Reason numer 777 to Homeschool

 teacuppamela.pngI’ve read a bit more about SB777 since I commented on it a couple of days ago. And surely, since I received a strong negative comment here (which I sincerely appreciated, btw). And I’ve had more time to mull over the potential consequences or outworkings of the bill/law. I’m not “carried away with the witch hunt,” but I do wonder what led to the necessity to craft a new bill/law? The further protection / endorsement of a class of people is the only reason I can see for the crafting of the bill/law.

Now, I do see some of the problematical views expressed by the writer of the WND article and some of the author’s personal interpretations of what was just signed into law. I see the strong slant – pointing out the potentials of the law. And though the intent of the law *seems* to be non-discrimination, I cannot see it that way. I do not see non-discrimination at all. At all. Non-discrimination bills/laws are already in place. Clearly in place. The wording of this newest piece of legislation is additional protection for classes of people/thoughts/activities that are clearly ambiguous and undefined (for that, I suppose, would be discrimination!).

I am reading attacks against Christians or Conservatives being accused of twisting the words of bill to fit their argument(s). I wonder why the bill was necessary when non-discrimination is already a legal protection. I’d say that crafting a bill to protect people/activities is actually a protection that discriminates against long held truths, ideals and order – thus is a promotion, protection, endorsement of special interest groups with ambiguous attributes. Yes, even though those actual words are not in the bill.

May I say that this ambiguous bill/law is the catch-all protection for special interest groups or of people and/or activities and as such, effectively reverses other laws that are already in place that protect people from discrimination. It is not difficult to imagine the scenarios that will likely take place now with new legal license to cite discrimination when “non-discrimination” clauses or “hate-crimes” clauses have been clearly twisted to fit an agenda or argument in the past – this new law just amplifies or enlarges the special protection for special interest groups. So, then, the writer of the WND article was not making unfounded assumptions or leaps of imagination when stating what appear to be obvious repercussions of the bill/law.

I know it seems offensive when I write against laws such as SB777 signed by Governor S. in California. If I were ramping up the evil, I might say something like Gov. S ought to be burned at the stake or something ridiculous like that – and I didn’t, nor would I, say that. To say or think that would be evil. To point out problematical laws is not evil. And when I comment about people who (are intolerant of) redefine their own (assigned from birth) gender and when I question legal protection for their personal interpretation of their ‘gender’— truly, that’s not bigotry. Homosexuality is an abomination. So-called “transgender” is an assault on God’s design. As far as bigotry and hate pointed at my “fellow man” I must say, I am pointing out what I’m seeing are trends against God, against His holiness, against the family, against people who follow Christ – or more specifically, against Christians and the Bible. I don’t treat people like they are “lepers out to get us” – but I do take a strong stand against things that destroy, alter, shame or reject God’s design and blaspheme His Word.

I believe what we must see and stand against are not only the words of the bill, but the intent — the actions those words will be translated to include and mean. When a bill is signed into law, and when the literal words of the law are ambiguous, then, naturally what will occur or be used as leverage in an argument/lawsuit/etc. will be one’s own personal interpretation of the law. And… as far as discrimination goes, what will likely occur in the “public school” will be discrimination against Truth and promotion of what the Bible clearly defines as sin. When sexuality or gender is expanded to mean or include ‘perceived’ then the vagueness of what the discrimination could possibly be is truly subjective interpretation rather than objective truth. A person’s gender is assigned (or known) at birth and though a person may feel another way, the latter does not define the former.

Interesting to me is the oft used argument, hating sin / loving sinner. I understand the intent but it’s flawed at best and at worst, it’s not Biblical. I know we wish that Jesus had said it. Just like we wish that the Word had said, “God helps those who help themselves” when we’re plowing ahead with an exciting agenda. Only God is capable of hating sin and loving sinners. We’re truly incapable of such love. But Jesus in us helps us love when we don’t “feel like it,” or when we cannot find something lovely or when we have nothing… it is Christ in us – the hope of glory – that loves others… the unlovely, the unlovable, the lost and the saved.

So as far as hating the sin… and loving the sinner… I understand the sentiment and have even said the words or didn’t stand against them in some up-against-a-wall situations in the past. But I must ask, is it truly loving to ignore sin? to wink at sin? to excuse or tolerate sin or worse: to not call sin: sin? When sin is taught, tolerated, required, coddled or protected, then really… the argument to “love the sinner and hate the sin” is a moot point. And it’s not love.

Hate the sin – and love the sinner is one of those guilt trippy things that is tossed at Christians to silence the argument and squash arguments (and Christians). Further, I believe that it is erroneous to attempt to apply that argument to discrimination – especially to such an ambiguous or wide-open-for-interpretation law such as SB777. Here’s a prime example of the silencing of Christians whose straight talk message doesn’t line up (no pun intended) with the protected class.

Defending this bill/law demonstrates the deep inroads made by those who have a complex agenda to destroy God’s intentional design and God’s presence and force accommodation to that agenda.

With your 777th reason to homeschool, remember God’s purpose may seem to be thwarted. But it won’t be. In the end, it won’t be.



5 thoughts on “Reason numer 777 to Homeschool

  1. Hey there would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re working with? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you recommend a good hosting provider at a fair price? Kudos, I appreciate it!

  2. I do not normally reply to posts but I’ll on this situation.
    my God, i thought you were heading to chip in with some decisive insght on the finish there, not go away it
    with ‘we leave it to you to decide’.

