Dr. Benjamin Wiker in his book “10 books that screwed up the world” goes through the greatest writings that have been written by Top thinking Atheists. It doesn’t take long to see that these books are in fact the worse books that have ever been written. One must understand that if God does not exist, then there is no such thing as intrinsic Good and Evil. That being man has not been created to do good or seek an absolute standard of good. That there is no moral standard that humans are bound to follow as there is no moral mind behind the universe. Without God we live in an amoral world good and evil is just an illusion of the mind.
It is interesting to see that when God is wiped out from reality we are only left with biology and the laws of nature. This law we are told is the law of the survival of the fittest or the struggle to survive.
After reading the whole book I found the last chapter wrapped it profoundly, so I will quote from it,
“Can we gather from what screwed up the world, what might save it? In no small part, the carnage and confusion was caused by notions that the world, rather than humans beings, needed to be saved from and for something. To save the world from political impotence, Machiavelli would have us embrace effective brutality. To save the world from skepticism, Descartes ( I know he’s not an atheist) would have us become both more skeptical and more prideful. To save the world from Industrial oppression, Marx and Lenin would have us annihilate half the world in revolution. To save the world from disease, poverty, and every social ill, Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler would have us eliminate the hordes of “unfit”. To save the world from male oppression, Betty Friedan would have women kill their offspring. If such is the result of rejecting the notion that it is man, and not primarily the world, that is fallen, then the way might be open to a very sober reassessment of an ancient insight. There is something profoundly wrong with us, some crack or deep taint that is largely incurable because it is invisible, a terrible twist that begins in the soul and curls its way outward. These are the threads of the screws that have screwed up the world. The cracks in the soul become more visible when they are ignored. They become most visible when the twisted soul tries to rid the world of the very idea that each individual has a soul accountable to God. The twisted soul does this in order to deny its own twistedness, and that good and evil are defined by a divine source outside the self. The author’s we’ve examined who have taken a turn at twisting the screws that have screwed up the world all have this in common. They all deny sin.
The ideas of God and sin might be seem too mythical for this scientific age until we recall that whether the bad thinker is Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, or Freud, the authors we’ve covered in this book were mythmakers. They were enthralled by entirely mythical states of nature, entirely fictional alternative Eden’s, entranced by entirely impossible utopian paradises. Ten’s of millions of lives were offered up to the twin fictions of an alternative Garden of Eden and an alternative paradise, each taken and presented falsely as scientific fact…But when biology, rather than theology becomes the queen of the sciences, the Christian prohibitions against eugenics, the elimination of the unfit or the unwanted through abortion or infanticide, or the elimination of diseased races or classes all become merely medieval and irrelevant. Christian opposition to Kensey’s amoral analysis of bestiality, homosexuality, and pedophilia becomes ignorant and reactionary or even a “thought crime”. By following the trajectory of these books that screwed up the world, we can wonder whether the advance of science over theology is an unmitigated good, and whether it is really progress. Perhaps its bringing us to a new age of technological barbarism, wherein humanity becomes ever more religiously obsessed with health and sexual pleasure as pseudo-gods, sacrificing anything and everything to these twin deities.
The effect of kensey’s liberation was the creation of a sexual state of nature, wherein fatherhood and motherhood fast disappear and thousands of children are daily sacrificed to the devouring Moloch of “abortion rights”.
If the books we’ve covered offer an image of insanity, then perhaps by reversing the image and holding it up to a different light we can recover some outline of sanity. Perhaps we are not merely animal’s as Darwin would have it, but something more than animals. Perhaps we are not ghosts in machines, as Descartes would have it, but some other strange and glorious creature, something godlike, but with two feet on the ground. Yet, being something godlike, we are not, as Nietzsche would have it, gods ourselves, but something far less, a faint but glowing resemblance to someone else infinitely more resplendent. Perhaps there are dark corridors of our hearts that must be uncovered and exposed to light, as Freud would have it, but the darkness is not as hopelessly dark, and light comes from another heart illumined by puncture and resurrection. Perhaps we do need a final revolution, as Marx and Lenin would have, but it is a revolution from within and from above. Perhaps we should, as Mill bid us, seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but by filling our souls with unearthly joy rather than merely feeding our earthly pleasures like pigs. Perhaps, as Nietzsche howled, God did die, but rose again, an ubermensch of a very different kind, one that can save us from the madness of our own making.”
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Smacking is abuse, but Murder is fine!
In New Zealand we have a government that has decided that smacking your children is child abuse and must be banned. As usual the view is taken to an extreme, instead of jailing those who cannot tell the difference between a smack and a bash, we are labeled as Child abusers in the making. So to protect society smacking must be outlawed.
The problem with this idea is first that it is false, not all parents bash their children and second it is irrational to say smacking is abuse and killing the unborn child through abortions is not abuse. I would not even call it abuse, it is straight out murder and no philosophical argument can justify it.
We can complain about the abuse of Religions, but nothing comes close to the deaths that have been committed by Atheist regimes. You may want to look at Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod in their massive 1502 page 3-volume encyclopedia of war. It is compiled by nine reputable professors of history, including the director of the Centre of military history and the former head of the Centre for Defence studies. They conclude that from what we know from history there have been about 1763 wars and only 123 have been over religion. This makes religion 6.98 percent accountable. If you take away the wars from Mulism’s it drops down to 3.23 percent.
Ian Wisheart says in his book Eve’s Bite, about abortions that,
“Over the past decade nearly 500,000,000, that’s five hundred million, children have been killed in the womb by abortion. In ten years, that’s nearly double the combined death toll from genocide and war for the past 100 years! It equates to 137,000 children a day, or 95 children killed every minute around the clock. Based on the best public estimates of abortion, the figure rises to around 800,000,000 million deaths over the past 20 years-nearly 20% of the current global population.
To put that horrific figure in context, it equates to the entire human population of the world 200 years ago. We have killed off in 20 years the equivalent of the total planetary population in 1776”.
It is a disgrace what humans can do left to their own opinions and doctrines.
