which some new categories called “male” and “female” were totally immutable but technology and medicine could be used to transcend categories like “gay” and “straight.” In other words, these modern rules are merely reactionary and seem to be governed by a spirit of rebellion against God… no matter the cost.

  8. As noted above, some people are born with both sets of genitals. Can you explain what God had in mind in those circumstances?

    Perhaps their ultimate transfiguration and redemption, after they walk through the valley in the shadow of death with the rest of us.

  9. Nit
    OK, I hadn’t heard of that one but I do know that some people are born with both sets of genetalia. There are many possibilities. It confuses me a little, but everybody is a person and how they are born is not their choice. thanks for the link.

    Wikipedia:
    Not to be confused with (XYY syndrome).
    “XXY” redirects here. For the Lucía Puenzo film, see XXY (film). For the The Young Gods album, see XXY (album).
    Klinefelter syndrome
    Classification and external resources

    47,XXY
    ICD-10 Q98.0-Q98.4
    ICD-9 758.7
    MedlinePlus 000382
    eMedicine ped/1252
    MeSH D007713

    Klinefelter syndrome or Klinefelter’s syndrome, also 47,XXY or XXY syndrome, is a genetic disorder in which there is at least one extra X chromosome to a standard human male karyotype, for a total of 47 chromosomes rather than the 46 found in genetically normal humans.[1] While females have an XX chromosomal makeup, and males an XY, individuals with Klinefelter syndrome have at least two X chromosomes and at least one Y chromosome.[2] Because of the extra chromosome, individuals with the condition are usually referred to as “XXY males”, or “47,XXY males”.[3]

    This chromosome constitution (karyotype) exists in roughly between 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births[4][5] but many of these people may not show symptoms. If the physical traits associated with the syndrome become apparent, they normally appear after the onset of puberty.[6]

    In humans, 47,XXY is the most common sex chromosome aneuploidy in males[7] and the second most common condition caused by the presence of extra chromosomes. Other mammals also have the XXY syndrome, including mice.[8]

    Principal effects include hypogonadism and reduced fertility. A variety of other physical and behavioural differences and problems are common, though severity varies and many XXY boys have few detectable symptoms.

  10. “All of these rules seem to be united in one thing, a denial of this: “Male and female he created them.””

    Except that, as noted, He doesn’t create all of them either male or female. It’s one of the obvious ways in which the Bible is clearly not inerrant.

    If you want to pretend to be guided by reason, you should leave religion out of the discussion.

  11. Nobody
    It is true whether you believe it or not. God created everything in the universe and also, “male and female, he created them.”

    The fool saith in his heart, there is no God. Look it up

  12. ” I do know that some people are born with both sets of genetalia. There are many possibilities.”

    Other than “male and female”? Make up your mind, Don. Why does God make some people XXY, some people XYY, and some other people hermaphroditic?

  13. And by the way, Don, on that “male and female created he them” thing…

    Adam was made male. Eve was made from spare parts of Adam. Eve somehow ended up XY, even though she was made from parts taken from Adam. When you say “male and female created he THEM”, who is the “them” you are talking about?

  14. Mr. Picker
    Yes that’s right, God is smart that way, since he has known everything since before the foundations of the world. Yes Mr. Picker, he even knows the number of hairs on your head.

  15. Let’s focus on “nobody.” I have seldom read a more prejudiced post–a cavalier dismissal of all those who profess religious beliefs. Billions of people who believe in a Supreme Being are deemed “irrational” while “nobody” is by self-description the acme of what it means to be “rational.” He dismisses Hindus, Muslims, Christians and probably the culture of native Americans. What gall to demand “religion” be kept out of discussions. What a narrow minded creep.

    I have a message for him: No one tells me what and how to write. No one censors me according to his limited and narrow minded definition of what “rational” dialogue entails. I do not accept his reductionist demands.

    As for the other negative comments: It is apparent not one of the posters wants to deal with the reality of what happens when, say, a 45 year old man is given permission to use the bathroom facilities of underage girls.

    So…do you guys who attack the article with red herrings such as hermaphroditism, which is not the subject of the article, care to address the issue of that man exposing himself to underage girls?

    Let’s hear your defense of transgender folks like that guy.

    Crickets chirping?

  16. “He dismisses Hindus, Muslims, Christians and probably the culture of native Americans.”

    Okay, but you are only one for four on that list.

