"A Stone Age Book"
The first Sunday evening of the month is usually dedicated to Questions and Answers here at South Seminole; so on December 6th, I answered some that dealt with Transgender issues. When the material was uploaded to our Website, cocwp.org (click on videos across the top of the Web page), the title apparently goes to You Tube, and two people made comments about the presentation. It is doubtful that either party actually watched the video. The two comments that came in are listed below. Despite the fact that I invited a serious response based on an opposing view, it is plain that neither of these made any pretense of making a case; they just wanted to hurl insults, which is their prerogative, but nothing obligates me to respond to such ad hominem attacks. However, I will do it this time only because it might be of interest to others. Serious arguments will be given proper consideration.
jakthebomb (interesting choice of a name) wrote these words: "This is yet another Ignorant speech attacking Transgender People." No, it was an evaluation of what the Scriptures teach on the subject. If what was said was so ignorant, then it ought to be a simple thing to offer corrections. What exactly was ignorant? What was not based on facts or the truth of the Bible? Did the person actually listen? If so, prove by listing all the "ignorant" things that were said. It ought to be remembered, however, that someone's position cannot be labeled ignorant just because it disagrees with the viewer's thoughts. Hopefully there will be a well-thought-out analysis forthcoming.
The other respondent identified herself (or himself) as MsMsmak and said: "Good stuff. Digging in to a stone age book to find something about science. Religion poisons everything." Let's first of all deal with the description, a stone age book, which apparently refers to the Bible. It strains the imagination to find more errors in such a small sentence.
To begin with, what would one expect from a religious website? Would anyone anticipate a Freudian analysis or something from B. F. Skinner? It can hardly be deemed a surprise that the website of the church would actually use the Bible. Maybe the commenter is accustomed to denominations which just have a passing acquaintance with it and ignore it as regards LGBT issues. Some of us, however, still believe that the Bible is an authoritative document.
The Stone Age
According to Wikipedia, the Stone Age lasted about 3.4 million years and ended around 8,000 to 4,000 B.C.. Oh, and they describe it as prehistoric. Well, this is an amazing thing. We have a Book from a prehistoric era. Since no history was recorded back then, the Bible is the only information we have. If it is from the Stone Age, how valuable does that make it!
But MsMsmak would probably just say that the description was a hyperbole. However, no one expressed that view in the first century. When Jesus referenced Noah and the Flood (which occurred 4,000 years earlier), He did not refer to it as a Stone Age event. When Peter preached on Pentecost, he did not cite David as a 1,000-year-old fuddy-duddy or Joel as an "ancient" prophet; he cited their prophetic words, which had come to pass. The Iliad and The Odyssey were written before the New Testament; does MsMsmak refer to them as Stone Age masterpieces?
If the Bible or a work of literature is from 2,000 to 3,500 years old, it must have stood the test of time. Only the best of what is written survives—not the worst. (Exceptions would include everyday transactions that were preserved due to being buried or to a catastrophe.) We have, however, more manuscripts for the Bible than for several other ancient works combined. Rather than dismissing an old Book with a wave of the hand, one might take the time to see what it says and think about what others have obtained from it that made it so valuable through the centuries.
Finding Science in the Bible
The commenter thinks it is strange to "dig" into the Bible to find out something about science. Uh, actually, it's been done. Matthew Fontaine Maury is deemed to be the "father" of oceanography. Multitudes of praises have been heaped upon him, but one of the best is a statue that was built of him in 1929, which may be found in Richmond, Virginia. The 8-foot high statue of Maury has him seated on a 5-foot high granite pedestal. He holds sea charts in his left hand and a compass and pencil in his right. Oh, and at the base on his left side is (as part of the statue) a what? It says on it, "Holy Bible." Well, what is that doing there? Can't we even have a statue of a scientist without bringing religion (which poisons everything) into it?
Actually, the Bible needs to be there because it is from Psalm 8:8 that Maury received his inspiration for the existence of ocean currents. Yes, he was reading "a stone age book" and foolishly went to it to find out "something about science." Actually, it was the other way around. He was reading the Bible, and when he read about "the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the sea," it occurred to him that the phrase might be referring to ocean currents, which it was, and which he subsequently discovered. That verse appears on a different statue of Maury.
