San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 8, 2016

YMCA Designates A Bathroom For Hermaphrodites

Do you remember the YMCA?  Those letters stand for the Young Men's Christian Association.  Although most branches of the YMCA have their own by-laws most of them also have something in those by-laws like this:  "Section 3.1    The Springfield Family YMCA is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) charitable organization that strengthens community through its focus on youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility. We promote the spiritual, mental, social and physical growth of its members and constituency by conducting activities which are consistent with the spirit and teachings of Jesus Christ."  Yes, it is true, the YMCA was at one time a Christian organization.  As is the case with most organizations, the by-laws have never been updated to reflect present reality.
The main webpage for the YMCA across the country has this statement under a section entitled "Diversity & Inclusion:"  "The Y is made up of people of all ages and from every walk of life working side by side to  strengthen communities. Together we work to ensure everyone -- regardless of gender, income, faith, sexual orientation or cultural background -- has the opportunity to live life to its fullest."
Jesus said that women are to be functionally subordinate to men. I wonder how that compares to the gender equality practiced and taught at the Y?  Jesus also said that there is only one way to God.  In other words, there is only one true religion and that is Bible believing Christianity.  I wonder how that compares to the religious beliefs of those who are active at the Y?  Jesus said that homosexuals, transvestites and other sexual perverts are doomed to hell if they don't repent of their behavior.  I wonder how often that is taught at the Y as "consistent with the spirit and teachings of Jesus Christ?"
A hermaphrodite is someone or something that has the physical characteristics of both sexes.  If I understand the position of those who call themselves either bi-sexual or trans-sexual these days they would best be classified as hermaphrodites.  In every case that I have ever read about the person in question claims that he is either a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a man's body.  Either way the situation remains the same....that person is claiming to be both male and female, with one of the two sexes vying for the dominant position in its life.  It is for that reason I believe these people can best be described as hermaphrodites.
Last year the roughly 1% of the population of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika who are heterophobic won a significant battle in the Supreme Court of Jokers.  They achieved the religious and spiritual goal of "most preferred status" which was conferred upon them by the government of the SDA.  Shortly after their victory the hermaphrodites among us, a considerably smaller group I would suppose, decided it was their turn.  Since that pseudo-judicial decision by the Court there has been a non-stop stream of propaganda from the liberal media advancing the cause of these poor people who claim to be trapped within a body with two sexual identities desperately seeking unity as a single sexual being.  Also since that time various organizations around the country have decided to try and increase their popularity and income streams by promoting the perversion of hermaphroditism and recruiting these sinners into their organizations.  Sadly, the YMCA is one of those groups.
According to this website, "Locker room policy at the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in Seattle, Washington, now allows self-identified 'transgender' males to shower with 15-year-old girls. Controversy surrounding this decision has led many to question the organization and even cancel their memberships.  According to an inside source at the YMCA, the decision had been brewing ever since March of this year, when a 'open door' policy for trans individuals was being discussed. In April 2015, the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties established a 'no questions asked' policy, allowing open access to locker rooms without stating genders....The YMCA called an emergency meeting aimed at convincing members who opposed the policy that they were legally required to accept it in order to be more inclusive."
There is a great deal of ambiguity as to whether or not the law requires the YMCA to open the Women's bathrooms to men who claim to be hermaphrodites.  Regardless, it is not difficult to see how the new policy at the Y would be very popular with perverts, child molesters, pedophiles and anyone who wants to be able to legally take a shower with teenage girls.  Talk about inclusive, this new policy is downright progressive!  As is to be expected, the few remaining Christians associated with the Y are protesting this action.  As is also to be expected, the few remaining Christians have no idea why it is wrong for the Y to even have public showers in the first place.  Let me explain.
Largely as a result of the destructive behavioral propaganda dispensed by the physical education teachers in the government schools within the SDA throughout the generations, the biblical doctrine of nakedness has been utterly lost.  Evangelical Christians have no clue what the doctrine  is since they rarely read anything other than books about children who have died and gone to heaven, later coming back to tell us all how wonderful it all is.  The orthodox Christian Church (read "Reformed") has long held and understood that public nakedness is a sin, regardless of the context.  Contrary to what the nudists, naturalists, naturists, or whatever those perverts are calling themselves these days believe, God is not pleased with public nudity.  The shame that we all felt when we were first required to strip naked in front of our peers in the locker room after gym class has been suppressed and dropped down the memory hole, never to return.  We need to revitalize that shame and reclaim this ancient Christian truth if we have any hope of defending ourselves from the immoral onslaught of the government of the SDA.
The fall of man is recorded in the book of Genesis.  It describes how our federal head, Adam, disobeyed God and plunged all of his natural progeny into original sin.  The very first thing that both Adam and Eve did after they became aware of their sin was to fashion clothing and cover their genitalia.  There is a reason for their behavior.  God has decreed that human genitalia shall be the physical symbol of our sin, thus making their public display shameful and sinful.  All men whose consciences are not seared beyond any ability to still have moral comprehension are naturally aware of this fact and will make an attempt to cover up when exposed in public.  It therefore necessarily follows that all public nudity, whether it be on a beach, in a shower, in a bathhouse, or any other public venue, is sinful.  It does not matter if only one sex is present.  It does not matter if no sexual perverts are present.  All that matters is that the part of our bodies that conveys the shame of our sin is being exposed for others to see and that is a sin.
It is not a coincidence that government schools throw children together into physical education classes and force them to disrobe in front of each other on a regular basis.  This systematic desensitization is designed to overwhelm the guilt associated with public nudity and make it a normal state of being.  It is designed to convince children that their natural shame for sin is not real.  It is designed to dehumanize them and prepare them to be good servants of the state.  That practice is carried over into the military where each individual solider learns that he is nothing more than an cog in the military machine, with no inherent worth, value or human dignity.  That makes it easy to brainwash soldiers into being willing cannon fodder.
All of this is to make a simple point.  The world and the Beast (government of the SDA) are hell-bent upon destroying all biblical truth.  One of the best means of accomplishing that goal is to convince Christians that it is possible to meet the world on some common, morally neutral, ground.  A public shower with only one sex using it is a good example of this practice.  Once the initial shame associated with nakedness in this forum has been removed the next step is initiated and co-ed showers are installed.  The irony in this situation is that the harbinger of this sort of moral progress is an apostate Christian organization.   As offensive as this practice is, Christians lost this battle long ago when they capitulated to public nudity in the government schools.  What we are seeing today is the fruit of that capitulation.