    The Hindus have thousands of gods. The atheist and the Christian don’t believe in any of them. The atheist and the Christian don’t believe in Islam, paganism, voodoo, and countless other gods, goddesses and religions. The atheist and the Christian share MORE disbeliefs in common. So out maybe a million gods, the atheist and the Christian merely have a minor disagreement over one of them.

  17. Ultimately, the problem is one of architecture more than anything else. Nobody has gender-specific bathrooms in their house. I’ve been to public facilities with properly designed bathrooms having decently separated securely lockable stalls used by men and women.

  18. The basic issue is this: Can an individual declare him or her self to be the opposite of the sex he or she was assigned at birth by self-proclamation; and should society at large be forced to accommodate itself to such self-proclamation?

    The Left says, “Yes.”

    OK. Defend this idea that sexual identification is entirely up to the individual’s perception; that is, in a parody of the commercial “some times I feel like a woman, sometimes I don’t.”

    Please explain to me why a person can by fiat declare him or her self to be the opposite of the sex assigned at birth. Give a scientific explanation, please–especially since some reject “religious” explanations as inherently irrational.

    I also would like to see a defense of bi-sexuality. Is there any reason why a bi-sexual person should not insists he or she can “marry” two persons, that way achieving realization of his/her dual identity? May bi-sexually inclined persons have the “right” to marry one of each sexes?

    Inquiring minds want to know. Please explain.

    Help me out here.

  19. Sooo…

    Again, I challenge those who are in favor of transgender laws permitting the dual use of facilities to defend the civil rights of the 45-year-old who exposed himself to underage girls. Anyone? Anyone?? http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/college-allows-transgender-man-to-expose-himself-to-young-girls.html

    And about the Hindus: The point is that almost all peoples of the world worship a God or gods deemed to have supernatural abilities above the reason of mankind. Are they all “irrational” and thus worthy of condemnation by the likes of some on this thread–who are in the distinct minority throughout world history, not just in contemporaneous times.

    Such prejudice and arrogance! To hold one’s self above the entire human race because one is atheist. Hubris personified.

  20. Except that, as noted, He doesn’t create all of them either male or female. It’s one of the obvious ways in which the Bible is clearly not inerrant.

    It’s possible that what God left a record of as being His doing, is His doing… and the rest is something else that’s being allowed to go on within the multiverse.

    For instance, it’s already known that a lack of human sanitation and civilization is associated with gender bending in lower organisms.

    During a five-year study, Matthiessen and his colleagues conducted a series of annual surveys of fish along the British coast to gauge trends in levels of feminization. The study was spurred by previous observations of feminization in estuarine fish, particularly the flounder, a common flatfish, Matthiessen said.
    “We’ve known for some time that this fish has become feminized in estuaries where lots of people live and lots of sewage is going into the water.”
    Matthiessen said that the fish’s changes were a reaction to estrogens present in human waste. Such estrogens derive largely from birth control pills and hormone-therapy drugs.
    “What’s really interesting is that in the Tyne [River] estuary in northeast England a really strong recovery kicked in,” Matthiessen said, noting the phenomenon coincided with the upgrading of a major sewage treatment works. “Until then, most of the fish were very strongly feminized. For example, yolk was present in male blood plasma, which is highly abnormal. Then [after the sewage plant upgrade] there was this sudden drop in yolk protein concentrations which was sustained in subsequent years.”
    Matthiessen says modern sewage treatments, which are better at stripping out hormones, can help to tackle the problem of estrogen pollution.
    Animals’ Sexual Changes Linked to Waste, Chemicals

    What do you suppose that the American Empire in which people are beginning to idolize hermaphroditic ideals and being “gay” is running on? What gives people a sense that they can afford to be gay and have their first gay president with even more hopium and so forth?

    It’s not solar powered ponies pooping rainbows of tolerance on everyone. It’s drones and pipelines and fossil fuels. Fuels laid down by great cataclysmic events in the past that apparently wiped the global and “ruling”/measuring empire of Atlantis off the map and left nothing but their monuments to ignorance.

    Fuel, i.e. the petrochemicals upon which the pharmaceutical industry is generally based. So perhaps we can come full circle, to denominate the cost of a sex change operations in Obamacare or in “Yale’s Health Plan coverage for sex reassignment ” in terms of petrodollars. (Not to mention the cost of Yale’s sex day or whatever it was.)

