Going Forward, One Word Should be Part of Any Discussion on Sex and Gender

I won’t make you wait for it. The word is Transhumanism.

This is a revolution that no one is talking about. Where are the news media and where are the “experts” on this? We should be having a national discussion around whether we even want to be on board with the dubious idea of transhumanism, and, for those who do, how they should cautiously proceed. Instead we are barreling down the transhuman highway with the windshield painted fuchsia.

What is Transhumanism? (Abbreviated as H+)
Transhumanism is a philosophical movement opining that we can and should overcome the natural biological limitations of humanity by means of science and technology. Some transhumanists envision enhancing human longevity and cognitive abilities to the degree that humans become “posthuman” creatures.

H+ stems from an evolutionary worldview. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, if one believes in a mindlessly and accidentally evolved universe, that we should intelligently direct the course of our own evolution now that we have the means to do so.

Here’s an illustrative quote from one transhumanist:

We believe it is our basic human right to be able to upgrade ourselves, and to develop and leverage the fundamental technologies that enable the next phase of evolution. We believe the future of the human race will not only allow us to opt out of nature’s selective processes and choose our own evolutionary paths, but that our very survival as a species depends on it. These beliefs are the cornerstone of Transhumanism. (Amal DT Graffstra).

To clarify, H+ is not the use of science and technology to restore the body’s natural functions or to facilitate healing. That is the role of traditional medical science. Nor is H+ the use of technology to repair disfigurement, or even to enhance one’s physical attractiveness. That is the role plastic/cosmetic surgery. Rather H+ seeks to transcend our natural human limitations and engineer an improved humanity.

The issue here is not science vs anti-science. The issue at hand is around what should be the legitimate role of science and technology.

Transhumanism is already here
My guess is that most people don’t recognize the revolution for what it is because, if we’ve thought about it at all, we think of transhumanism as a futuristic, sci-fi fantasy. And it’s true that we aren’t yet capable of brain-machine interfaces, or mastering the aging process. But there is a sub-category of transhumanism that is not waiting for the future. That sub-category is called postgenderism.

Postgenderism seeks to use science and technology to create a world where human beings are free from the “harmful constraints” of the traditional binary concept of gender:

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies… Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction… Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice…
(Beyond the Gender Binary, Dvorsky and Hughes, 2008).

Notice that like H+, and as a sub-category of H+, postgenderism:
1) is a utopian endeavor,
2) seeks to override or transcend natural human limitations.
3) employs science and technology to carry out its aims

To be charitable, H+ and it offshoot, postgenderism, hope to improve the human condition and relieve human suffering, including “psychic suffering”. But the crucial question is, “Does it, can it, and will it deliver?” I think we have reason to be very concerned about the answer.

From the standpoint of a biblical worldview, the fundamental problems with the human condition are beyond that which science and technology can fix. It is indicative of human arrogance to assume we can improve upon our natural humanity through technological means.

Present day examples of H+/postgenderism
If it seems like a stretch to believe that H+/postgenderism is here, think about what is routinely happening today in the field of human sexuality.  I should state that I am not a medical professional of any stripe, but as a layman, three current examples with which we are all now familiar come to mind:

1) Abortion-on-demand – Consider this through the lens of postgenderism. Abortion-on-demand is now non-negotiable for modern feminism because, to the feminist mind, human biology renders men and women “unequal.” The possibility of abortion access erases the inequity that nature imposes upon women, thus making gender at least somewhat less relevant. In the feminist mind, without abortion, natural female biology is seen as a form of slavery; a social injustice; a limit on female autonomy. If planning and/or contraception fail, abortion allows women to overcome their biological limitations – thus abortion qualifies as a crude H+ half measure until the development of the artificial womb.

Note that elective abortion falls outside the parameters of healing medicine: pregnancy is not a disease. A developing embryo is not an invasive parasite. A fetus is not a tumor. Elective abortion exists in America for ideological reasons. For the immediate future, the cutting edge of the abortion industry seeks a “safe” abortive chemical solution, making abortion access less dependent on invasive surgical procedures and more widely available.

2) Hormone therapy and puberty blocking drugs – Researchers have learned some of the mechanics of how hormones work, and why males and females develop the way they do. We can now appropriate technology to artificially delay puberty, and to alter the body’s natural processes to create secondary sexual features like facial hair and breasts. Transgender individuals are appropriating this technology to bring their bodies into alignment with their psychical identity.

