A response to: Straight, Conservative Preacher’s Wife Drops a Transgender Truth Bomb Nobody Saw Coming

A response to:  Straight, Conservative Preacher’s Wife Drops a Transgender Truth Bomb Nobody Saw Coming  

1.  The Target restroom situation, realistically, needn’t have anything to do with supporting, or not supporting, "a leftist company" or the LGBT agenda. 

A man is a man, a woman is a woman, a boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl.  It’s science, supported by a wealth of empirical evidence.  Public restrooms have been labeled and used accordingly, with the reasonable expectation by women there will be no man in the ladies' room.  “Boycotting” is apparently an incendiary word or activity now, and I’ve no reason to employ it anyway, as it’s sufficient for me to say I will avoid shopping in any store where I may encounter a man in the ladies' room.  I literally shrugged as I placed a period at the end of that sentence.  No hatred.  No agenda.  No moralizing.  Freedom of choice.  

The thought of encountering a man in the ladies' room would be laughable, if it wasn’t so...not amusing. 

2.  Okay, let’s talk about boycotting after all. 

Target should not be fined or closed on account of discriminating against women who do not want men in the ladies room with them.  Neither should there be a fine levied upon a bakery that doesn’t want to create a wedding cake which transgresses the owner’s religious beliefs.  Don’t like the policies of a business?  DON’T SHOP THERE. 

Christian hypocrisy isn’t even in the Target restroom picture.  Additionally, no one – and certainly no long arm of the civil government – is forcing Target to do, or not do, anything.  Maybe that is hypocritical.
  
Let Target rise or fall on the merit of its doings, gaining or losing customers.  
Let the bakery rise or fall on the merit of its doings, gaining or losing customers.

3.  A “family restroom” is . . . a family restroom, and one’s expectation when passing through the door is that one may find inside any combination of men, women, boys, and girls.  It’s nice that stores offer family restrooms, and I’ve no idea why this is included in the original article.

4.  Restroom “terror?”  That hadn’t crossed my mind, so I’m thinking about it now. 

I’ve finished thinking about it:  No. 

I’d say matters of modesty, expectation, science, and sanity are at issue when Target discriminates against women who expect there to be only females in the ladies' room.  Since my now-expectation is that I might encounter a man in the ladies' room at Target, I will not be shopping at Target.  To me, that seems like a very reasonable, rational, unemotional decision.

5.  It’s my understanding a woman who feels like she’s a man, or a man who feels like he’s a woman, can use the Target restroom matching his or her feelings, rather than their actual, factual sex.  If I am washing my hands next to a man who feels like he’s a woman, I’m pretty sure I’m going to know he’s a man.  The author’s children might be "confused" or "a little scared" if they encounter the opposite sex in a sex-assigned restroom?  The author recognizes even a child understands men are men, and women are women, and finding either in the wrong sex-assigned restroom can be disturbing.  

6.  Number six has nothing to do with Target’s – or any store’s – restrooms, and appears to be included simply for the cause of shifting the focus to demeaning the Body of Christ, the biblical Church, which has never claimed self-righteousness and has love toward all.

“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”  (1 Timothy 1:15)

That’s the attitude of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Only Jesus was sinless, so I wonder why the author would choose to bring attention to her children having been hurt by "a whole bunch of church people."  I don't know what church people are, but the reference seems to be an allusion to professing Christians.  Have her children been hurt by school people?  Neighborhood people?  Playground people?  Swimming pool people?  Or do only church people harm her children?  The charge seems odd.

No one need wait for, hope for, or seek an encounter with a pitifully confused man in the ladies' room in order to teach his or her own children to love others, including the wounded, the broken, and those lost in their sins.  And please do not.  We might consider the prudence of teaching our children that welcoming men into the ladies' room is, at best, disorderly and inappropriate.

[Aside: By all means, if God has called you to testify of His love and His ways to people in Target restrooms, I believe you should obey the call.]