    Male to female: about $7,000 to $24,000 petrodollars
    Female to male: often over $50,000

    Obama’s hopium and the idea that the American Empire is running on solar powered ponies pooping rainbows of tolerance on everyone: Priceless

    Where will people find enough poor or “red state” soldiers to sacrifice to infuse enough value in petrodollars to pay for all this decadence and degeneracy…. if recruiters aren’t allowed on campus? Or is it that they are allowed on campus now, now that the Empire is going gay and so forth? I wonder how long people are going to keep thinking of themselves as nice or gay people with their little ponies and so forth, instead of as brutal tyrants and fascists.

    Meanwhile, back in reality… a civilization that is not structured based on an awareness of Nature and Nature’s God, is not sustainable without increasing amounts of brutality leading ultimately to its extinction. So it’s likely that many Americans will be able to go to their graves happy and gay and thinking of themselves as modern and tolerant due to all that it seems like they can afford due to fossils fueling their civilization. But that which can’t go on as far as rebellion against Nature and Nature’s God goes…. won’t.

    The banksters/owners of our civilization and our economic language probably already know this, that may be why many are moving their wealth off shore and so forth. But it’s the timing of a realignment or correction to that which cannot go on as far as rebellion against God and Nature that might be worth a fortune.

    Do you honestly think that the “happy and gay” aspect of these trends where people define themselves and morality by their own feelings and base desires while generally rejecting the advice of the Founders (To the extent that they even know of them.) are going to last?

    The trend of the internet as far as decentralization goes is interesting, that’s one thing that may eventually lead people to conclude that it’s not such a good idea to incorporate an artifact of the eugenics movement and racism (State sanctioned marriages) in their rebellion against the singular nature of marriage and God after “911.” United, States… is an interesting concept… isn’t it? Union and separation? Seems a bit mysterious and paradoxical.

  21. Going back over this for a second….

    Male to female: about $7,000 to $24,000 petrodollars
    Female to male: often over $50,000

    Gay to straight: We don’t know. Because there have been multimillion petrodollar campaigns to stifle all research, even when it’s already known that some petrochemical pills and so forth have been known to change sexual orientations.

    In any event, it would seem to be simpler to change your sexual orientation than to change your sex. Similarly, it would seem to be simpler to change the brains that cause you to think that you need to change your sex… than to change your sex.

    Either way, that which can’t go on… won’t. The Empire will either need to become even more brutal and fascist than it already is in order to give people the sense that what has been going on these days can be sustained. Or there will have to be a realignment and a decentralization back toward self-evident truths and away from the rebellion against Nature’s God typical to collapsing Empires.

    After all, if rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God then rebellion against God is obedience to tyrants.

  22. ” I challenge those who are in favor of transgender laws permitting the dual use of facilities to defend the civil rights of the 45-year-old who exposed himself to underage girls.”

    Exposing oneself to underage girls is illegal. I challenge those who are in favor of issuing driving licenses to defend the rights of the guy who drove through a crowd, killing one person, in Venice Beach last week. I challenge those who are in favor of legal firearms to defend the rights of the next insane shooter. Etc.

    “And about the Hindus: The point is that almost all peoples of the world worship a God or gods deemed to have supernatural abilities above the reason of mankind. Are they all “irrational””

    You tell me. Are they correct?

    Faith is the belief in things unseen. It is by definition not a rational process, and the Bible confirms this – “There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is the way of death.” – so the bottom line on Biblical faith, as far as reason is concerned, is that reason is a dead end. If you are trying to tell me that one can have faith entirely by a rational thought process, then you obviously don’t understand your own faith and what the Bible says about the utility of reason.

  23. ” almost all peoples of the world worship a God or gods deemed to have supernatural abilities above the reason of mankind. Are they all “irrational””

    That is really an outstanding line, Fay, and deserves further comment.

    Tell me whether any of the following consequences of your argument are correct:

    1. Believing what “almost all people believe” is a good way to know God, because the nature of God is determined by a majority vote.

    2. Believing in something “above the reason of mankind” should be reasonable to mankind.

    It’s not often you manage to contradict yourself in so few words. If something is “above the reason of mankind” – i.e. not accessible by a rational process – then it is, by definition, “irrational”.

  24. Nit,

    There is no contradiction except in your mind.

    Is there anything in your life that surpasses your ability to understand it? Anything you cannot fully comprehend, but take on faith? Start with something as simple, or if you prefer, complex as the fact you live; you are a human being.