Whether or not this is a good idea is another conversation. My point here is that it is undeniable that such chemical therapy is now commonplace, and it falls squarely under the agendas of H+/postgenderism – it is the use of science and technology to transcend one’s natural physiology for conceptual reasons.

3) Sex reassignment surgery – Surgically altering healthy, functioning sex organs is an extreme procedure from which there is no going back, practically speaking. Doing so for ideological reasons is a clear example of H+/postgenderist practice.

In my non-expert opinion, I would concede that there are a number of developmental sexual abnormalities for which such therapy and surgeries would arguably constitute a legit medical fix. But for purposes of this discussion it is the H+/postgender vision of a society where gender is considered to be a fluid, non-binary, matter of choice for everyone, including children, that I’m concerned with.

Why does this matter for you?
Progressive ideologues are  imposing H+/postgenderism onto the culture under the guise of justice and equality. We are told that the changes around gender ideology are simply the next, inevitable stage of the civil rights movement. So compassionate people cannot disagree with what is happening. You want to be a compassionate person, don’t you? This is all about minimizing suffering.

Perhaps this all seems to have come from out of nowhere to you. Like an accidental explosion at the cotton candy factory, sending sticky wisps of rainbow-colored spun sugar down on us all. What I would like the reader to consider is that these societal changes have been inspired by “progressive” political ideology, and they have been in the making for decades. One can map the progress.

I am unequivocally on board with compassion, fairness, equality, and minimizing suffering, but the changes stemming from gender ideology are not some inevitable next stage in social progress based on scientifically informed reason. They are changes stemming from the opinions of ideologically driven activists. No one should feel pressure to get on board.

This is about authority
The point of this article is not so much to convince those with whom I disagree of the rightness of my position. My point is to amplify the logical consequences of two differing worldviews in the interest of enabling people to make informed choices.

This is ultimately about authority. Transhumanism and postgenderism stem from a specific set of beliefs about the universe. If one believes that we exist as a result of purposeless, accidental, evolutionary processes, then natural law and human biology carry little weight. They simply exist, for no authoritative reason. We are free to take control of the reigns and to direct our destiny as we see fit. On paper, at least, there is little to prevent us from creating our own reality.

But a lot of ideas sound good on paper. Car alarms and self-flushing toilets, for example. Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, human brokenness always gets in the way of utopia in this present age.

By contrast, followers of Jesus embrace a different set of beliefs about the universe. We believe that objective, divine authority actually exists; that it always has, and it always will. The gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus’s last statement to His disciples:

“All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me…”

That’s an extravagantly bold statement coming from a figure who is universally regarded as being a good teacher. Followers of Jesus are bound to believe it. Jesus and His disciples also made definitive statements about gender, marriage, family, the innate value of human life, and the unreliability of the human heart. These statements are simply not compatible with H+/postgenderism.

An “upgrade” for humanity is indeed coming, but according to Jesus and His disciples it will come from the Author of Life, not from our own H+ biohacking. In the meantime, in this age, it seems clear to me that we don’t have all the information, and that therefore, apart from revelation, we often don’t know what’s best for ourselves and for each other.

If you’re a liberal, you might object that your beliefs have nothing to do with an H+/postgenderist agenda. You might argue that you believe in an infinite spectrum of genders for reasons of fairness; that  “gender is what’s between your ears” is the more compassionate position; that you believe that “what matters is two loving parents, more so than a biological mom and dad” for reasons of inclusivity; that you support abortion-on-demand in support of “reproductive freedom” for women, and so on.

However, those reasons notwithstanding, one is still embracing T+/postgenderist thinking if one is favorable to the use of technology to transcend our natural human limitations. One is establishing oneself (or humanity) as the ultimate authority in defining and determining enlightenment, morality, and salvation. A line from The Humanist Manifesto ll comes to mind, published in 1973, the year of the Roe v Wade decision:

“No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

So how do we live together?
This is a fascinating time to be alive. The choices before us couldn’t be more consequential. The consequences of choosing wrongly couldn’t be more perilous, from the standpoint of both worldviews. And yet, it is essential that we all live together peaceably and respectfully. How can we do this, given this extreme disparity of belief?