The unborn child these days is striped of any rights to life and this is due to the indoctrination of society. For there are only two views one can hold about human life. The first being that human’s are created in the image of God therefore all humans have inalienable rights. Meaning we are all created equal and worthy of life. The second view is that of Darwinism, that man has evolved over time by natural selection, through the process of the survival of the fittest. This view holds that for life to keep evolving the weaker races and genetic traits of people must be wiped out by the stronger traits. This is the only way evolution can work and it is the theory that has bread the idea of inferior races throughout history.
Norman Geisler in his book “Unshakable Foundations” quotes both Charles Darwin’s dogmatic theory and its influence on Hitler.
Charles Darwin; On the origin of Species,
“By means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life”.
Adolt Hitler; Mein Kampf,
“The superior race must not mate with the inferior races.
It is this indoctrination that has de-valued human life and spread to many other mass killing programs. It was the doctrine behind Hitler killing millions of Jew’s, Gypsies, Blacks and mentally handicap people. Hitler even killed people who had simple disabilities like being blind or annabel to speak properly because these weaknesses could not intermingle with the rise of the evolving super race. They even went as far as sterilizing as many blacks as possible as they were considered to be no more then slightly evolved apes.
Instead of believing life evolved by blind chance and weeded out the weak by itself. These thinkers become the designers of the destiny of mankind. Both views are completely wrong.
The thoughts of Charles Darwin lead on to the science of Eugenics. This science was basically a theory to wipe out of society the weak and the deformed or lower races. While killing them they would do science tests on them to be used in finding ways to improve the pure race.
As the holocaust was exposed and dealt with, other prophets of Darwinism started to rise again. Few people know that the Family Planning or Planned Parenthood groups were started up to promote birth control for the same reason, to stop the weaker races breading. Margaret Sanger in the 1920’s was the first feminist in America to set up a birth control clinic. Her goal was to prevent blacks and the poor from outbreading whites and the middle class. In 1930 Sanger said
“For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement.”
From this movement came slowly the choice of abortion. To kill a child that’s not wanted or has certain unwanted traits. It has got even worse today, these children are murdered because they are seen as a burden to ones life if they were to be born.
From mass killings of abortions, the length of time the baby is allowed to grow before one must have the child has got longer and longer apart. Today many abortions are done up to 32 weeks. These are called partial abortions and the mother basically gives birth to the baby fully but stops before the head comes out. And at this stage the Doctor gets a pair of scissors and stabs the baby in the back of the head and then sucks its brain out. Then the baby is fully withdrawn and thrown away.
Today it has got even worse, babies are aborted and their fetus or body parts are sold for science labs to do research on. Great money is being made by selling human body part’s. Weather it is eyes, legs or arms or lungs… This is exactly the same process the Nazis’ were doing on infants for medical research. Science may be keen to find cures for diseases, but you can not justify killing a few for the good of the many. As science gets more involved it wants fresher and fully formed babies to do its research on, so abortions get done latter and later.
What sort of society are we becoming when we murder innocent babies for their body parts so that money can be made and the superior race can be made.
When one rejects God who has created man in his image giving all people the equal right to live, man’s inherited worth becomes held in the hands of greedy murderers. Once man loses his right to live many become an animal ready to be disposed of when ever and how ever. Science will never stop unless it’s indoctrination changes. The next chapter of history is Euthanasia the disposal of the old or sick. Just maybe God has created sick people and old people for the very purpose to make people have to draw out of themselves a love that cares, an unconditional love that see love not as a burden, but as duty. Maybe the sick are suffering servants to draw love out of us, which would never come out of us if life were so simple.
The problem with this idea is first that it is false, not all parents bash their children and second it is irrational to say smacking is abuse and killing the unborn child through abortions is not abuse. I would not even call it abuse, it is straight out murder and no philosophical argument can justify it.
We can complain about the abuse of Religions, but nothing comes close to the deaths that have been committed by Atheist regimes. You may want to look at Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod in their massive 1502 page 3-volume encyclopedia of war. It is compiled by nine reputable professors of history, including the director of the Centre of military history and the former head of the Centre for Defence studies. They conclude that from what we know from history there have been about 1763 wars and only 123 have been over religion. This makes religion 6.98 percent accountable. If you take away the wars from Mulism’s it drops down to 3.23 percent.
Ian Wisheart says in his book Eve’s Bite, about abortions that,
“Over the past decade nearly 500,000,000, that’s five hundred million, children have been killed in the womb by abortion. In ten years, that’s nearly double the combined death toll from genocide and war for the past 100 years! It equates to 137,000 children a day, or 95 children killed every minute around the clock. Based on the best public estimates of abortion, the figure rises to around 800,000,000 million deaths over the past 20 years-nearly 20% of the current global population.
To put that horrific figure in context, it equates to the entire human population of the world 200 years ago. We have killed off in 20 years the equivalent of the total planetary population in 1776”.
It is a disgrace what humans can do left to their own opinions and doctrines.
The unborn child these days is striped of any rights to life and this is due to the indoctrination of society. For there are only two views one can hold about human life. The first being that human’s are created in the image of God therefore all humans have inalienable rights. Meaning we are all created equal and worthy of life. The second view is that of Darwinism, that man has evolved over time by natural selection, through the process of the survival of the fittest. This view holds that for life to keep evolving the weaker races and genetic traits of people must be wiped out by the stronger traits. This is the only way evolution can work and it is the theory that has bread the idea of inferior races throughout history.
Norman Geisler in his book “Unshakable Foundations” quotes both Charles Darwin’s dogmatic theory and its influence on Hitler.
Charles Darwin; On the origin of Species,
“By means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life”.
Adolt Hitler; Mein Kampf,
“The superior race must not mate with the inferior races.
It is this indoctrination that has de-valued human life and spread to many other mass killing programs. It was the doctrine behind Hitler killing millions of Jew’s, Gypsies, Blacks and mentally handicap people. Hitler even killed people who had simple disabilities like being blind or annabel to speak properly because these weaknesses could not intermingle with the rise of the evolving super race. They even went as far as sterilizing as many blacks as possible as they were considered to be no more then slightly evolved apes.