    We all take a world of things on faith. Those who say they don’t take anything on faith are deeply proud.

    As for your budding interest in theology, I have some recommendations for you. The works of C.S. Lewis, especially his Mere Christianity.

    A good work on the incomprehensibility yet the reality of beauty and the sublime is Kant’s work, On the Beautiful and the Sublime.

    Good stuff. I hope you enjoy both books.

    Last post on this thread. Gotta run.

    (You might enjoy William James’ The varieties of Religious Experience as well.)

  25. So there you go, Nit. As with everyone else connected to this blog, Ms. Voshell is allowed to contradict herself whenever she wants because the contradiction is “all in your mind.” Belief is reason, doncha know.

    You will never, ever see anyone connected with this blog type the words, “I was wrong.”

  26. Religions that do not depend on supernatural deities are not necessarily irrational. Those that do are. I am using the standard meanings of those words; if that makes me a “creep,” well, I suppose that puts to rest the myth of Christian charity.

    “No one tells me what and how to write. No one censors me according to his limited and narrow minded definition of what “rational” dialogue entails. I do not accept his reductionist demands.”

    I didn’t tell you how to write. I pointed out the logical flaws on what you had already written. You apparently have written too long for a publication that employs no editors to point out the flaws in their writers’ work. What I wrote is called “criticism.” What you have responded with is called “rancor.”

    “Please explain to me why a person can by fiat declare him or her self to be the opposite of the sex assigned at birth. Give a scientific explanation, please–especially since some reject “religious” explanations as inherently irrational.”

    Anyone can declare him or herself anything, so I don’t think that’s your actual question.

    Before I answer, let me correct a misconception that you, in your failure to argue from reason, have expressed. My “cavalier dismissal” is not “of all those who profess religious beliefs.” It is of arguments that use such belief. You can believe whatever you want, as can I — and just as a transgendered person can believe that he or she was born in the wrong gendered body. But you cannot use that belief as a support for a logical argument, for it is not based in reason. Similarly, I am not putting “myself” above other humans. I am putting logical arguments above supra-rational ones. Your arguments and thoughts are not “you,” or at least not all of you.

    But if you truly want to know “why” transgendered people are taken more seriously now than previously, I would guess it has a lot to do with medicine’s understanding of hormonal changes associated with gender. In the past such a person would have had no choice beyond dressing as their gender of choice, and some people have done that through the ages — witness the books about women donning male garb to fight in the Civil War, for example.

    Today, such a person can take hormones to effect gender-specific changes in the body. In some cases the person undergoes surgery to complete the process.

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to do such a thing, but then I’m not transgendered. Their freedom to do this does not infringe on my rights in any way. Then again, nudity does not panic me, and . You reveal nothing but your failure to understand the relativity of cultural mores when you

    To focus your objection on the single outlying case in Oregon is a weak argument. We don’t ban guns — though some try — because some people commit evil deeds with them; you are suggesting we ignore the tens of thousands (or more) transgendered people in this country because one of them behaved badly. Strange argument for someone who believes in personal freedom to make.

  27. Fay, I read Mere Christianity when I was a teenager. It is fascinating that you assume that people do not understand where you are coming from. I was a member of an evangelical church for many, many years.

    You seem to believe that “irrational” is some kind of pejorative term. It is not. It is an adjective which distinguishes conclusions reached by reason, and conclusions which are not reached by reason.

    “Anything you cannot fully comprehend, but take on faith?”

    Yes, there are many such things. I do not call those things “rational”, because taking things on faith, i.e. in the absence of reason, is not rational. I never said I do not hold irrational beliefs. You are the one who seems to have a problem with the word “irrational”.

    Whether something is “rational” or “irrational” is not a value judgment. As you know, a casino operator has a statistical advantage in every game at the casino. It is not rational to believe that you have a good chance of winning money in a casino.

    However, people flock to casinos in order to gamble, despite the fact it is a completely economically irrational thing to do. They do so for “entertainment”, “to get out of the house” and a number of emotional reasons. They do not do so for rational reasons.

    You could walk into a casino filled with thousands of people and scream, “You are all being irrational!” They might give you a glance and go back to gambling. But it doesn’t matter how many people are in the casino – it remains economically irrational to gamble.