7.  The author’s definition of “pervert” is a mystery to me, particularly when used as she has in an article about men who feel like they’re women being welcome in a public ladies' rooms.  I agree with the admonition to be cautious at all times, in all places, especially in a day when all manner of evil is called good, and good is called evil, thereby licensing by means of cultural adoption “do as you please.” [See dictionary entry: pervert]

8.  Not wanting to encounter a man in the ladies' room has nothing to do with “love” or “fighting,” rather with common sense, reality, science, and facts.  So calling a decision – individual or en masse – to not shop where one may encounter a man in the ladies' room “THE BIG ONE” seems a little shrill.

Has there been a public "temper tantrum?"  Frankly, I simply don’t know.  If there has, I haven’t seen it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there, and people of every persuasion can be guilty of not comporting themselves with aplomb on occasion. 

The inference that not wanting to share the ladies' room with a man – whether he feels like a woman or not – makes one a pharisee feels like an unwarranted stone has been hurled at the Church.  And any intimation that Jesus didn’t specifically tell people to stop sinning, seems dangerously errant. 

It appears neither loving nor reasonable to shame people who prefer to shop where men and women use restrooms assigned to their factual sex.  

The poor people who have perverted, deviant ideas about their sexuality are being encouraged to act that out, rather than being helped to embrace the truth.  Welcoming into the ladies' room men who feel like women is neither loving nor Christlike.  (Again, the concept of teaching our children about love and sin by admitting confused men into a public ladies' room seems extraordinarily strange.)
 
Never did Jesus say, “Continue in your sins.”  Neither did He offer to aid us to continue to sin or make us more comfortable with sinning.  He loved us, therefore, to do so would have been preposterous.    

God recommends not an open mind, but a mind anchored in His word and His ways.

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.  And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”  (Psalm 1:1-3)

“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.”  (Psalm 119:11)

There doesn’t need to be any religious thought whatsoever involved in the public restroom assignment issue, for empirical evidence clearly provides proof that men are men, and women are women.  It’s genuine science.  At issue is merely whether or not men and women can expect only men in the men’s room and women in the ladies’ room.  Target is discriminating against men and women who want sex-assigned restrooms in the stores where they shop.

Yet, pretending there is no spiritual element involved when mankind embraces a clearly religious attempt to override factual creation with the fancies of men’s minds, thereby altering the culture, and discriminating against people who know God created us male and female, would be disingenuous.  That is spiritual.  It is religious.  And that would be a reason for The Church to lift her voice.  If she's going to love like Jesus did, be like Jesus, she should.

Judging

A county official was caught doing drugs in a public place.  He’s confessed and been arrested.  

His mug shot preceded the news headline.  He looked pretty gnarly in the photo.  And sad.  I felt sorry for him. 

This is a man whose profession required achievement of a set goal, determination, an enormous measure of study to earn an advanced degree, then specialized training.  Given his apparent age, I presume he performed the tasks of his profession for a long time, perhaps making abundant provision for a wife and children.  Now he is publicly disgraced, and his career is likely ended.

I noticed there was a comment beneath the news item: a single word, the definition of which is “a low, worthless, or evil person.”
 
This public official is no more low, worthless, or evil than I, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”  (James 2:10) 

How do we determine what is right and what is wrong?  Why are there laws?  Who had the audacity to make them, and on what authority?  In the most widely accepted world paradigm, survival of the fittest is law, in reality and practice lawlessness.  Yet there are laws, judges, juries, fines, punishments, prisons, and most strident and unbridled of all, public opinion.  A whale of a lot of judging and meting out of punishments.

I have stood guilty before the Judge of the whole of creation, from Whom came everyone’s understanding: there is that which is right, and there is that which is wrong.  We’re not animals, and the standard is not survival of the fittest, and the Judge has revealed Himself to every person, so that all are without excuse.  The public official has been, and shall be, judged.  So have been, and shall be, I.  All according to law, the schoolmaster which is to teach us all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.  (Romans 3:23)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  (Romans 1:18, 19)

Setting the standards of right and wrong I don’t believe is within my purview.  God has done that, and I believe what He’s said.  All of it.  I agree with God on this part, but that part, nuh-uh.  I don’t like that part.  Self aggrandizement or silliness.  It’s not quite as silly as believing -- whether one recognizes or admits to this glaring fly in the ointment -- there arose from an explosion a particle that metamorphosed into an ability to judge right from wrong according to any standard, be it Self's, Community's, Collective's, Herd's, or God's.