How did David, the writer of Psalm 8, know about the paths of the sea? Israel was not a seafaring nation, and no one had traversed the oceans in those days anyway. David had no firsthand knowledge of such matters; he wrote it because the knowledge was given to him by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Other remarkable scientific statements are also recorded in the Bible. How long ago was Earth thought to be flat? It is described correctly as a sphere by Isaiah, who lived 700 years before Christ (40:22). At the time of Ptolemy in Egypt (100 years after the time of Jesus), the best science of the day said human beings could count about 1,022 stars. Yet God told Abraham nearly 2,000 years earlier that his descendants would be so numerous they would be like the sand of the seashore or the stars in the heavens. No doubt, if Ptolemy had read Genesis 22:17, he might have chided his contemporaries for going to "a stone age book" to find something about science. Of course, the ancient Book was right, and science eventually caught up with it—more than 3,500 years later.
Transgender Science?
Other examples could be cited, but other responses to MsMsmak must also be made. Since when is trans-genderism a category of science? According to Wikipedia,
Currently, there are numerous possible explanations of the cause of transsexualism, including genetics, brain structure, brain function, and prenatal androgen exposure. Other theories have proposed linking the cause to psychological and behavioral reasons. These theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Notice that these are all termed "theories." Since when is a theory scientific (except for evolution and global warming, of course)? In addition to all the theories listed above, it could just be that someone is perverted, could it not? Or are we determined to find "naturalistic" explanations for everything—including those who molest children? Does it ever occur to people that someone whose thinking is all messed up might be due to having had a steady diet of materialistic thinking instead of the Holy Word of God?
People left to their own devices decide to worship idols, commit fornication (either by having one-night stands or by living together without marriage), commit adultery, practice homosexuality, or other abominations. God provides rules of holy living so that we do not give in to the various temptations that we have. It is easy to choose immorality—hence, the prohibition against stealing and even murder in the Ten Commandments. But instead of people acknowledging their sins and repenting of them, they seek to justify themselves through "science."
"To Whom Shall We Go?"
When Jesus had preached some hard sayings, many "went back and walked no more with Him" (John 6:66). Then He said to the twelve: "Do you also want to go away?" (67). Peter answered: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (68). It is clear that MsMsmak wants nothing to do with the Bible; well, then, to whom shall we go?
Who stands as an unimpeachable source for answers? Shall we go to Jeremy Bentham for ethics? Or how about someone more recent, such as Joseph Fletcher? Who can be counted on to be objective and provide a morality that does not arise from mankind, who has a vested interest in the results? Man can never arrive at it—even on one issue, such as abortion. Homosexuality was once regarded as an aberration—now many (including psychologists), accept it as normal, but who knows if the pendulum might swing back the other way in a few years? Only our Creator can tell us the truth about morality, salvation, life, and death.
Poison
The claim is made, "Religion poisons everything." The commenter can probably find many who would agree. Herodias undoubtedly would. She despised John the Baptizer so much that, as soon as she had the opportunity, she asked for his head on a charger. Yes, his religion poisoned her life because he did not approve of the way she wanted to live. She thought she had a right to divorce her husband and help herself to another woman's man. Who did John think he was to rain on her parade—to poison her fun?
Jezebel despised Elijah. He won a fair contest against her false prophets and the prophets of Baal were put to death. What difference does truth and evidence make when it gets in the way of a person's selfish will? Did Elijah poison things or clear them up for all to see? Jesus did not come to bring poison to the world; in fact, He made His apostles safe from its effects (Mark 16:17-18; Acts 28:3-5). He did bring light into the world, but like MsMsmak, many do not want light, "lest his deeds should be exposed" (John 3:19-20).
Jesus also came to bring life and to set people free from the bondage of sin and death. Those who choose to walk in sin become enslaved to sin. "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness" (Rom. 6:20). Yes, apart from Christ people are free to sin—free to walk in darkness. The end of those things, however, is death (21). It does not need to be that way. Jesus can set a person free from sin. Subsequent holy living and obedience result in everlasting life (22-23). How is that poison?
Most religions are benign—except for the one that calls for hatred of others—one which expects jihad. That religion does poison a person's soul, his relationships, and the lives of others as well. Christianity, by way of comparison, wants the best for everyone. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). In addition, husbands are to love their wives, and wives should be submissive to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-33). A father is to rear his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Citizens are to respect one another and submit to the authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17). All men are to love one another (John 13:34-35)—even their enemies (Matt 5:43-48). Those who do violate God's moral laws are not put to death but are reminded of the truth. If this be poison, mix up a potion for us all.