    “Taking things on faith” is not a rational process. I can’t for the life of me understand why you find a need to object to that trivially obvious statement. If you are trying to suggest that faith is an act of reason, then you are quite mistaken.

    Might I suggest you have a look at D. James Kennedy’s writings and come to understand that faith is not a reasoned assent to facts.

  28. You seem to believe that “irrational” is some kind of pejorative term. It is not. It is an adjective which distinguishes conclusions reached by reason, and conclusions which are not reached by reason.

    What is your rationale for rationality?

  29. This is delightfully brilliant. I wish we had this during the debate. It is pure genius. I can understand why the supporters of the brave new world want to divert attention from her laser focus on the problems with transgender movemnet and laws to support it.

    I believe the few people born with a birth defect of dual genitals are deserving of our compassion and respect. If that were the focus of the discussion in this movement, we call all accommodate them very quickly. It is not.

    Fay rightly points out the confusion caused by this movement and the danger to innocent people. I believe that some people have gender confusion. The solution to gender confusion is not to enable it, but cure it. This whole sex change movement is exploiting people in need of our help while simutaneously aiding predators by giving them a legal tool to use as a weapon of choice.

    The laws in states like Delaware are ill defined and dangerous especially to women. At the least, they need to be reformed. I think repeal is the best option.

  30. Nitpicker, GOD separated into male and female mankind. The essence of mankind was like GOD, complete, but HE decided the best expression of that perfection was in two people who could become one in spirit and purpose. Two are better than one. Now I know the secularists think they are god, but the truth is that our creator designed us male and female. We are designed for each other and no twisting of nature by the progressive fringe can change that.

  31. “I know the secularists think they are god, but the truth is that our creator designed us male and female.”

    You should catch up with the thread. If there were any such thing as “our creator,” He, She or It has a dreadful error rate on that one-or-the-other thing.

    Appeal to authority — in this case God — has no place in a rational argument. It is considered among the most basic of logical fallacies.

  32. That the alternative is to end up like you.

    I thought that your rationale for rationality was a void of nothing but chaos/nothing.

    Because as far as the void or chance/nothing being the reason for everything… isn’t that what you’ve ultimately been taught in grades 1 through 12 and so forth these days? And then when you graduate you get to wear a little mortar board on your head to symbolize how smart and rational you are as a base, blockhead that wouldn’t know artifacts of intelligence and forms of conspiracies if they were steamrolling you. Apparently this is what happens by the time “education” systems financed by secret societies is done “educating” you with respect to how to be incorporated into their pyramid schemes, by happenstance.

    In any event, I wasn’t aware that I had such power over your mind and sense of “rationality.” Apparently if I were to pretend to be something that I’m not, then you’d probably be fooled… yet again. What is it that our artists and poets sing? “We won’t get fooled again.”

    Sure you will be… and that’s probably mainly because you want to play the part of the fool and be deceived about the nature of Nature and Nature’s God.

  33. You should catch up with the thread. If there were any such thing as “our creator,” He, She or It has a dreadful error rate on that one-or-the-other thing.

    Evidence?

    Even in a world polluted by man where even fish (and perhaps MSNBC hosts) wind up “gender bent”… what’s the supposed error rate here?

  34. Nobody on August 15, 2013 at 09:00 said: “Appeal to authority — in this case God — has no place in a rational argument.”

    There can be no rational argument apart from God, and an appeal to authority, who is the author of all rationality and everything else.

    Otherwise you are debating the leaves at the end of the branches without a clue what trunk and roots the leaves are attached to.

    To try to make an argument without God as the ultimate source is ignorance, not wisdom. It is trying to build a house floating in the air.

  35. Nobody on August 15, 2013 at 09:00 said: “”If there were any such thing as “our creator,” He, She or It has a dreadful error rate on that one-or-the-other thing.”

    No, you don’t understand the core concepts.

    God created humans with free will.

    Then there was that whole sin thing, and getting cast out of Eden thing.

    So homosexuals claim they were born homosexual.

    Well, so what?

    Everyone was born as a sinner, of every type and variety, across the spectrum.

    Everyone was born in our innate sin nature as a liar, a brawler, violent, murderer, thief, pervert, glutton, etc.

    It is the challenge of every human being every day of our lives to CHOOSE good over evil, despite our innate craving to do evil.

    So what good does it do to talk about how you were born?

    You must be BORN AGAIN to be accepted by God.

    We were all born into sin.