Instead of believing life evolved by blind chance and weeded out the weak by itself. These thinkers become the designers of the destiny of mankind. Both views are completely wrong.
The thoughts of Charles Darwin lead on to the science of Eugenics. This science was basically a theory to wipe out of society the weak and the deformed or lower races. While killing them they would do science tests on them to be used in finding ways to improve the pure race.
As the holocaust was exposed and dealt with, other prophets of Darwinism started to rise again. Few people know that the Family Planning or Planned Parenthood groups were started up to promote birth control for the same reason, to stop the weaker races breading. Margaret Sanger in the 1920’s was the first feminist in America to set up a birth control clinic. Her goal was to prevent blacks and the poor from outbreading whites and the middle class. In 1930 Sanger said
“For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement.”
From this movement came slowly the choice of abortion. To kill a child that’s not wanted or has certain unwanted traits. It has got even worse today, these children are murdered because they are seen as a burden to ones life if they were to be born.
From mass killings of abortions, the length of time the baby is allowed to grow before one must have the child has got longer and longer apart. Today many abortions are done up to 32 weeks. These are called partial abortions and the mother basically gives birth to the baby fully but stops before the head comes out. And at this stage the Doctor gets a pair of scissors and stabs the baby in the back of the head and then sucks its brain out. Then the baby is fully withdrawn and thrown away.
Today it has got even worse, babies are aborted and their fetus or body parts are sold for science labs to do research on. Great money is being made by selling human body part’s. Weather it is eyes, legs or arms or lungs… This is exactly the same process the Nazis’ were doing on infants for medical research. Science may be keen to find cures for diseases, but you can not justify killing a few for the good of the many. As science gets more involved it wants fresher and fully formed babies to do its research on, so abortions get done latter and later.
What sort of society are we becoming when we murder innocent babies for their body parts so that money can be made and the superior race can be made.
When one rejects God who has created man in his image giving all people the equal right to live, man’s inherited worth becomes held in the hands of greedy murderers. Once man loses his right to live many become an animal ready to be disposed of when ever and how ever. Science will never stop unless it’s indoctrination changes. The next chapter of history is Euthanasia the disposal of the old or sick. Just maybe God has created sick people and old people for the very purpose to make people have to draw out of themselves a love that cares, an unconditional love that see love not as a burden, but as duty. Maybe the sick are suffering servants to draw love out of us, which would never come out of us if life were so simple.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Safe Sex or a Cover Up for Promiscuity
The Biblical idea of abstaining from having sex until one is married is considered these days to be an abnormal practice, which many can not see any sense in the idea.
But in a world where sexual transmitted disease are rising all the time just maybe abstaining has it value. For others who believe sex is just for fun, and wish to go out and have many encounters the idea of safe sex is worth taking note. The saying goes “if your going to have sex, will at least have safe sex, use a condom’.This is what our society is preaching to the masses. But is there such a thing as safe sex?
Ian Wisheart in his book Eve’s Bites has a very interesting chapter on the myth of safe sex and it is from this chapter that I will quote and document his findings.
Wisheart says, A generation ago, couples were getting married in their early 20’s entering stable relationship and genrally avoiding promiscuity. As a result STD rates were much lower in the seventies and eighties. But today most people are not settling into long term relationships until their late 20s or 30s. They have multiple partners before marriage, and a corresponding huge rise in sexual disease rates…
Why is this case when many are using condoms because they are the way to protect one self. The interesting fact is more people are using condoms, but more people are catching diseases. One good reason may be because you have been told a lie?
The New Zealand Ministry of Health has a web site called Hubba.co.nz which is a web site designed to educate young people and adults on safe sex education.
As Wisheart says, the Hubba website doesn’t care that its information for young people is dangerously incorrect, judging from its arrogant Q&A on condom safety.
It states,
Q; Are condoms safe?
A; Condoms do protect you, some people say it isn’t worth using condoms because they have holes big enough for viruses to get through, but that’s not true. Bacteria and viruses …cannot pass through an undamaged condom.
The problem with this statement is that the most recent scientific studies have shown that condoms are not all that safe. Condoms may protect against Aids to a point, but not STD
Chlamydia; Still has a 60% relative risk of catching it even if a condom is correctly used every time
Gonorrhea; Still has a 60% relative risk of catching it even if a condom is correctly used.
Herpes; Still has a 60 % relative risk of catching it even if condoms are used correctly.
Genital Warts; No published study has found condoms can protect against this at all.
In fact Ian Wisheart goes on to say that every medical research study since 2001 has found condoms have only limited efficacy against venereal diseases. To support his claim he lists the top research studies that have been done, the first being the World Health Organization.
World Health Organization Bulletin, June 2004,
No published prospective study has found protection against genital human papillomavirus (cervical Cancer/warts/HPV) infection.
Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 2003,
A study of 917 female sex workers in Lima, Peru were re-examined monthly for infection STDs. Those women who consistently used condoms still had chlamydia infection rate of 74% compared to the infection rate of women who didn’t use condoms.
Journal of Sexual Transmitted Diseases, 2002,
A meta-analysis of 20 studies found no evidence that condoms were effective against genital HPV infection, warts or cervical cancer.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003,
A study of 444 female university students found that consistently using condoms with a new partner was not associated with significant protection against HPV.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004,
A study of 4314 participants who visited STD clinics found consistent use of condoms still resulted in an infection rate of 82% compared against those who didn’t use condoms.
Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999,
A study followed the progress of 484 adolescents at four STD clinics over six months, and found 21% of those who always used condoms had caught a sexually transmitted disease, compared with 23% of those who sometimes or never used a condom (a 91% risk of infection, group vs group)
Journal of Sexual Transmitted Diseases, 1995,
A study of 598 people attending an STD clinic in Baltimore found infection rates were almost the same, regardless of whether a condom was always used or not.