I contend that as Americans, we can still unite around the practice of pluralism and freedom for all within the constraints of the US Constitution. That includes free speech, a free press, religious liberty, and respecting parents’ rights to raise their own children as they see fit. All sides must be on guard against totalitarian thinking. All sides must be on guard against magical thinking. Amongst those with whom we agree, it would make the world a better place if we would hold each other to a standard of honesty, compassion, and respect for the individual.

I welcome your thoughts in the comment section.

— Scott Freeman, July 2021


12 comments on “Going Forward, One Word Should be Part of Any Discussion on Sex and Gender

  1. Julie Beth Rhodes Mauk says:

    Short answer: I agree. Random longer answer: the idea of authority…… if individuals define reality according to “what’s between their ears” …. Cute way of saying their imagination?….. and if that individual recognizes no authority but self, seems to me there is no authority at all. Why try to organize society? Seems there would be no consistent moral standard. Random thought re: gender fluidity. So I don’t accept my physical body as defining my gender. Gender is how I “feel” or how I perceive myself. Is that because society has defined masculinity or femininity according to pointless stereotypes? Maybe. But as far as relying on feelings or perception: reminds me of my college days. I was truly anorexic, a mental and emotional misperception of self. Looked in the mirror and actually saw fat, even when weight hovered at less than 100. So I did not accept the reality of my own physical condition……. And it was obviously not healthy. Should that have been affirmed? Is it comparable? Like I said, hurried random thoughts. Thanks

    • Thanks Julie! I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument invalidating the comparison of anorexia to gender dysphoria. Both are disorders where a psychical perception does not agree with an objectively verifiable physical state. I’m glad you were able to overcome it!

      But I have a question for you, which I will ask along with my response to Stacia, below…

  2. Stacia Roble says:

    This world, though sublimely beautiful as granted to us by our Creator God, is becoming a scary place with the direction “progressives” seem to be taking us. Although we as Christians know how the story ends, it is nonetheless a current battle with those whose world view is dystopian and irrational. I have a nephew who is transgender and even though he will always be male by his DNA, I see him as an almost irretrievably lost soul. So sad, those who choose gender by the “feelings” between their ears, and ending up more unhappy and suicide-prone. But these people had a choice to make and they made it. Hopefully they will seek out the source of all truth and happiness in Jesus before it’s too late for them!

    • Stacia, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

      I appreciate your compassion for your nephew. I have a question for you and Julie. Based on a few testimonies from parents that I’ve read, there does seem to be a condition called gender dysphoria that is persistent from an early age. Parents of these kids seem to be baffled, and it doesn’t sound to me like a choice on the part of the kid. They seem to simply “know” that they are the opposite gender.

      If the physical body and the psychical makeup develop at different times in a developing fetus, does it seem reasonable to you that there really could be some children born with gender dysphoria that is not of their own choosing?

      I realize that as Bible believers you (and I) believe that God created gender as a binary. However, he also created eyes that see and ears that hear. Yet in our broken world, sometimes people are born with disabilities. The point of my question is to say that it is very likely maddening to people with gender dysphoria to hear others say they chose their condition. I think the same holds true for same sex attracted people. That is not to say “God created them that way,” but neither is it necessarily the case the they are choosing it. I don’t think those are the only two options.

      I’d love to hear your thoughts. I hope I’m not discouraging you from ever commenting again!

  3. John Kim says:

    Scott —

    The post casts this as an issue of modern medical technology. However, throughout history there have always been a few people who are physically intersex as well as people who mentally did not conform to gender standards. I will pick one as an example, but there are many other examples of people who were not just Christians, but revered as saints. Take, for example, the saint known in life as Marinos.

    Eugenius was a Bithynian who was father to Marinos, and later converted and decided to become a monk. As a child, Marinos wanted to serve God as well, so the father took Marinos to the monastery with him. Ten years later, Eugenius died, and Marinos continued at the monastery, but years later was falsely accused of impregnating a local innkeeper’s daughter. The local abbott was shocked, and dismissed Marinos from the monastery. Living as a beggar at the gates of the monastery, Marinos was forced to care for the child and was only grudgingly readmitted five years later, and performed severe penance while continuing to raise the son. It was only upon death at the age of 40 that it was found that Marinos had been born a woman, and was innocent of the accusation.