  3. I know there’s much concern in the SB777 WND article… and I will refrain from calling it paranoia bcz that’s such a subjective label. Paranoia in my mind falls into the same subjective name calling as homophobia and on and on.

    But with all due respect, I believe the concern behind the WND article and whatever other articles concerning the massive social education agenda is that many *are* trying to destroy God’s design and His presence in our culture. There is a massive agenda to promote “lifestyles” behaviours, etc., etc. that are blatantly contrary and antagonistic of God’s design, His Word and His purpose.

    I do not use the term ‘transgendered’ and intend that to be synonymous with the condition hermaphroditism. They are not the same and cannot be interpreted interchangeably. There are not interchangeable. When I use the term transgender, I am intentionally referring to individual intentional choice to become other than God’s design – this is then the highest form of homosexuality… the intentional reassignment to appear to be a legitimate counterpart to one’s actual same sex.

    I am sure it is very expensive. I cannot be lulled into sorrow over years of therapy or painful hormone injections – I cannot sympathize with intentional rebellion against God – unknowing? maybe. Intentional, no.

    And “hateful idiots” and “finds them revolting” are very subjective, retaliatory comments. I have sought to not get into name calling. I’ve also sought to stay with the same premise and foundation: the Bible. I say this bcz I am basing my comments, beliefs and “arguments” on the written Word of God – He says it’s His Word and therefore I read it and trust in it – I trust in Jesus as Saviour and in the Bible as Truth.

    The social redefinitions have become such a vitriolic debate and I won’t debate or argue… I tell these things bcz I want to proclaim the truth in love. It would be hate for me to *not* say what the Bible says and then in so doing: apathetically not care that lost souls go to Hell. I care that lost souls are going to hell – I grieve that the lost will be eternally separated from God. Those who do not accept, in faith, Jesus is Lord and do not repent of their sins and do not believe His Word will go to hell. This is clearly taught and I am not attempting to be vicious or evil in saying this. This is what the Word says. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. His free gift of salvation is not for those who think they can save themselves, but for those who truly believe and He promises to hear us when we call on His name.

    I say this bcz many Christians are too weak to speak the truth in love. I am not afraid to speak the truth in love. I am not afraid of individuals who seek to destroy God’s natural design. I am not afraid of so-called homosexuality. I stand by what I have said and I understand this from the Bible. “Homosexuality” is not biblical – it is abomination to the Lord – it is against God’s design. I stand by that. A group of people have determined their own morality —outside— the Bible and have determined to become a protected group with a very ambiguous definition of what that group consists of.

    I stand on the promises of God. I have come to believe that people who stand for everything actually stand for nothing. People who believe that all roads lead to heaven believe a lie. There may be many little-g gods but there is only one God—one Lord.

    There are moral absolutes. Absolutes of God’s design of men and women and meaning a husband and wife is but one. Male and female created He them.

    When anomalies or quote “abnormalities” unquote are present from birth, this is a whole other question/dilemma for which I sincerely have no genuine answer or no helpful answer… but I would seek one, most assuredly and do not wish to humiliate any person with such a personal situation. It is not homosexuality – I must say that there is a difference between quote homosexuality unquote and such “deformity.”

    Our family has borne many things the Lord has put before us. I cannot say what it would be to face a genuine anomaly such as that. but I would seek to represent it truthfully and clearly and not call it what it’s not.

    I appreciate the opportunity to share in this matter. It is such a heated debate I would be a very unprofitable servant were I to blow like a reed in the wind and follow whatever doctrine blew by each day and act like we’re all a-okay and there’s no moral absolute about anything unless you feel like it.

    I looked at the site you recommended – I sought to understand your intention. So, I am left to mull over the fact that Religious tolerance is not Biblical and I see it as foolishness — an attempt to manipulate people or to shame them into compliance or silence about the Bible and the supreme, holy, eternal existence of God. I see that those who use the term ‘religious tolerance’ and seek the action are those who seek silence Christians into being tolerant of all religions, cults, practices. Calling Christians names and mocking Biblical standards is very intolerant.. I mean, that’s one way to look at it.

    I have not sought to be hateful – and if I am thought to be a hateful idiot, I will be one for Christ. But it is never my intention to be hateful. I hate that.

    thank you for writing. as I always say in this sort of debate: iron sharpens iron.

    God bless you with His presence and love – pamela

  4. I’d like to add this link

    I am in no way trying to change your mind but I think it will shed some light on how others believe thereby affering a sense of peace. There is so much paranoia in that WND article about what “liberals” are thinking, trying to do and/or destroy. I think if you look over this website you’ll see that we are all motivated by love. Maybe misguided in your opinion but certainly not malevolent.

  5. “So-called “transgender” is an assault on God’s design.”

    Wow, WAY off.

    No less than half of the truely transgendered are born hermaphrodites. Sex assignment for these people is based on which genitalia is easier to get rid of at birth. A person being born with both sex organs is God’s design right? Does one live as half man, half woman? In that case, which restroom do they use? If Drs. take the male parts but this person grows up knowing he is a man, even producing male hormones, should he be forced to live as a woman because doctors decided it was an easier surgery?

    People don’t just decide to change their gender because they feel like being wicked. It is very expensive. There are years of therapy. Loss of loved ones. Painful hormone injections. Being told by hateful idiots that the God they love finds them revolting.

    Now don’t you feel lucky this is not the cross you or your family bears?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *