Category: Christ and Culture
Out of the Box Thinking
Out of the Box Thinking
Before you do what some call “out of box the thinking”, You might want to know something about box thinking and boxes. First, you must know what the box is that you are in and you must admit you are in it, and then you must be able to find or create a different or new box. For all thinking is done in one box or another. There are linguistic boxes, cultural boxes, ideology boxes and paradigm boxes. However, no thinking is done outside of all boxes. In other words, there is no such thing as a free thinker or out of the box thinker. To think otherwise is to think in the worst box of all ” the stupid box.”
Now there are some huge problems to overcome for those who fancy themselves out of the box thinkers. One is that there are few, if any human beings, who are able to create a completely new box. The limitations of box building seemed to be understood just a few decades ago, when people seemed to sense that only intellectuals of the highest degree could think about box building. However, because of are fantastic education system and our love for pure knowledge, we can now all build boxes. Maybe, each of us can have our own box? The truth is, that very few are able to know the box that they are in much less create a new one. Box makers are few and far between; they are men like Moses, Plato and Jesus. In fact, most boxes are not made by individual, but by complete cultures over a long period of time with a lot of hard work.
What most people mean by “out of the box thinking” is thinking without a foundation of any authority, which in the end simply means giving your own option on a subject with no appeal to an authority outside and other than yourself. One thing that could be said for out of the box thinkers is that in appealing to themselves as the only authority needed, they have saved themselves a lot of laborious study, which is usually required for box building.
I should be careful, for if I say too much, some in the educated class might get the idea to hire these out of the box thinkers to teach everyone to build these easy self created boxes. We could even standardize the boxes, We Westerners are good at that, and then our university could mass-produce out of the box thinkers. We could have the loony bin box, the chaos box and the confused box and in this, we could all be different and the same, at the same time. The America dream comes true, everyone in their own box.
The God Moloch and Abortion
The God Moloch and Abortion
The god Moloch was an ancient pagan god that was worshipped in the Mediterranean area in ancient times. The worship of this god consisted of a number of typical acts of worship, but there was one that set them apart from most other pagan gods, and that was infanticide, i.e. the killing of babies by burning them alive as an offering to god. There was also some evidence that they practiced all kinds of sexual perversion, even bestiality. This culture was so disgusting to the God of the Jews that he order the Israelites to totally destroy them.
Now let me share the rest of the story. The god Moloch was just one of the many forms that the god mammon (money) has taken throughout the history of humanity [i]. This observation led me to the question, what was the real reason for killing their children? Was it religious or economic? In actuality, I believe it was both. Ancient people were not as ignorant as we moderns would like to believe. They knew, or at least believed, that their resources were limited and that they had to manage the number of people in the tribe. So, they simply killed their children, however, it is not easy to get a mother to kill her off spring purely for economic reason, so religion was used by the leaders to justify the killing. The killing was then actually turned into a virtue and the mother could then actually think they were honoring god by killing their children.
The same god of mammon (money) was appealed to in the 60s to justify killing of the unborn in the U.S. The world was over populated and abortion was a way of controlling the population[ii]. In the same manner, someone would have to be sacrificed for the tribe to exist. Some would have to be burned alive for the tribe. The difference between us and them is now we have the technology for witch doctors to burn the babies alive in the womb before birth with an incendiary salt solution which can burn the fetus alive. Of course, for the left the witch doctors, and those that help him in this human sacrifice, are considered virtuous and even martyrs by the tribe of the left, because they are saving the tribe from starvation and extinction. Needless to say, the tribe survived and everybody makes money and we are civilized and they were barbarians
[i] Matt 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” NKJV
[ii] A new form of ethics was created to justify abortion called life boat ethics. The earth was imaged as a life boat floating out in space and those in the lifeboat had the right to refuse others the right to get into the boat for there wasn’t enough food for an unlimited number. This ethic actually made those, who are kept people out of the lifeboat, heroes.
Angels of darkness or Angels of Light?
Angels of darkness or Angels of Light?
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H.L. Mencken
There was a time in our past when liberalism was the champion of individual rights and liberty. Therefore, the question arises, how could a movement that championed the rights of the individual become one of the most coercive forces in the world today, imposing its political ideology and world view on everyone?