    Marinos is revered as Saint Marina in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The Catholic Saints site notes “The whole story is typical of the pious fictions telling of women saints masquerading as men (Attwater, Benedictines, Delaney).”

    cf. https://catholicsaints.info/saints-of-the-day-marina/

    The main question to my mind isn’t the medical technology. It’s the question of how we handle people like this regardless of medical technology. In much of history, people like Marinos would be violently bullied and tormented mercilessly if their secret were ever revealed – and possibly even killed.

    More broadly, there exist many people who do not conform to the norms of their society. I do not think that these people are necessarily ungodly. Indeed, many of the saints and many other people of deep religious conviction have thrown off the norms. Work your job, stay in the system, marry, have kids, retire — that’s one way to serve God, but there are many like Marinos who broke the norms of their time. Others were monks, nuns, hermits, ascetics, pilgrims, wanderers.

    And this is a good thing. God’s word is not to behave just like in the past. Throwing down the divine right of kings, abolishing slavery, overcoming racism and legalizing miscegenation were all progressive changes pushed by Christians who believed that God’s will was not just to repeat the the past — but to change and grow in love and understanding.

    Baptist pastor Mark Wingfield has a good talk on the subject of transgender people:

    I don’t expect you to necessarily agree with pastor Wingfield, but I would ask – would your church receive a transgender person with love? Would they be able to come and worship there? Because among my transgender friends, every one has stories of being afraid to be out in public as themselves – not just fear of moral judgement, but that they would be violently attacked. The visceral reactions they get are incredibly strong.

    I don’t know how many (if any) transgender people you know. I know that I didn’t know any until much later in life, but now I know several including close friends. I’ve invited some to my church, and spread the word to them, but also learned a lot from them about their experiences.

    • Thanks for your thoughts, John,

      I’ll address your main concern. I have a deeply held, foundational belief that all human beings bear the image of God, and therefore, have innate value, regardless of any distinction. This belief is rooted in the Torah and in the words/actions of Jesus. So I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you against anyone attempting to dehumanize, do violence to, or to violate the basic human rights of a transgender person. Pastor Wingfield referenced the same idea in the video.

      As for my church, I believe a trans person would be received with love there, and that they would be able to worship there, though as you know a church is made up of many individuals, so there would probably be some healthy discomfort there as well. We are quite a small congregation, and one young couple are certified Krav Maga instructors, and have started an NFP outreach teaching affirmation and self-defense to survivors of abuse, several of whom happen to be trans individuals. In balance, I will also mention that the female half of this couple has told me that she wouldn’t feel comfortable inviting her clients in bc she’s afraid someone would say something triggering to them.

      The conundrum here is that it is not clear to me, or probably to anyone else, what is “loving” with regards to LGBTQ people in the evangelical church. Welcoming in? Yes. Loving acceptance? that’s trickier. Does loving acceptance mean accepting them as fellow broken human beings in need of relational connection with other people, and in need of restoration from God? If so I’m fully on board. That describes me as well.

      Or does loving acceptance mean affirming that God created the LGBTQ person just as they are; that their sexual state is a healthy, whole, equal alternative to the sexual binary that God created in the Torah? If so, I’m not on board. I consider the Judeo-Christian scriptures to be authoritative, and I do not have the freedom to disregard their defining statements.I suspect this is what you’re wanting to know. Furthermore, the answer is not the same, imho, for the L,G B,T and Q person.

      Trying to keep this brief, I consider gender dysphoria (leading to transgenderism) to be a developmental issue, akin to a birth defect. There is no question in my mind that, for a person whose physical body is not in agreement with his/her psychical identity, that person is suffering from a very serious disharmony in their being. I can’t say “trans women are women” for the same reason I can’t say the moon is a cube. I wouldn’t say a trans person is “choosing” or “making up” their gendered feelings, but neither can I say their feelings override or erase the demonstrable fact that they have, say, a male physique. If in fact it can be shown that a person’s psychical identity can be female while their body is male, then the most we can say is that the person is part male and part female. This is not an enviable position, and I suppose I would not volunteer these thoughts to my trans friend, unless I was asked, I guess.