It is also shown that more gay men catch more disease due to contact with blood through anal sex even with condoms on. The idea of safe sex is a joke and the education that The New Zealand Ministry of Health gives that… Bacteria and viruses …cannot pass through an undamaged condom is a complete lie to the public. Instead of trying to teach society about true safe sex confined to one partner in a faithful relationship, we are left with a society who are going out their to have more sex because its safe because of condoms. This just is not true…
But in a world where sexual transmitted disease are rising all the time just maybe abstaining has it value. For others who believe sex is just for fun, and wish to go out and have many encounters the idea of safe sex is worth taking note. The saying goes “if your going to have sex, will at least have safe sex, use a condom’.This is what our society is preaching to the masses. But is there such a thing as safe sex?
Ian Wisheart in his book Eve’s Bites has a very interesting chapter on the myth of safe sex and it is from this chapter that I will quote and document his findings.
Wisheart says, A generation ago, couples were getting married in their early 20’s entering stable relationship and genrally avoiding promiscuity. As a result STD rates were much lower in the seventies and eighties. But today most people are not settling into long term relationships until their late 20s or 30s. They have multiple partners before marriage, and a corresponding huge rise in sexual disease rates…
Why is this case when many are using condoms because they are the way to protect one self. The interesting fact is more people are using condoms, but more people are catching diseases. One good reason may be because you have been told a lie?
The New Zealand Ministry of Health has a web site called Hubba.co.nz which is a web site designed to educate young people and adults on safe sex education.
As Wisheart says, the Hubba website doesn’t care that its information for young people is dangerously incorrect, judging from its arrogant Q&A on condom safety.
It states,
Q; Are condoms safe?
A; Condoms do protect you, some people say it isn’t worth using condoms because they have holes big enough for viruses to get through, but that’s not true. Bacteria and viruses …cannot pass through an undamaged condom.
The problem with this statement is that the most recent scientific studies have shown that condoms are not all that safe. Condoms may protect against Aids to a point, but not STD
Chlamydia; Still has a 60% relative risk of catching it even if a condom is correctly used every time
Gonorrhea; Still has a 60% relative risk of catching it even if a condom is correctly used.
Herpes; Still has a 60 % relative risk of catching it even if condoms are used correctly.
Genital Warts; No published study has found condoms can protect against this at all.
In fact Ian Wisheart goes on to say that every medical research study since 2001 has found condoms have only limited efficacy against venereal diseases. To support his claim he lists the top research studies that have been done, the first being the World Health Organization.
World Health Organization Bulletin, June 2004,
No published prospective study has found protection against genital human papillomavirus (cervical Cancer/warts/HPV) infection.
Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 2003,
A study of 917 female sex workers in Lima, Peru were re-examined monthly for infection STDs. Those women who consistently used condoms still had chlamydia infection rate of 74% compared to the infection rate of women who didn’t use condoms.
Journal of Sexual Transmitted Diseases, 2002,
A meta-analysis of 20 studies found no evidence that condoms were effective against genital HPV infection, warts or cervical cancer.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003,
A study of 444 female university students found that consistently using condoms with a new partner was not associated with significant protection against HPV.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004,
A study of 4314 participants who visited STD clinics found consistent use of condoms still resulted in an infection rate of 82% compared against those who didn’t use condoms.
Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999,
A study followed the progress of 484 adolescents at four STD clinics over six months, and found 21% of those who always used condoms had caught a sexually transmitted disease, compared with 23% of those who sometimes or never used a condom (a 91% risk of infection, group vs group)
Journal of Sexual Transmitted Diseases, 1995,
A study of 598 people attending an STD clinic in Baltimore found infection rates were almost the same, regardless of whether a condom was always used or not.
It is also shown that more gay men catch more disease due to contact with blood through anal sex even with condoms on. The idea of safe sex is a joke and the education that The New Zealand Ministry of Health gives that… Bacteria and viruses …cannot pass through an undamaged condom is a complete lie to the public. Instead of trying to teach society about true safe sex confined to one partner in a faithful relationship, we are left with a society who are going out their to have more sex because its safe because of condoms. This just is not true…
Saturday, June 7, 2008
All That Terror Teachers?
The Tittle of this post is based on a chapter I have just read in the book “Culture Shift; Engaging Current Issues With Timeless Truths, by Dr. R. Albert Mohler.” It is a good little book that shows what our secular culture is trying to do. And that agenda is basically the stripping of all of Christianity’s principles and philosophical views of reality out of society. For many this might sound like a great idea, but you must know what is left once you strip reality of an eternal interpretation. For those who don’t, it is the release of all rules and principles that make society function with dignity and respect.
There is coming whether you like it or not a society ruled by Anti-Christ. People laugh at the thought of some Devil system, but we already are living in it, step by step.
If you remove all of Christianity from the world, you are left with the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches and promotes about reality. All that the word “Anti” means is to be opposed or” in place of another” system.
We are living in dangerous times, but far too many seem to have forgotten this unforgiving fact. Terror is a tragic teacher and the memories of September 11, 2001, haunt us even now. Terror has taught us to accept reality. This is a dangerous world.
September 11 or 9/11 as some say was a wake up call of the danger of Religions that make a claim of having absolute truth in their hands. So for some the only lesson we can learn from this event is that claiming truth exists is a dangerous thing in the hands of those who are religious. But there is a big difference, religion had nothing to do with 911, it was due to evil terrorists who went out to destroy human life.
The truth is, the event was a wake up call to the secular world, that has been promoting throughout the University’s and Academic arenas that idea that there is no such thing as truth. That it is wrong to judge peoples actions as “who has the truth anyway when it comes to morality”. They claim “You Religious Christians are so judgmental”, as if their claim is not a judgment claim in itself. Yes I’ve seen it my self in the academic world of thinking, Now students there is no such thing as absolute truth, you must be tolerant of all peoples views of reality, sexuality, race and pleasures. That judging is politically incorrect. How a society can exist with laws like that under this system I do not know, but one thing is for sure deep down these people do not believe their Anti-Christ system. Why are they judging if no view is any more truer than any other.