To answer this question, all we need to do is look at the roots of liberalism. It is rooted in the desire to save and liberate the individual, by ensuring and protecting their rights.[1] Who could question that motive and goal? However, as the concept of saving the individual evolved, liberals attempted to take in more and more people under their protective wing. This evolution continued until the concept of saving the individual evolved into saving the world, whether it wanted to be saved or not. Liberalism is now evolved into the self-appointed savior of the world. In fact, if individual rights get in the way of its mission, the individual must lose. Mix this attitude with the hubris attitude of the enlightenment, which many liberals have inherited, you have a world view which is dangerous and a threat to individual liberty.
Because many liberals are blinded by their ideology of world saving, they fail to see that other men may choose a different good, and pursue the good life in a different fashion than the liberal way[2]. They also fail to see that many men do not feel that they need to be saved and reject the liberal definition of salvation and their definition of oppression.
However, liberals, especially the extreme type feel compelled to save everyone from what they believe is their inferior world view, and they continue their crusade to democratize the world their way even if they have to go to drastic means to accomplish it. In this, many liberals are very much like some religious folks who believe that it is perfectly ethical and right to force their beliefs on all people because they believe liberalism is the only way to salvation. When any group reaches this point their motives change from salvation to domination.
Many liberals believe that people must be saved from themselves, whether they like it or not. Therefore, they feel perfectly justified in using the legal system and even the school systems to manipulate and force their views on people. This liberal salvation now encompasses every corner of our existence from what we eat, to the environment. We call this assault on personal freedom political correctness. However, the thoughtful person can see it for what it is, a “new Inquisition” cultivated by a philosophy, which has evolved into the secular religion of liberalism.
We are now at a crossroad in our culture. We have the choice of returning to the true liberal view of the past or continue the course of neo-liberalism which we are presently on, if you can call it liberal. Some call it progressivism. If we choose the latter, we should be prepared for more political correctness and government intervention into our lives and less individual freedom[3].
LD
[1] Extreme liberals have taken this to the point of believing that the individual should be liberated from all morality and God himself.
[2] Liberals criticize Christianity for its exclusiveness and yet it practices the same exclusiveness in believing that the liberal way to the good life is the only way.
[3] Let me recommend a great book, The Betrayal of Liberalism with the subtitle of “How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control” by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball.
The Great Myths of Modern Man
The Great Myths of Modern Man
The lawless man is produced by the spirit of evil and armed with all the force, wonders, and signs that falsehood can devise. To those involved in this dying world, he will come with evil’s undiluted power to deceive, for they have refused to love the truth which could have saved them. God sends upon them, therefore, the full force of evil’s delusion, so that they put their faith in an utter fraud and meet the inevitable judgment of all who have refused to believe the truth and who have made evil their play-fellow. The Apostle Paul
Before we can have a rational discussion on the subject of modern myths, we need to understand the terms and concepts we are using. When I use the word myth, I am not referring to something that is false, but rather to a large explanatory story or narrative that gives us some insight into what stands behind the way we view the world. In science they are called models or paradigms. In religion they are called shadows, types, or parables. In essence, myths are large metaphors that we use to talk about the things that we cannot see and yet believe they are there. They are believed to be the truths that point to the truth that stands outside of man’s grasp. All true myths in some fashion and to some degree, depict reality. If this were not the case, they never would have been elevated to the place of myth. With this in mind, we are ready to talk about the great myths of modern man.
In order to understand the making of the great myths of modern times, we have to understand the time of the Enlightenment in Europe which gave rise to the great myths of Western civilization. The Enlightenment was a time of great upheaval and change in the thinking of man. The old authorities in every area of life were being challenged and being replaced. Feudalism was being replaced with democracy, magic with science, capitalism with socialism, and faith with atheism.
During this Enlightenment period there was a tremendous effort by the skeptics of religion to move the masses away from religion. To do this, they would have to convince the masses that heaven could be created on earth by man and a transcendent God and a heaven up there was no longer needed. If you recall, mankind had once tried to build a tower to heaven, which ended in Babel[1]. If man could not storm the gates of heaven, he would simply build his own on earth, while shaking his fist in defiance at the God of the true heaven.
However, to storm the gates of heaven and bring heaven down to the earth, mankind would need a huge amount of power; he would need a machine that could replace God. He found his machine in the creation of the modern state.[2] The state would be God walking on the earth creating heaven on earth, a heaven in which the God of heaven was no longer welcomed. In the new myth of the state, it would be God who is banished from the new paradise, not man. In this, we see the birth of the modern state and atheism, which are the two greatest myths of modern time.
