Politically Incorrect, Biologically Challenged, Scripturally Sound

- Have you ever been to a doctor and gotten a diagnosis that you believed to be questionable, possibly incorrect and decided to get a second or third opinion only to find out you were justified in pursuing that second or third opinion?

- Do you ever wonder why scientists disagree on various subjects or have sometimes vastly different theories on the same scientific finding or study?

- Is there anyone else out there questioning illogical, unsound diagnoses of some scientific data and politically correct agendas?

For centuries our ancestors believed the world was flat, until others came along and explored and found it was actually round. However, God had already spoken in His Word that the world was round. (Isaiah 40:22)

It was widely believed not that long ago and still believed by some today that Black people are an intellectually inferior race. In fact, this belief was used as justification  for slavery by many in the West until a few questioned the logic and cruelty of the practice.

Darwin, the great scientist and infamous proposer of the natural evolution of man, confessed that, "...we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, 'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'" (Wikepedia: Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis)

I can go on and on about the gross errors in judgment that science and man has made. Don't get me wrong, I believe in science, its just that I believe that God's Word, the Word of the Creator of science, trumps man's scientific and sometimes predisposed, limited and sometimes self-serving approach to scientific research. That is to say that when man's scientific theories and conclusions oppose God's revelations, I side with God's Word and not man's.

Time and time again, we find that man's wisdom, knowledge and beliefs about many important things in our world have been found over time to be premature, even immature or faulty. That's understandable, man is after all mortal, temporal and faulty. We make mistakes. Simply put, we are not God. We create out of what has already been created - matter. God created out of what did not previously exist. He created the matter and put us in charge of it.

The public opinion and scientific challenge I am about to address is a very touchy one that is gaining momentum in Western culture today. I will more than likely be labeled "unloving," "narrow-minded," "ignorant" and even "un-Christian" by many non-Christians and Christians alike. Nevertheless, it needs to be exposed for what it is: unsound, illogical and a lie. Pretty strong words, I know. Nonetheless, I would be "unloving" and untrue to myself, humanity and God if I said nothing. Love does not just go along with the flow of public opinion, that's fear, not love. God's Word says to "speak the truth in love." Jesus confronted the religious and culturally immoral beliefs of the world around him in love and was crucified for it and he is Immanuel - God with us. He said that those who follow him would be treated likewise for the servant is not greater than the master. The world, he said, hated him and would hate us also because darkness is opposed to light.

The momentum I am referring to that is gathering steam across the United States is the belief that homosexuality is normal and same-sex marriages are to be accepted. Sometimes such propaganda is even easier to refute than the headlines of: "Man Finds Out He is a Woman" when a medical professional tells a man that he is a woman because he has some female genitals in addition to male ones. The phenomenon is called "intersex," when a male or female has both male and female genitalia. Sounds like an irrefutable argument for homosexuality or an argument to refute or call into question the black and white biblical foundation that God created man and woman not also some transgender individual, right? Well, I beg to differ.

Note that despite the fact that "Stevie" had feminine feelings when he was six years old and struggled with feminine tendencies growing up, Stevie naturally fathered six children during twenty-five+ years of marriage to a female. It is understandable that his feminine feelings were validated when he learned that he was an intersex man who has ovaries as well as a penis. The conclusion, however, that he is a woman because of it is erroneous and the medical professional who told him so based solely on one ultrasound and in the way in which the article shares it was highly unprofessional and the data misleading.

I have had some things said to me by medical professionals that were completely unprofessional/inappropriate and at times erroneous based on tests. Hence why further testing is done, consultation and counseling by specialists recommended and second and third opinions are sought. But one's belief and acceptance of a report can radically effect one's course. In this case, the news articles surrounding Stevie's transformation from a highly functioning man into a woman feeds doubt about the delineation between the exclusivity of what is male and what is female.

First of all, being a male child and having feminine feelings, doesn't predispose you as weird or female. Nor does being a female child having male tendencies make you weird or male. A woman cannot naturally "father" children. It's simply impossible without medical engineering. So unless Steve's wife was surgically implanted with sperm from another source other than Steve, Steve is a man, feminine feelings and all. That is what someone should have lovingly helped him to grapple with, not told him that because he had some ovaries in addition to a penis and testicles that he is a woman. What was the irrefutable evidence? What was the overwhelming evidence? How would similar data on another subject withstand scrutiny in a court of law for example? And regardless of those disciplines, what does God's Word say? You see, there comes a time when you have to ask yourself, "Whose report will I believe?" God's or man's? Who ultimately knows the truth- fallible man or infallible God; mortal man or immortal God?