Its amazing that when September 11 happened, the majority of the world cried out, this is absolutely objectively wrong. This is an act of evil implying that there is a universal standard of right and wrong. That ‘evil’ is in fact a part of reality which can not be explain from a secular worldview that denies that humans have a fallen nature and are driven by sin. To say that an action or an event is evil, is to judge it against a standard that the world (universe) should be following. That implies that there must be a moral law behind the universe. Morality is held in minds, so the ultimate morality behind the universe must be held in the mind of God.
We can be grateful to the Sovereignty of God who rules over every event of history for allowing this event to happen, although done through evil hands of terrorists, God has a good moral purpose for it passing. To shock and wake up a world that thinks truth does not exist and all views of reality and morality are equal (and could I say true!).
Its takes an act of terror to wake up our culture to see that God does exist and that trying to strip reality of his existence will not bring happiness and safety to the world.
In trying to reject God they find themselves afirming him and his worldview of reality, sin, evil, and an eternal stanadrd of goodness, his perfect interpretaion of reality.
There is coming whether you like it or not a society ruled by Anti-Christ. People laugh at the thought of some Devil system, but we already are living in it, step by step.
If you remove all of Christianity from the world, you are left with the complete opposite of what Christianity teaches and promotes about reality. All that the word “Anti” means is to be opposed or” in place of another” system.
We are living in dangerous times, but far too many seem to have forgotten this unforgiving fact. Terror is a tragic teacher and the memories of September 11, 2001, haunt us even now. Terror has taught us to accept reality. This is a dangerous world.
September 11 or 9/11 as some say was a wake up call of the danger of Religions that make a claim of having absolute truth in their hands. So for some the only lesson we can learn from this event is that claiming truth exists is a dangerous thing in the hands of those who are religious. But there is a big difference, religion had nothing to do with 911, it was due to evil terrorists who went out to destroy human life.
The truth is, the event was a wake up call to the secular world, that has been promoting throughout the University’s and Academic arenas that idea that there is no such thing as truth. That it is wrong to judge peoples actions as “who has the truth anyway when it comes to morality”. They claim “You Religious Christians are so judgmental”, as if their claim is not a judgment claim in itself. Yes I’ve seen it my self in the academic world of thinking, Now students there is no such thing as absolute truth, you must be tolerant of all peoples views of reality, sexuality, race and pleasures. That judging is politically incorrect. How a society can exist with laws like that under this system I do not know, but one thing is for sure deep down these people do not believe their Anti-Christ system. Why are they judging if no view is any more truer than any other.
Its amazing that when September 11 happened, the majority of the world cried out, this is absolutely objectively wrong. This is an act of evil implying that there is a universal standard of right and wrong. That ‘evil’ is in fact a part of reality which can not be explain from a secular worldview that denies that humans have a fallen nature and are driven by sin. To say that an action or an event is evil, is to judge it against a standard that the world (universe) should be following. That implies that there must be a moral law behind the universe. Morality is held in minds, so the ultimate morality behind the universe must be held in the mind of God.
We can be grateful to the Sovereignty of God who rules over every event of history for allowing this event to happen, although done through evil hands of terrorists, God has a good moral purpose for it passing. To shock and wake up a world that thinks truth does not exist and all views of reality and morality are equal (and could I say true!).
Its takes an act of terror to wake up our culture to see that God does exist and that trying to strip reality of his existence will not bring happiness and safety to the world.
In trying to reject God they find themselves afirming him and his worldview of reality, sin, evil, and an eternal stanadrd of goodness, his perfect interpretaion of reality.
Our Culture Of Counterfeits!
The world seems to always think it knows best when it comes to morality and rules. Never mind that God has crated this world to run and function according to his rules and principles. As our culture pull’s back from their creator, God’s good rules are slowly bent and twisted to fit humanity sinful desires. Our culture takes sex, which is a good thing and twists it into something destructive. This destructive drive is just a counterfeit that will destroy humanity step by step unless we return to our Biblical standards.
In the early twentieth century the British social scientist J. D. Unwin conducted a massive study of six major civilizations and eighty lesser societies covering five thousand years of history in order to understand how sexual behavior affects the rise and fall of social groups. He set out expecting to find evidence supporting Sigmund Freud’s theory that civilizations are essentially neurotic and destroy themselves by restricting sex too much. But to Unwin’s surprise, all the evidence he discovered pointed exactly the other way.
Dr. Daniel Heimbach says,
“But rather than being injured by restricting sex to marriage, Unwin found that in every case that the “expansive energy” of a social group comes from restricting sex to marriage, and sexual license is always the immediate cause of culture decline. In other words, all the evidence he discovered showed that survival of a civilization or society depends on keeping the family life strong and not allowing individuals access to sex in ways that do not support family life…In every verifiable case, he found that once a group becomes sexually permissive, the energy of the society decreased and finally disappeared. A society would begin with high standards limiting sex to one partner in marriage for life. This produced great strength, and society or culture would flourish. Then a new generation would arise demanding sex on easier terms and would lower moral standards. But when this happen the society would lose vitality, grow weak, and then die.”
If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will. We only have to reflect on our world today where a large majority of people aren’t even bothered in getting married while the other half are all getting divorced. Faithfulness is crumbling before our eyes and the act of sex is just about non-existent to being kept for marriage alone. We have teen’s having sex just for fun, we have people having sex just for the feelings, we have swingers changing partners ever week, we have gays, we have lesbians, we have incest in our nation, we have gender confusion. If we do not open our eyes we will head down the same street to destruction.
We must wake up to the counterfeits, I will call them, Romantic morality, Playboy morality, Therapeutic morality.