In order for the modern state to become a god in the eyes of the majority of people, they would have to believe it had the power to save them and deliver them from the forces beyond their control. These forces would include natural disasters, diseases, the very forces of nature, even death. In order to accomplish this, the state would need to have a mechanism to convince the people that it was their true savior and not religion. It would also need a discipline that could be used to support it. That discipline was found in the new field of science. It is self-evident that science and the state have grown together and are very much dependent on each other.
And since the time of the Enlightenment the state has continued to annex more and more of the scientific enterprise for its own selfish ends, those being ultimate authority and domination. In the last few decades science has been increasingly controlled by the flow of money provided by the state to support its research.
Another great myth of modern man is Darwinism. The thinking of the Western world has been controlled by the concept or myth of undirected evolution since the time of Darwin. In fact, it has become the dominating concept behind most science and thinking in general. For many, the concept is now a self-evident truth. To most, everything is getting bigger and better, moving from the simple to the more complex.[3] Of course, this concept fits well into the ideological concept of progress that was implanted in the midst of the Enlightenment by Christian millennialism[4] and was the foundation on which they built the humanistic project of replacing the concept of a heaven up there with a heaven down here. It also fit well as it supported the ideology of a capitalistic system, which was the prevailing economic ideology during the time of Darwin. Darwinism has always been strongly supported by the ruling class, which maintains its place through the educational system of the state.
You could say that Darwinism was the missing link that the humanist skeptics of the Enlightenment (not science) needed to banish God from the earth.[5] They needed a theory of how things could be explained without an appeal to a deity. So the maxim was created that everything in the new discipline of science must be explained by natural causes without an appeal to a deity. Of course, this sealed the faith of the new discipline of science as the weapon of choice for the skeptics and atheists to support and spread their unbelief or should I say their new belief?
However, true science was not created to banish God from the earth and many of the greatest scientists have been believers.[6] Science as a discipline is the study of nature and has little to say about the existence of a God who stands outside nature.[7] Science can make the statement that it has not found God in nature, which is a statement that theologians could make as well; on the other hand, many men of science can and do say that they see things in nature that seem to point to a deity who had organized all things.
To the thinking person and the person who truly understands science, science explains nothing; it only describes things. It answers the “how” question not the “why” and “what” questions. For example, when it speaks about light, it does not explain it but rather describes the way it behaves. Sometimes it behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaves like a particle, but these are metaphorical descriptions and do not tell us what light is. In fact, if we where to ask science to explain itself, it could not give an explanation without the aid of philosophy; in itself it could only tell us what it does, not what it is.
What are the great myths? They are the myths of the mega state and the myth that it has the power to save, which is the myth of modern science-ism. It is the belief or myth that everything in reality can wholly be explained by the theory of materialistic evolution. Evolution is surely a large part of the circle of existence, but it is not the whole. It may help us with a number of how questions, but it never answers the why questions of existence, and it is the why questions that gives life meaning.
In view of the above, the question must be raised as to how many of the new myths really square with reality and how many of them are simply illusions.
[1] Babel means confusion.
[2] Note: The Myth of the Machine by Lewis Mumford.
[3] This view of evolution is not based on science and is believed by the masses.
[4] The Christian faith believes that everything is moving toward perfection and completeness. This concept evolved in the West into a strong belief in the concept of progress. Without the Christian faith, the question must be raised as to whether or not there are any grounds for a belief in progress.
[5] Of course, true science explains nothing; it simply describes things. When it slips into explaining things, it ceases to be science and becomes philosophy or something else.
[6] To name a few: Nicolas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.
[7] The US National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with the following statement: “Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” This was taken from Who Made God?: A Searching for a Theory of Everything by Fay Weldon.
Loving the World (matrix)
Loving the World (matrix)
“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” 1 John 2:15-17
In the above Scripture, the apostle John tells Christians that they are not to love the world or anything in the world. The question is, what does he mean by the word world? In the Scriptures, the word world is used in a number of different ways. It is used to refer to the earth, that is, the planet on which we live. It is used to refer to the people that live on the earth as in “God so loved the world that he gave his only son.”