I think of the simple, logical male and female-like things in everyday life and wonder how we as intelligent and logical beings can be so misguided and the only answer I can find is found once again in God's Word which says that "men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became as fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worhsiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion..." (Romans 1:18-27)

Often when I plug in my computer's power cord or any power cord of an electrical appliance I think of the incongruity of a male organ being plugged into another male organ or vice versa, a female organ being plugged into a female organ. An electrical prong is plugged into an electrical outlet. There is no transfer of electricity- no power to make the appliance function properly unless the plug is inserted into the outlet. (I don't know, but I don't think I have to be an electrician, doctor or scientist to figure that one out.) My terminology may not be exact, but I think you get the picture. It boggles my mind that the animal kingdom, insects and even the event of pollination of plants operate in this general principle, yet we, the intelligent of all created beings are confused about male and female roles; more correctly, are deliberately seeking to redefine basic male and female functions and roles. My question is why? What's behind this movement? It is certainly not a new thought or movement. It has occurred at various times in history and died and is resurging once again. Is no one following the natural outcome of this unnatural progression through to it's final end? Are we so blinded by the powerful, reportedly intellectual faces in support of the propaganda or the accruing political support? Or are we too fearful of  the repercussion if we oppose the tide?

I am not perfect. I make mistakes but I know one who is perfect and doesn't make mistakes- God. I choose to believe his Word above man's.

Weighing In

     Recently I received an overall review of this site and of my book that indicated that I was addressing what a man is. I honestly hadn't thought I was addressing the makeup of a man. From my point of view, which notably is from a Christian perspective, I was recognizing the powerful and influential role of men in our lives; encouraging more awareness of this and encouraging more men to consider operating in their protective role more so than in their predatory role. There is reference in both the book and blog that some men are confused about their role. I suppose by making that reference I am making a type of judgment on what a true or biblically defined man is. Well then, I guess it is so.


The reviewer commented that he'd heard many definitions of men and since he was not a Christian, my definition did not really apply to him. However, commented later on his review that he did agree with my overall description and appeal to the integrity and honor of men was universal, transcending religion. If you don't mind, I would like for you to weigh in. If you have read the book or read some of my blog posts, do you find that my focus is on defining what a man is or primarily what he, man, should aspire to be? I think there is a marked difference.


I make no argument that my foundation for the aspiration of manhood, the ideal of the most productive and beneficial man to his family and society, is a biblical one. Just because I use the Bible as my guide, however, this does not mean that the basic values of integrity, honor, leadership and man's role in society and family are not largely universal. (I say largely, because I am aware of changing culture in some countries that are espousing homosexuality and same sex marriages. I am also aware that in a few ancient cultures, matriarchal rule was the core of their culture. There is only one culture I have found that still practices a quasi-matriarchal rule today: the Mosuo in the Xiaolianghshan Mountains of the Yunnin Province in China.)


Granted, there are all kinds of conversations ensuing today on manhood and leadership. Please note that any discussion I engage in concerning the matter will always seek to be uplifting but also real. My discussions will also inevitably reference the Bible, in particular, Christ, as the guide for manhood. It has been brought to my attention that the values of manhood I espouse in my book and on this site predate Christianity. I agree. I don't agree, however, that it predates the account of creation given in Genesis of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tenakh (Hebrew and partly Aramaic "Bible") in which God said He created man in His own image. That is not to say that there are not other, possibly even older writings that espouse the same values of manhood or that some cultures practised these values of manhood before the Torah was enacted and later transcribed. I do believe, however, that the epitome of manhood is found in Christ who is as the Bible states, the fulfillment of the Law, the Torah, i.e.,, the embodiment of the Law, the completion of it. (See footnotes for references.) God, who created man in His own image, sent His Son, Jesus, to demonstrate manhood and the ideal mankind to mankind. So, why would I look to flawed humanity, with its partial understandings, its misunderstandings and flawed perceptions for the perfect example of a man when the creator of man became one to show us how one should live? (If you want to argue the validity of the cannon/Bible or Tenakh, that is another discussion.)


I have heard it said, that the US Department of the Treasury and many bankers, in order to decipher counterfeit bills from authentic bills, they spend their time studying the authentic bills. They get to know them so well that when they encounter a counterfeit bill, it's more easily detected. That is why I study the Son of God who became, the Son of Man, as my model for not only man, but mankind.


Please weigh in. Your responses are welcome.

***If you are interested in viewing the entire comment that inspired the current post, please go to www.Amazon.com, the books section, type in "Celebrating Men by B. Niles" and view comment #2. 

  
Bible Text References:
Man created in God's image: Gen.1:26-27, Gen. 2:7
Fulfillment of the law: Matt. 5:17-20, Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 2:1-3:29.