      So then, if transgenderism is essentially akin to a birth defect or a disability, OF COURSE we do not advocate hating or doing violence to people with disabilities. We seek to accept them and welcome them into the human family. But of course this is not as satisfying a position to trans people as is “celebrating their trans identity.” It’s not as positive as one seeing oneself as being on “the cutting edge of the civil rights movement.” I have a son with a disability. We do not “celebrate” his disability. We do our best to work around it, and to love him well.

      I just don’t see another rational explanation that harmonizes the science and the scriptures. If you have one I am certainly open to hearing it. I believe that ultimately, the truth is redemptive and accords with love, only because there is a God who has all the information.

      • John Kim says:

        Scott –

        I’m glad that we are in agreement about receiving people with love, and that your church would be welcome to transgender people coming there. It seems we agree that gender dysphoria and//or transgenderism are conditions that has always existed, and the question is how we handle it.

        There are two separate approaches here, one of which is via scripture and one via science. I’ll talk about scripture first.

        Science and scripture have generally been reconciled by recognizing that the Bible speaks in the language of people of that time. The Bible speaks about the Sun and Moon moving overhead, when we now know that is actually the turning of the Earth. But as Galileo paraphrased Saint Augustine, scripture exists to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go. Scripture teaches us spiritual truths, not astronomy, physics, or biology.

        In addressing the same-sex marriage, you quoted Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus is discussing the question of divorce. But I think that Matthew 19:11-12 is also crucial. The disciples complained that if the commitment to marriage was forever, then it might be better not to marry.

        [[ But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.” “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” ]]

        In Jesus’ time, the only gender surgery available was castration. Jesus does not say that eunuchs are defective. He says that some people are born this way, and should be accepted – along with those who choose that way.

        Now, of course, one could say that this only applies to people who are castrated in the manner of ancient times. It wouldn’t apply to anyone receiving modern gender surgery. But I think Jesus is saying here to accept all people for who they are – even those who were born intersex, or who are transgender.

        I think that Jesus would have welcomed people like Saint Marina into the church, and would not have demanded that they be cast out of the monastery and forced to live as typical women, but would instead let them live and worship God as they felt they should. The important thing is their devotion and faith and works, not how they dress or style their hair or what pronouns they use.

        Medically, I think we are agreed that there are (and have always been) people who have what is called transgenderism or gender dysphoria. Based on recent research, this may be related to hormonal development in the womb. There are also a smaller set of intersex people who have unusual genitalia and/or secondary sexual characteristics, such as androgen insensitivity where someone with XY chromosomes develops entirely female anatomy.

        Science tells us that people like this exist, and can answer what caused the condition and what the effect of different treatments would be on it. What it does not tell us is how they should be treated. That is really an ethical and spiritual question. I feel that is something that those people need to decide for themselves, in consultation with their doctors.

        As a parallel, being left-handed used to be seen as a sinister flaw – and left-handed people were widely discriminated against. Left-handed children were forced to write and act the same as the more common right-handed people. In the present, though, almost no one thinks there is anything wrong with being left-handed.

        As a Christian, I know that I can support them with love and guide them to the word — but I don’t think my faith tells me about what medical decisions they should make. I do not think that they have to conform and be the same as everyone else. Among the transgender people I know, all have chosen some degree of transitioning, and they seem happiest based most on how they are accepted – not on their treatment.

        • Thanks John,

          I agree with much of what you’ve said there. You’ve expressed your main concern, and it sounds as though we are agreed that all human beings regardless of sexual/gender identity/orientation have innate value. (Though I’m not sure I understand what your basis is for believing this – I see no evolutionary basis.) I feel this should go without saying for the follower of Jesus.

          Allow me then to explain my main concern in the current cultural climate:
          The universal promulgation of “gender ideology” is going to irreparably damage people – especially children – and hopelessly divide the country.

          I think it should be enough for the Left that I affirm the innate value of the individual and treat everyone w respect as a person, without my agreeing w gender ideology. From there we work out the kinks of how to live together in a common society by forming public policy that is fair for everyone. But clearly this is not enough for the Left.