6 comments:

  1. I don't know where you are getting your "theology", but it isn't from the Bible. God never decreed that our genitalia be the physical symbol of our sin, because Adam and Eve were created with it and Jesus had it also. Adam and Eve's "shame" wasn't their physical-nakedness, rather their "shame" resulted from their broken fellowship with God.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. M.:
    Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comment. It is people like you who keep me on the theological straight and narrow. We Welsh are so prone to wander you know.
    I will however answer a question you did not ask. You wonder where I "get my theology." Let me refer you these websites for a taste of the aberrant theology you so despise:
    http://www.reformation21.org/articles/art-nakedness-and-redemption.php
    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/god-and-nakedness/
    http://renewingyourmind.org/broadcasts/2014/06/10/god-and-nakedness
    Rest easy in the fact that your understanding of the non-connection between the shame of sin and nakedness is consistent with the vast majority of Evangelicals and, therefore, must be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually I am quite Reformed, but I don't believe everything every Reformed scholar writes if it can't be proven from Scripture. Perhaps you can explain how and why God had the "audacity" to command Isaiah to prophesy barefoot and naked (Isaiah 20) without commanding him to "sin". Many other prophets prophesied naked also. David danced naked as the Ark of the Covenant was being brought into Jerusalem, but God didn't curse him, rather God cursed his wife Michal for disrespecting him. Jesus Christ walked out of the tomb naked. Did He sin? Baptisms were performed naked in Old Testament Israel and for the first several hundred years in the New Testament church. Were those also "sinful"? The Bible must be what determines what is right or wrong, not our culture or prejudices.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. M:
    Thank you for your follow up comments and questions. Due to the length of my response to your comments and questions I have decided to post them as a separate blog post. You will find my responses on the blog post for Monday, January 11th.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was born in the Chicago area back in the 1950's. From the founding of the YMCA back in 1844 up until the 1970's, the YMCA of my youth always forbade the use of bathing suits and required us to swim naked. (Well over a century of nudity!) I don't recall feeling any "shame" that you mentioned, nor was there any molestation going on. (You can look through the News Archives and not find a single case of molestation at the YMCA until AFTER they got rid of nude swimming).

    Now you might argue that the Christians who founded the Young Men's Christian Association back 150 some years ago were men of lower moral character and that the administrators of the modern YMCA are of far higher moral standards. But could you actually prove this claim? Or you might claim that society itself has risen to higher moral standards in that length of time. Again, where is this evidence?