Romantic Morality,
What we call the romantic sexual morality could be called sentimental sexual morality or affections. This form of morality is based on romantic feelings. Romantic sexual morality glorifies the importance of sentimental affection in sexual relationships that sex is justified based on feeling alone. It basically turns “unconditional love’ into love for the moment. There is a great difference between love and “being in love” which is just a feeling. Feelings change, does that mean we walk out of every relationship and go and sleep with another person and just use people as sex objects to give us good feelings, or is love more than this. True love, loves even when one hates some one for a period of time and true love loves beyond feelings. True love goes beyond pleasure and fun. A relationship based on feelings will not last and makes a mockery of the promises one says to each other when they do get married. Love is not just affection, our affections must be judged by morality.
Playboy Morality
What we call Playboy morality refers to some one who lives for pleasure and who believes that acts of physical sex are justified for no other reason than their ability to entertain. Sex is about pleasure not love, passing the time excitedly with a friend, acquaintance or stranger, without commitments or hurt. Sex is like food, a commodity that we seek and buy as we wish. The problem with this view is that pleasure itself does not define the difference between right or wrong behavior. Sexual pleasure is meant to be moral, but nothing is moral just because it is pleasurable. The second problem is that it fails to define any difference between pleasure and joy. Pleasure comes and goes very fast, but joy last must longer. Encouraging people to think that seeking pleasure will bring them true happiness is a joke as happiness wears off very fast. Joy is a sense of feeling that can last even when there is no pleasure in our experiences. Joy is a much stronger love than mere shallow physical sensations of pleasure. True love for people endures beyond feelings and pleasure. It is also is very self centered, sex is all about getting oneself off with pleasure. When true love and respect for others, is about manifesting joy in your partners heart and soul. It is about thinking of others even if you don’t get what you want all the time. It makes sex very shallow and reduces people to a loaf of bred who can be brought for relief. Also if sex is not defined by a morality first, then who is condemn the person who likes pleasure by combing sex and violence or causing others to suffer. The more people use sex for selfish reasons, the harder it gets to find some one who wants to be used. The less relational, less personal or less unique sex becomes, the less enjoyable or truly satisfying it becomes. Once people are defined as impersonal objects for pleasure, true love and faithfulness loses its power. It loses it power to protect “love” and “personal safety” for us all to get along in a society.
Therapeutic morality
Therapeutic sexual morality is basically all about self, self-actualization, self-fulfillment and self-esteem. When one rejects a faithful biblical unconditional loving relationship, which has boundaries to project individuals in marriage to ground enduring love, individuals pull back to self-centeredness and redefine the term love. Love becomes based on feelings and pleasure and then too impersonal sensations. Once love is based on feelings that do not endure, love becomes short lived and exposed as selfish lusts for ones own wants and needs. In this environment society can not last long as this kind of love will not put up with having to love when there is no pleasure or gain for one self. People basically become lovers of self.
In the early twentieth century the British social scientist J. D. Unwin conducted a massive study of six major civilizations and eighty lesser societies covering five thousand years of history in order to understand how sexual behavior affects the rise and fall of social groups. He set out expecting to find evidence supporting Sigmund Freud’s theory that civilizations are essentially neurotic and destroy themselves by restricting sex too much. But to Unwin’s surprise, all the evidence he discovered pointed exactly the other way.
Dr. Daniel Heimbach says,
“But rather than being injured by restricting sex to marriage, Unwin found that in every case that the “expansive energy” of a social group comes from restricting sex to marriage, and sexual license is always the immediate cause of culture decline. In other words, all the evidence he discovered showed that survival of a civilization or society depends on keeping the family life strong and not allowing individuals access to sex in ways that do not support family life…In every verifiable case, he found that once a group becomes sexually permissive, the energy of the society decreased and finally disappeared. A society would begin with high standards limiting sex to one partner in marriage for life. This produced great strength, and society or culture would flourish. Then a new generation would arise demanding sex on easier terms and would lower moral standards. But when this happen the society would lose vitality, grow weak, and then die.”
If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will. We only have to reflect on our world today where a large majority of people aren’t even bothered in getting married while the other half are all getting divorced. Faithfulness is crumbling before our eyes and the act of sex is just about non-existent to being kept for marriage alone. We have teen’s having sex just for fun, we have people having sex just for the feelings, we have swingers changing partners ever week, we have gays, we have lesbians, we have incest in our nation, we have gender confusion. If we do not open our eyes we will head down the same street to destruction.
We must wake up to the counterfeits, I will call them, Romantic morality, Playboy morality, Therapeutic morality.
Romantic Morality,
What we call the romantic sexual morality could be called sentimental sexual morality or affections. This form of morality is based on romantic feelings. Romantic sexual morality glorifies the importance of sentimental affection in sexual relationships that sex is justified based on feeling alone. It basically turns “unconditional love’ into love for the moment. There is a great difference between love and “being in love” which is just a feeling. Feelings change, does that mean we walk out of every relationship and go and sleep with another person and just use people as sex objects to give us good feelings, or is love more than this. True love, loves even when one hates some one for a period of time and true love loves beyond feelings. True love goes beyond pleasure and fun. A relationship based on feelings will not last and makes a mockery of the promises one says to each other when they do get married. Love is not just affection, our affections must be judged by morality.
Playboy Morality
What we call Playboy morality refers to some one who lives for pleasure and who believes that acts of physical sex are justified for no other reason than their ability to entertain. Sex is about pleasure not love, passing the time excitedly with a friend, acquaintance or stranger, without commitments or hurt. Sex is like food, a commodity that we seek and buy as we wish. The problem with this view is that pleasure itself does not define the difference between right or wrong behavior. Sexual pleasure is meant to be moral, but nothing is moral just because it is pleasurable. The second problem is that it fails to define any difference between pleasure and joy. Pleasure comes and goes very fast, but joy last must longer. Encouraging people to think that seeking pleasure will bring them true happiness is a joke as happiness wears off very fast. Joy is a sense of feeling that can last even when there is no pleasure in our experiences. Joy is a much stronger love than mere shallow physical sensations of pleasure. True love for people endures beyond feelings and pleasure. It is also is very self centered, sex is all about getting oneself off with pleasure. When true love and respect for others, is about manifesting joy in your partners heart and soul. It is about thinking of others even if you don’t get what you want all the time. It makes sex very shallow and reduces people to a loaf of bred who can be brought for relief. Also if sex is not defined by a morality first, then who is condemn the person who likes pleasure by combing sex and violence or causing others to suffer. The more people use sex for selfish reasons, the harder it gets to find some one who wants to be used. The less relational, less personal or less unique sex becomes, the less enjoyable or truly satisfying it becomes. Once people are defined as impersonal objects for pleasure, true love and faithfulness loses its power. It loses it power to protect “love” and “personal safety” for us all to get along in a society.
