Skip to main content

A Random Thought

Why do people who claim that they feel they are born in the wrong body insist that the answer to their feeling is to change that body to conform to their feelings? I have never really understood their argument. Is it because they feel their feelings are immutable? In other words they believe what they feel is who they really are. Now if that is their rationale it follows that their underlying assumption is that the true authentic part of us is that which is unchanging. 

The problem is human beings by nature are mutable. There is nothing immutable about us. Only God is immutable. We are always changing. We grow and decay. Indeed that is the order of the universe according to Big Bang cosmology and evolutionary theory that these people old dear.  So one cannot ground their identity in a some immutable characteristic they possess because such a characteristic does not exist. The logic that being true to self is confirming one’s feeling, as a ground of authenticity, is frankly not intellectually sustainable. 

It seems to me that in order for our identity to have some form of stability it must have an external component. Any human identity that is anthropocentric is a shifting identity that provides no compelling basis for authenticity. If it is authenticity people are after, it is not found in changing the body to suit our present feelings because there is nothing immutable about such feelings in the grand scheme of things. Indeed even past or anticipated future feelings cannot provide such a grounding.

The other issue is around identity itself. If people change bodies to  want to be authentic, surely the more authentic thing is that they should allow themselves to be in the unique position of being in a situation where their feelings do not conform to the body. It is not clear to me how changing one’s body makes them more authentic compared to the alternative. It seems to me that it can be argued that in fact it makes them less authentic. 

What makes people authentic surely is being who they are. But being who you are in this instance could equally be living with the tension. Unless of course you believed that the tension within you is not how you were meant to live. But that requires now for you to work with an external standard of some sort, that defines what constitutes as authenticity, that is to say how you were designed or created to be. 

The question then becomes - by what external standard should our identity be defined? Who is the designer we should turn to? The authority of such a standard of course becomes important. There are really only two external sources of standard for any individual - humanity (whether it is myself, friends, family or “the science”) or God our Creator. The choices is really between creation or the Creator. 

The problem with looking to other human beings is that properly understood human beings are not really part of an external standard, since each human being is also confronted with the same search for an external standard. To look to another human being is simply looking to ourselves for answers. 

The only external standard that can ground our identity is the true God who is not part of creation but is its author and yet he is somehow involved in it. We want the transcendent and personal God of the Bible. The true God of the Bible alone is our only reliable basis and source for our true identity. If we want to know who we are, we first need to know who He is. And to do that we must open our Bible and ask God to reveal Himself to us through its pages. We must seek to be guided by His truth and not by our feelings.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pornography as Occultism

There is a kind of helplessness that a man engaged in pornography exhibits. He often speaks of it in terms of a “struggle” or an “addiction.” Now both of those terms are accurate, I believe, but they distance a person from his sin in a soul-decaying manner. Pornography is not just an addiction; it is occultism. The man who sits upstairs viewing pornography while his wife chauffeurs the kids to soccer practice is not some unusual “pervert”; he is (like his forefather Adam) seeking the mystery of the universe apart from Christ. That’s the reason the one picture, stored in his memory, of that naked woman will never be enough for him. He will never be able to be satisfied because he will never be able to get an image naked enough. I say pornography is occultism because I believe the draw toward it is more than biological (though that is strong). The satanic powers understand that “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). They understand that the pornographic ...
Post a Comment
KEEP READING →

The Wound of Sin

Bless the Lord, O my soul, that when you were playing with the bait, unaware of the hook like so many others, He opened your eyes—allowing you to see your folly and danger so that you might flee from it. And now, be careful that you do not grasp at any of the devil's temptations, lest he ensnare you with his hook. For though you may be restored by grace, it will not be without a wound—just as a fish sometimes escapes the hook but swims away injured. That wound may bring sorrow and take long to heal. And you have already known this to be true. THOMAS BOSTON  ( Source : The Art of Man-Fishing) A sobering truth from Thomas Boston. Sin always damages. God always restores His children when we fall but it is never without the wounds. We often carry the scars of our sins. This is another m reason for us to avoid sin altogether. Sometimes in our presumption of His grace, we tend to be antinomian. Boston is warning that such an attitude is foolish since sin always damages. It always leaves ...
Post a Comment
KEEP READING →

Pussy Riot as the Messenger

I have always thought there was something uneasy, or something not quite right about Pussy Riot and the western media reaction to it. It was not just the desecration of the Orthodox Church Cathedral. I could not placed my finger on it until I read this assessment by Vadim Nikitin : How many fans of Pussy Riot’s zany “punk prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova’s erudite and moving closing statement were equally thrilled by her participation, naked and heavily pregnant, in a public orgy at a Moscow museum in 2008? That performance, by the radical art group Voina (Russian for “war”), was meant to illustrate how Russians were abused by their government. Voina had previously set fire to a police car and drew obscene images on a St. Petersburg drawbridge. Stunts like that would get you arrested just about anywhere, not just in authoritarian Russia. But Pussy Riot and its comrades at Voina come as a full package: You can’t have the fun, pro-democrac...
2 comments
KEEP READING →