    The idea that God clothed Adam and Eve in a coat of skin has been used by more legalistic religious groups as "proof" that husband and wife must never be naked together, and that the conjugal relationship must be performed through a hole in a sheet placed between them. After all, Adam and Eve were the only humans on earth - and they were husband and wife - when God clothed them. So it is easy to see how this forbidding of physical contact between husband and wife would be arrived at.

    But the real problem seems to be locked up in the fact that God does not command people to sin. Yet, in Isaiah chapter 20 we see Isaiah being commanded to remove his clothing and walk naked and barefoot for 3 years with his buttocks exposed as a sign that Egypt and Ethiopia would be lead away into slavery in a naked and barefoot condition. God can't be commanding Isaiah to sin in this way. Therefore, your concept that nudity is wrong, is a claim that Isaiah is a false prophet who was not listening to God. Your man-made tradition regarding nudity quickly moves you into the position of being heretical in this matter.

    Likewise, the idea that eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil revealed to them that it is wrong for husband and wife to be naked together. We see that God looked upon *all* He had made (thus including the naked husband and wife) and He declared it to be "VERY good" (contrasted with the previous days when it was simply "good". Scriptures declared that they were "naked and not ashamed" - the "Law of First Use" in Biblical Hermeneutics demands that we take this first use of nudity and use the "unashamed" as the primary meaning from there forward. But perhaps we are to judge God as being wrong in His "VERY good" declaration......

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. ben Yishia:
    Thank you for your comment. Boy, I sure didn't expect this sort of response to a minor point in a blog post about the shenanigans going on in Seattle. Nevertheless, it is my practice to take the time to respond to those who take the time to comment upon what I have written. Here is my response to your comments:
    1. I am sorry to hear that the YMCA required nude swimming from its very foundation. I see that as being instrumental in searing the consciences of many youth over the years. I don't believe the issue at hand is who is of a "higher moral standard" as much as it is who is willing to be compliant with the biblical standard for modesty.
    2. I believe you are accusing me, falsely it turns out, of being a legalist. A legalist is one who creates an extra-biblical standard and holds himself and others to that standard. If it turns out that the model for biblical modesty is as I describe, I can hardly be labeled a legalist.
    2a. If I am wrong the accusation of legalism may stand. But then I have a question or two for those who believe that nudity is right dandy in the eyes of God. Is there any place where nudity would be wrong? I don't mean simply because it might cause a stir if I show up at the Pulitzer Prize awards in the nude. I do not care what social norms might describe as proper, I only care about what is sin. When would it be sinful for me to be naked? As I see it, those who hold to this doctrine of Christian Naturism must believe that it would never to be sinful to be naked at any time and in any place.
    3. Nowhere did I argue that a man and wife are violating the biblical standard for modesty when they are naked together. You know as well as I do that the man and the woman are described as being of "one flesh." That phrase is not just a nice bit of poetry. It also describes why Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their post-fall nakedness when they were in one another's company only. Husbands and wives, being one flesh, do not violate any standard of modesty when they are naked together.
    4. I have already presented an argument for why the Isaiah passage is not an example of God requiring man to sin. You can find it in my response to the comment from Mr. Link on the 1-11-16 post.
    5. I find it more than amusing that you believe my doctrine of biblical modesty constitutes heresy. How easily we throw that word around these days. To be a heretic, as you are well aware, means to be an unbeliever. You have just declared me to be bound for the Lake of Fire because I believe that God requires us to be modest and not be naked in front of one another. It will be interesting to see if you are correct. I will try to look you up in the New Jerusalem so we can talk about this. I will be the one wearing clothes.
    6. Your concluding argument that there is a heremeneutical principle called the "law of first use" that requires me to use a word throughout the rest of Scripture according to how it is used the first time it is seen is bizarre. Something rather significant took place between the time God created a sinless and naked Adam, pronouncing that act to be very good, and naked Adam hiding from God because he disobeyed and plunged all of mankind into original sin. If everything God made was very good and the Fall of man had no impact upon that metaphysical reality, then Jesus died in vain for people who did not need to be saved. Indeed, everything must continue to be very good and all sin must be an illusion. Certainly you can't mean to take that position, can you?
    7. The self consciousness of Adam and Eve after the fall, as I argued in my post, had nothing to do with their awareness of one another's nakedness. I am not sure why you keep coming back to a point I never made. The shame that caused Adam to cover his genitalia was the shame associated with his sin as he hid from the presence of God. I thought I made that quite clear in the post.

    ReplyDelete