Therapeutic morality
Therapeutic sexual morality is basically all about self, self-actualization, self-fulfillment and self-esteem. When one rejects a faithful biblical unconditional loving relationship, which has boundaries to project individuals in marriage to ground enduring love, individuals pull back to self-centeredness and redefine the term love. Love becomes based on feelings and pleasure and then too impersonal sensations. Once love is based on feelings that do not endure, love becomes short lived and exposed as selfish lusts for ones own wants and needs. In this environment society can not last long as this kind of love will not put up with having to love when there is no pleasure or gain for one self. People basically become lovers of self.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Boundaries Exist to Protect
Our culture today does not think much of the Biblical standards on sex and marriage. To many they seem old fashioned or out of place with reality. The laws seem to suppress our desires and human nature to a point of controlling our freedom to enjoy life. But this is the deception of the lie that man can live without boundaries that are imposed upon the desires of humanity. What we think is suppressing our freedom is in fact boundaries that protect the health of our souls so that we can live-out faithful loving relationships that care for all people.
Know where in the Bible does God hate or reject sex as a good thing. For it was God who created us with sexual organs and desires. But the truth is for one to gain ultimate satisfaction and intimacy, which manifests true unfailing love one must have boundaries. It is these boundaries that promote intimacy that flows out of the family unit into the community, which keeps society functioning. The idea of saving sex for marriage and keeping sex between a married couple bound for life these days seems kind of out of touch with reality. But as I hope to show the more you walk away from the perfect standard the more unconditional love is trashed and twisted and society starts to break down.
The first question that we must ask is ‘What is marriage any way”? Is marriage just a social construction that joins “Whoever” together for a season while love is felt? Or is marriage a Covenant that binds two couples together for life to manifest the love of God to each member of the marriage. These two views have two totally different views on what “love” means and also on what is the purpose of marriage.
Biblical Principles Shape Moral Sex
God designed sex to work as a relationship between persons, not things. The first positive principle is that sex must be personal. Sex is designed to express a truly meaningful level of human relationships. If sex occurs denying personal value, then people are turned into sex objects, with no care for ones emotional well being. To have a personal relationship with a spouse is to value their soul and inner qualities and characters traits. To love their strengths and weaknesses, caring about their feelings. This promotes trust, safety, and dignity and worth that makes them feel connected in a faithful loving relationship.
Because sex was designed to be a relationship uniting persons made in the image of God, it cannot be treated as a commodity in which people are treated as if they are impersonal objects. This reduces people to objects that are valued only for performance.
Once one-steps back from this first principle they become selfish, turning unconditional love, into impersonal lust. Once love loses its relationship power, this rejection flows from the family unit into society and manifests in comminutes which then don’t respect any one for their personal worth as a human being.
Sex Must be Exclusive (Unique)
Biblical teaching demands that sex be a part of marriage and not before. God made sex special, so special in fact he wants us to treat each sexual relationship as something that is “one of a kind”. A person with whom you have sex is not someone who should be treated as if he or she were replaceable or could be exchanged. God’s plan for sex transcends the material value of physical performance. It is about showing one person your ultimate love in a way that expresses sexual power that is so intense that your love and experience is for your spouse alone. Sex is powerful! So why trash it by giving it to every one. Nonexclusive sex is a message that tells your partner “You are nothing special” feelings comes and go, I’ve had these feeling with others…Sex is not just about pleasure and feelings, it is about love which lasts when pleasure and feelings pass. Sex is one of the ways of expressing your love of commitment and faithfulness to your spouse. Sharing around just cheapens your love and worth for your spouse. When sex is reduce to just sleeping with who ever, the experience becomes what one worships instead of loving the person whom is your only unique.
Sex must be Intimate
The third positive principle is that human relationships must be intimate. Besides being personal and exclusive, sex must also involve intimacy because it is a relationship designed to be deeply meaningful and profound. Sex must be intimate because God designed sex to join souls and not just bodies. Sex is to manifest true love and edify each other for the love one has for each other. A Marriage is about two becoming one, working together to draw out the goodness that is in each other and in accepting each other faults by openly forgiving each other and reconciling your unconditional love back to each other. Marriage was never supposed to be easy, it is a covenant that teaches us to love.
Marriage creates a climate where this love is put to the test. The highest standard of love is unconditional love and it is in marriage that this claim of love is tested. Marriage is to bring to people who are created in the image of God together to learn to love through the struggles to manifest the character of God to each other being bound in a covenant of unconditional love. It causes us to learn to love, forgive, respect, being faithful so we don’t hurt our spouse. It is to endure sufferings to manifest a love that suffers long, which is not based on pleasure or feelings that change over time. It is a love that is to express the love of God that is working through us.
Sex must be Fruitful
The fourth principle is that moral sex bound by marriage is to be productive. Sex is not just for our own pleasure. But produces offspring, children that are to be part of a loving faithful relationship. They are to be born into a relationship that is to be a model that teaches and trains them to grow in the ways of Gods character, so when they grow up they can manifest God’s love to another. I’m not saying every time one has sex one must have a child, but this is one expression of bringing into being a little person to express love to. The Bible does also say that sex is for pleasure and intimacy to unit couples in a loving relationship which does not include having children, don’t get me wrong. But God does give this gift as a choice. When sex is just impersonal, nonexclusive, and non-intimate children arrive on the scene in an environment that has no connection to love or off belonging. They are just an accident and properly a burden to one's selfish pleasures.