  36. “No, you don’t understand the core concepts.”

    I am truly uninterested in understanding your mythology or beliefs. This is a political blog. The “core concept” of this thread is that a significant number of human beings are born with at least partial sets of both sex organs. So my statement was that if He was trying for “male” and “female” in every case, He’s a screwup.

  37. “To try to make an argument without God as the ultimate source is ignorance, not wisdom.”

    To try to make an argument with God as the ultimate source is superstition, not wisdom.

    My statement is at least as true and provable as yours is. That’s why including it in any argument is an attempt to end the argument by invoking your supposedly superior understanding of the myth you have created.

    Don’t worry, though. I’ll pray for you.

  38. And, just to make this clear, my only invocation of the lack of existence of a supernatural being was to counter Mr. Ayotte’s invocation of one.

  39. “Apparently if I were to pretend to be something that I’m not, then you’d probably be fooled”

    You already are pretending to be something you’re not. That’s what I don’t want to end up like.

  40. The fact that nobody here has a single rational point to stand on sort of highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire post. Nothing but superstition-based hyperventilation by people looking for a reason to proclaim themselves above their fellow humans.

  41. Nobody on August 15, 2013 at 11:39 said: “The fact that nobody here has a single rational point to stand on sort of highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire post.”

    Translation: People who don’t agree with me (the poster, Nobody) are not rational because they do not agree with me.

  42. Sorry nobody, it is not a significant number. There are not 100 people in this state that fit that description.

    That is not even the subject of this post. We are talking about people who are one thing and choose to be different sometimes at whim or as an excuse and claiming civil rights to do so. Not a single argument has yet been raised to address the author’s concern.

    Waiting. Still waiting. Waiting even longer. Still no counter arguments.

  43. Nobody on August 15, 2013 at 11:29 said: “I am truly uninterested in understanding your mythology or beliefs.”

    And yet you persist in commenting on them. I don’t mind if you comment. I don’t mind if you are interested or not interested.

    I do mind that the tactic of applying a double-standard: Being interested when you want to make a point, and then trying to dismiss the points of others. So sometimes you say it is a valid topic (when it helps you, at least you think) and then you say it is not a valid topic (when someone makes a point you don’t agree with).

    Nobody on August 15, 2013 at 11:29 said: “a significant number of human beings are born with at least partial sets of both sex organs. So my statement was that if He was trying for “male” and “female” in every case, He’s a screwup.”

    You are making the assumption that every little detail of this universe conforms to God’s plans, when the Bible makes it clear that God handed the Earth over to humans, who promptly sinned, invited in evil, brought the Earth under a curse, and screwed it all up.

    So you make the assumption that every person will conform to God’s plan.

    And yet we know that is not true because there are diseases, deformity, handicaps, etc.

  44. Which is my evidence that he’s a screwup, Mr. Moseley.

    I comment on it because you won’t leave it out of your comments.

  45. Mr. Anderson: So if 100 people don’t suffer from something, it’s not significant? Is that a standard you use with your constituents?

    “Not a single argument has yet been raised to address the author’s concern.”

    What is the author’s concern? That some people don’t gender-identify in the way she demands?

    She asked how they can proclaim this by fiat. I explained that anyone can claim anything, and that people who claim to be other than their apparent gender can now follow through on their claims with hormone therapy and/or surgery.

    The point that fraud exists in every program ever conceived is not a valid reason for saying no to transgender rights. Y’all want to try again, or are you going to rest your arguments on “who are you to play (the nonexistent) God?”

  46. Nitpicker on August 14, 2013 at 16:46 said: “Yes, there are many such things. I do not call those things “rational”, because taking things on faith, i.e. in the absence of reason, is not rational”

    Nitpicker, do you sit down in a chair without testing its strength first? Or do you take it on faith that the chair is not broken or cracked and is built strong enough to support you?

    Is it rational for you to sit down in a chair without testing each and every chair you sit in beforehand?

  47. I don’t know who you’re trying to impress, Mr. Moseley. If God exists, He already knows what you think about him, while every word you say about Him just lowers my already-microscopic respect for you and gives Democrats more fuel to show that the Delaware GOP is a refuge for loons, theocrats and bigots. Thank you for illustrating this truism: Bigots like to imagine an all-powerful Being Who tells them to think about transgendered people. Amazingly, it’s always exactly what the bigot would have thought anyway.

Comments are closed.