However, in the above passage, the apostle is not talking about the physical earth or the people that live on it. He is talking about a system of thought that controls the people of the earth. There is nothing strange in this language, for we ourselves use a similar metaphor for the way people think. We often talk about the spirit of the age. We understand when we use this expression that we are talking about a worldview that controls people’s thinking during a certain period of time. It is a system of thought or way of looking at things which is controlled by a force that is a larger than the individual and even the group. It is like a corporate consciousness that controls the thinking of the majority of men. It is the matrix. The outward form of this system or matrix changes from time to time, but at its root it is the same.
The system of the world takes its outward form in belief systems that men create–systems like ideologies, religions, economic systems, and political systems. These systems blind men to the truth of God. When a man puts his faith in Jesus, God then open his eyes so he can see the system of the matrix that controls the thinking of the world. At the same time, his eyes are opened so he can see the kingdom of God.
What has this to do with political parties? Jesus told His disciples that there were many things that they were not ready to hear because they could not bear it. What I’m about to say, many of you may not be able to bear. Political parties are a part of the system of this world, which are part of the matrix. The apostle Paul in the book of Galatians 5:19-20 tells Christians that parties or factions are the work of the flesh (matrix) and those who participate in that spirit will not inherit the kingdom of God. What is so wrong with a party spirit? Do you remember the movie “The Matrix”? It is a story of small groups of people who are able to see the reality of the world while the majority of men are blinded by a force called the matrix. Let’s look at a little of the story line.
Morpheus talking to Neo: “Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know, you can’t explain. But you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life; that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is. But it’s there–like a splinter in your mind–driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me.”
Neo: “The matrix?”
Morpheus: “Do you want to know what it is? The matrix is everywhere. It is all around us–even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, or when you go to church, or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”
Neo: “What truth?”
Morpheus: “That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage–born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. (In his left hand, Morpheus shows a blue pill.) You take the blue pill and the story ends. You awake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (A red pill is shown in his other hand.) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. (Neo reaches for the pill). Remember, all I am offering is the truth–nothing more.”
Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water.
The knowledge that I spoke about above which you might not be able to bear, is that your political party is a part of the matrix. If you cannot see this, it is a good clue that you are in the matrix and don’t know it. If you put it in the words of Jesus, “You have eyes that don’t see and you have ears that don’t hear.” The good news of the Gospel is that you still have time to take the red pill. You still have time to wake up and receive the kingdom of God as a little child. “I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15). How does a child receive the kingdom? First of all, he receives without presuppositions that blind him to the truth. Secondly, he receives it in humility, for it is pride that keeps a person from seeing the matrix and the kingdom of God. How do you become a little child? An old sage told me that the only way to find truth is to drop all your beliefs. I guess that is just another way of saying that you must become like a little child.
In the story of the matrix, Morpheus told Neo that he, Morpheus, had nothing to offer but the truth. Jesus told His disciples that all they would have is trouble: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). You will find that to preach that people ought to wake up, tends to make them angry. They would rather stay asleep, even if they’re living a nightmare. Pride does funny things to people.
In conclusion, let me give you some ideas that may help you to wake up. First of all, get rid of all parties that you belong to. This means all political parties, religious parties, and ideological parties. Stop thinking of yourself as a conservative or liberal, but rather as an independent thinker. Begin thinking of yourself as a Christian only, but not the only Christian. Become an independent, politically and religiously. All of this will help you to change your thinking and allow you to see clearly “for as a man thinks in his heart so is he.” If you are independent you will begin to think like an independent and if God gives you the grace, you may get outside the matrix and see the kingdom of God. By the way, it will take a miracle (see John 3:5,6).
Scared to Death
Scared to Death
“Never miss an oppertunity to take advanage of crisis”
Rahm Emanual
I don’t know about my readers, but I am sick and tired of being scared to death by our government. Over the last 60 years our government has tried to keep the American people in a state of fear. In the 50s it was the threat of communism taking over the world. In the late 50s, it was the threat of nuclear war. I remember being told to go into the hallway of our school and sit with my back against the wall with my head between my knees to protect me from the building collapsing because of a nuclear explosion. Today we would probably call that child abuse.