          Let me be more specific. I am going to teach my children, my grandchildren, and their children the truth as I see it, toward the end of compassion for all, as I understand it. I refuse to be forced to wear the label of hater, bigot, anti-gay, transphobe, anti-woman, racist, white supremacist, and so on, because those labels are false for me. Having said that, the views I’ve stated here WILL be received as transphobic to many trans people, because they regard my views as “non-affirming” and “not in line” w the gender ideology narrative.

          It’s clear that universal conformity to that narrative is essential for a just society in the minds of SJW and “progressive” activists. At least in the public square. That’s a big problem. Obviously, my mental and emotional health, and the mental and emotional health of a trans person, cannot depend upon everyone else getting on board and affirming my/their opinions. But this seems to be the strategy for the Left, thus the campaign of outing, shaming, litigating, labeling, harassing, protesting, censoring, and cancelling people into submission.

          Worst of all, imo, the Left really is “coming for our children.” For the most part, the Left controls academia, the media, big tech, the entertainment industry, and the public school system. Gender ideology is now being promulgated in the public school system, even at the elementary level. Yet gender ideology is merely one unproven bias with almost no track record behind it. The results thus far are concerning. At the same time, the reasons for questioning it, based on decades of social science and anthropology, are very strong.

          Please consider this interview, highlighting the effects on young students that have been taught the opinion that gender is fluid and subjective, and that transgenderism is a normative, healthy, equivalent way of being; one that can and should be voluntarily chosen according to one’s feelings:

          Regarding science and the scriptures, I think we disagree, and this is probably at the heart of why we land where we do politically. You write,

          “Science and scripture have generally been reconciled by recognizing that the Bible speaks in the language of people of that time. The Bible speaks about the Sun and Moon moving overhead, when we now know that is actually the turning of the Earth…”

          And yet, here in the 21st century, this is the language of our time as well. Daily we speak of sunrise and sunset, even though we know that the sun doesn’t rise or “go down,” nor does the moon “come out,” and so on. We speak this way because this is descriptive language.

          No one is claiming that the Bible is a science textbook, but I’ve been taking it as God’s authoritative revelation for my entire adult life, and I have no regrets. I see science corroborating scripture in most cases. Certainly in the arena of human sexuality I have yet to see an unresolvable conflict.

          Unless I misunderstand, you seem to be holding up the fact that there are and always been intersex, trans, or otherwise gender nonconforming people as a supporting argument. But the fact that there are and always have been developmental sexual abnormalities is not a clear argument that there are more than 2 genders. It is at least as clear an argument that in our broken world, sometimes things go wrong. For the same reason, I do not tell my blind son that color blindness, astigmatism, cataracts, macular degeneration, cortical blindness, and total blindness are really just differing but perfectly normal “ways of seeing” on an infinite spectrum of sightedness.

          I do believe that the Church has a lot of work to do in figuring out how to compassionately navigate the waters of human sexuality, and more often than not I don’t like what I hear. But that’s why we need to keep talking to one another, and maintain some degree trust even in our disagreeing. The demonization of “the other side” is what keeps this from happening, imo.

  4. Adam Fisher says:

    Hey Scott,

    I’m curious as to how you think of the sovereignty of God in relation to this. If God truly is all knowing, all powerful, and sovereign, I wonder why we have to worry since He knows all about this, knows what to do, and has the ability to carry out His will.

    • Hi Adam – great question. I do indeed believe God is sovereign. I’m curious if you felt that I was advocating worrying anywhere in my post! Rather, my point was to bring the subject of transhumanism/postgenderism to light and to heighten the worldview options that lie before each of us. I think the post was not so much about what God will do with us, but what we will do with God.

      That’s not to say that we are not headed into some worrisome territory from a human standpoint, though. I do believe that there will be a lot of harm done, particularly to children, if we don’t change course. May God give us wisdom, and grace to trust Him and submit to His loving authority.

  5. Mark Silvers says:

    Great post Scott, I totally agree. This all ties into concerns about AI and it’s dangers if used the.
    wrong way.
    As a follower of Jesus in our present culture and as a high school teacher I try to practice “unconditional love” in the moment with whomever God brings across my path. I love them, listen to their story and then speak Biblical truth when given the opportunity. I tell my students that one of the biggest lies of our culture is that I have to agree with you to love and respect you as a human. Just because I disagree with someone does not mean that I hate them or am afraid of them.
    Thanks Scott for your words of truth and wisdom.

Please share your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s