For some they are such a burden that they are thrown away aborted.
Sex must be Selfless (Sacrificial)
A fifth principle is that sex must be selfless and sacrificial. God made sex enjoyable, but not for self-centered ways. Sex is meant to satisfy, but was not made for self-satisfaction. Love is a gift that must be given to another. Sex is an expression of your love for another and as you give your love and pleasure to another out of unconditional love, you will receive love and pleasure back. Sex is not about what we want, when we want it. The act must be done flowing from the right motives and care for the other spouse. Sex is more than just the physical. Sex was also meant to be complementary meaning that God has created a man for a woman as the fit together perfectly on many levels. They are different but complement each other. Selfish love, based on pleasure alone, is impersonal lust, and is not love.
Know where in the Bible does God hate or reject sex as a good thing. For it was God who created us with sexual organs and desires. But the truth is for one to gain ultimate satisfaction and intimacy, which manifests true unfailing love one must have boundaries. It is these boundaries that promote intimacy that flows out of the family unit into the community, which keeps society functioning. The idea of saving sex for marriage and keeping sex between a married couple bound for life these days seems kind of out of touch with reality. But as I hope to show the more you walk away from the perfect standard the more unconditional love is trashed and twisted and society starts to break down.
The first question that we must ask is ‘What is marriage any way”? Is marriage just a social construction that joins “Whoever” together for a season while love is felt? Or is marriage a Covenant that binds two couples together for life to manifest the love of God to each member of the marriage. These two views have two totally different views on what “love” means and also on what is the purpose of marriage.
Biblical Principles Shape Moral Sex
God designed sex to work as a relationship between persons, not things. The first positive principle is that sex must be personal. Sex is designed to express a truly meaningful level of human relationships. If sex occurs denying personal value, then people are turned into sex objects, with no care for ones emotional well being. To have a personal relationship with a spouse is to value their soul and inner qualities and characters traits. To love their strengths and weaknesses, caring about their feelings. This promotes trust, safety, and dignity and worth that makes them feel connected in a faithful loving relationship.
Because sex was designed to be a relationship uniting persons made in the image of God, it cannot be treated as a commodity in which people are treated as if they are impersonal objects. This reduces people to objects that are valued only for performance.
Once one-steps back from this first principle they become selfish, turning unconditional love, into impersonal lust. Once love loses its relationship power, this rejection flows from the family unit into society and manifests in comminutes which then don’t respect any one for their personal worth as a human being.
Sex Must be Exclusive (Unique)
Biblical teaching demands that sex be a part of marriage and not before. God made sex special, so special in fact he wants us to treat each sexual relationship as something that is “one of a kind”. A person with whom you have sex is not someone who should be treated as if he or she were replaceable or could be exchanged. God’s plan for sex transcends the material value of physical performance. It is about showing one person your ultimate love in a way that expresses sexual power that is so intense that your love and experience is for your spouse alone. Sex is powerful! So why trash it by giving it to every one. Nonexclusive sex is a message that tells your partner “You are nothing special” feelings comes and go, I’ve had these feeling with others…Sex is not just about pleasure and feelings, it is about love which lasts when pleasure and feelings pass. Sex is one of the ways of expressing your love of commitment and faithfulness to your spouse. Sharing around just cheapens your love and worth for your spouse. When sex is reduce to just sleeping with who ever, the experience becomes what one worships instead of loving the person whom is your only unique.
Sex must be Intimate
The third positive principle is that human relationships must be intimate. Besides being personal and exclusive, sex must also involve intimacy because it is a relationship designed to be deeply meaningful and profound. Sex must be intimate because God designed sex to join souls and not just bodies. Sex is to manifest true love and edify each other for the love one has for each other. A Marriage is about two becoming one, working together to draw out the goodness that is in each other and in accepting each other faults by openly forgiving each other and reconciling your unconditional love back to each other. Marriage was never supposed to be easy, it is a covenant that teaches us to love.
Marriage creates a climate where this love is put to the test. The highest standard of love is unconditional love and it is in marriage that this claim of love is tested. Marriage is to bring to people who are created in the image of God together to learn to love through the struggles to manifest the character of God to each other being bound in a covenant of unconditional love. It causes us to learn to love, forgive, respect, being faithful so we don’t hurt our spouse. It is to endure sufferings to manifest a love that suffers long, which is not based on pleasure or feelings that change over time. It is a love that is to express the love of God that is working through us.
Sex must be Fruitful
The fourth principle is that moral sex bound by marriage is to be productive. Sex is not just for our own pleasure. But produces offspring, children that are to be part of a loving faithful relationship. They are to be born into a relationship that is to be a model that teaches and trains them to grow in the ways of Gods character, so when they grow up they can manifest God’s love to another. I’m not saying every time one has sex one must have a child, but this is one expression of bringing into being a little person to express love to. The Bible does also say that sex is for pleasure and intimacy to unit couples in a loving relationship which does not include having children, don’t get me wrong. But God does give this gift as a choice. When sex is just impersonal, nonexclusive, and non-intimate children arrive on the scene in an environment that has no connection to love or off belonging. They are just an accident and properly a burden to one's selfish pleasures.
For some they are such a burden that they are thrown away aborted.
Sex must be Selfless (Sacrificial)
A fifth principle is that sex must be selfless and sacrificial. God made sex enjoyable, but not for self-centered ways. Sex is meant to satisfy, but was not made for self-satisfaction. Love is a gift that must be given to another. Sex is an expression of your love for another and as you give your love and pleasure to another out of unconditional love, you will receive love and pleasure back. Sex is not about what we want, when we want it. The act must be done flowing from the right motives and care for the other spouse. Sex is more than just the physical. Sex was also meant to be complementary meaning that God has created a man for a woman as the fit together perfectly on many levels. They are different but complement each other. Selfish love, based on pleasure alone, is impersonal lust, and is not love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)