What I think is irrelevant, and I am no person's judge.  What God says matters, and He's offered forgiveness and full pardon to all who will come: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  (Romans 6:23)
 

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.  1 Corinthians 6:9-11

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.  1 John 1:7-8

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  Revelation 3:20

Off and On the Hook

Off the hook.

If Baby NoName is a girl:

This block pattern was simple to crank out, so the blankie came together quickly.  

One would think it's winter already, as I sit ensconced in skeins.  Just practicing; not warming up, but cooling off.  If the view through the windows wasn't so verdant, I might even be able to imagine a blizzard.  Cloudy skies and leafy branches swaying in the breeze will serve, for it isn't a dress rehearsal, and I'm simply enjoying the script.

My fellows went fishing today, and I sent them off with a request they bring home some whales.  They aimed to please and hit the mark.  On the hook:

 
Girl hooks and guy hooks: crankin' 'em out and reelin' 'em in.  It works.

Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.  -Daniel 2:20-22 

Man Compliment

Charles noticed the stack of 42 (forty-two) crocheted blocks on my table and asked, "What are you going to do with those?"

Mastering a block pattern new to me, when I finished the blanket for "Baby NoName" (Charles' current name for one-on-the-way), I didn't feel finished with cranking out the blocks.  So I planned an afghan to replace the tired quilt on the rack in the living room.  The quilt wasn't nearly as tired as I was tired of looking at it, but now I had cause to replace it.  So to answer Charles' question, I said, "I'll make an afghan.  There, look at the baby blanket, and you'll understand what I'm going to do with them," and I pointed to the folded bundle on the corner of the table.

In order for you to better understand, or fully appreciate, his "compliment," I'll show you a section of the afghan which came together from the stack of blocks that first caught his eye:

"Wow, that's really awesome!" he said of the white and yellow baby blanket.

"Is it really?" I asked, for I hadn't been entirely satisfied with it.  I'd begun making blocks with a white yarn I must have inherited from my mother, for when I came to the end of the skein and needed more blocks, I discovered the yarn is no longer available to purchase.  A long and tedious search for it had resulted in at least being able to buy on eBay someone's skein of "banana."  With a sigh, the envisioned, lovely, white baby blanket became a patchwork of yellow and white.  I couldn't help but be disappointed.  Yet, Charles thought it was "awesome."  I could go with awesome.  But next, he delivered the compliment extraordinaire.  Remember, I'd asked, "Is it really?"

"Yeah, spiders couldn't even do that!"

Oh.  Thank you.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.  - Hebrews 11:3

Diabetes and Okra

This article -- What Are the Benefits of Okra for People with Diabetes? -- seems to provide a reasoned and reasonable treatment of the topic.

I noticed a meme recommending the daily ingestion of “okra water” as treatment for diabetes: nip the okra ends, pierce the sides, and leave in water overnight.  Drink the resulting swill in the morning.   Every morning.  Okra sorely offends me, but moreso would diabetes.

Interested, I grabbed the meme-fashioned tutorial and tucked it away in my Health folder.  When I had time, I sought to vet the claim.  Snopes -- who I trust as much as I trust fat cat Purrle to not dump the wastebasket in the night if there are chicken bones in it --  to my surprise, was not able to entirely dash the claimed benefits of leaving okra overnight in a glass of water and ingesting the resulting liquid.

I found this particular snippet in the Snopes article, quoted from Bioactive Food as Dietary Interventions for Diabetes (2012),  noteworthy:

“There is anecdotal evidence for the amelioration of diabetes by dietary consumption of okra but what are lacking are controlled clinical trials. There are constituents of okra such as polyphenolic molucules [sic] that provide encouragement for such studies in the future.”  Snopes Article  

You don’t say.  It’s a positive admission I wasn’t expecting to find.  Which august body, though, would deign to conduct such trials?  The FDA?  The pharmaceutical industry?  Heh.  I daresay this will be one left to the general public, with only anecdotal evidences from which to draw knowledge.

Information garnered from the Internet is as trustworthy as is the stranger who posted it.  Perhaps okra water (or daily eating the slimy vegetable) should be filed in everyone’s Health folder, so it can be tried by those we know who might benefit from it.

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.  -Matthew 10:29-31