We were also told that the earth was becoming so overpopulated that people would soon not have enough food to eat[1]. Again, in the 60s, we were told that communism was going to sweep the world and we would have to stop it in some obscure place called Vietnam. That time around, the government literally scared about 55,000 of us to death in that needless war.[2] Then in the 70s, we were told that a new Ice Age was coming and that North America would probably be engulfed by glaciers. It’s no wonder that the young people went a little crazy in the 60s and 70s. Could it be that they were scared crazy by our government?
In more recent times it’s been pandemics, epidemics, and catastrophes of all kinds, none of which have come to pass. Do you remember the computer glitch of 2000 when we were told that when the clocks changed from 1999 to the year 2000 the computers were going to fail and time would stop? That one was a good job creator! I had a professional friend who bought into that scary false prediction, cashed in his retirement, and lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. By the way don’t forget those weapons of mass destruction.
Now that I’m a young old man, these jerks are still trying to scare me to death. They’re still using the fear of communism, but that is waning because a growing number of them are communist. Recently they used the fear of another Great Depression to get a whole lot of money from us. Now they’re telling us that the world is heating up and going to melt if we do not give them more of our money. On top of all of this, they are also telling me that if I get sick, I will not have access to medical care and that I might die. They assure me if I give them more of my money they will take care of me, of course I will still die. Well, I’m not buying it. I’m done listening to Chicken Little telling me that the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end. One thing about the real Chicken Little, though he went around screaming that the world was coming to an end, he never offered to save the people for a price like our government and its experts always do. I don’t know about you, but I find all this fear mongering despicable, and I believe that there’s something that we can do about it. We can fire them all! “Never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis”. That’s code for never miss an opportunity to scare people to death so you can get more of their money and stay in power.
A word from the Lord, “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.” (1 Peter 3:14-15).[3]
[1] This fear was use to promote the legalization of abortion. Resulting in the death of about 40 million infants.
[2] The democratic governments of the world seem to be usually wrong about who the real enemies are. Before World War II they were telling us that Hitler was no threat when it was obvious he was preparing for war.
[3] The fear of God removes all other fears and sets you free from fear and anxiety.
The Cultural War
The Cultural War
Is there a cultural war going on? The answer is yes. It is a war between good and evil, darkness and light, righteousness and unrighteousness. It is a war that has gone on since the beginning of human history. This battle is depicted in the Biblical story of Cain and Abel and has continued as a theme throughout the entire history of mankind. What we are seeing today is only an intensification of a war which has been going on behind the scenes for a long time in our culture.
What has caused the intensification of this war? I think we can answer this by asking and answering another question. Why have Americans been able to live together for so long with less conflict? To answer this, it will be helpful to look at the founding fathers. The founding fathers of our country were a mixture of religious and not so religious men, but they had some very important things in common. They were all very moral men and shared the same value system. Their shared value system and their respect for one another and the work which they were doing seemed to be enough to bind them together in unity and purpose.
When we analyze the founders we see a mix of high humanists and Christians. The high humanists seemed to be men of faith, though not always completely Christian in their theology; yet they seemed to share the high morality of their Christian brothers. However, like their Christian brothers, they often failed to live up to the virtues they espoused. All seemed to have a great respect for the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.
The question then is: What has changed? I do not believe that Christian morality is much different today than it was at the beginning of our country. If anything, it is less rigid and less dogmatic. I think the problem comes when we look at the humanists of our nation today. I would say that it would be safe to say that there are far fewer high humanists today than there were at the beginning of our nation. Today many humanists have embraced a hedonism which borders on a low paganism more than a high humanism. They have embraced a morality that cannot be accepted by Christians, and they have embraced a profane view of the world that leaves no room for a divinity or a people who believe in one. In essence, they have declared war on religion and Christian morality.
Moreover, compared to previous times there are many more militant atheists who seem to have as their goal to marginalize religion in our culture. They are continuously and openly attacking religion at every turn, claiming that our culture is a secular culture and that it was the intent of the founding fathers to create a secular nation. (Of course, they call their attacks civil liberty). If it is true that the founders wanted a secular culture, why did the founders talk so much about the deity, and why did they pass down so many religious symbols in and out of the public square? If it was the intent of the fathers to create a secular nation, why didn’t they simply state it? Only ONE president has ever said that America was a secular nation. Guess who? Obama. However, to be fair to President Obama, he just may be right. Our country is moving away from its religious roots at an alarming rate. Of course, to some it may not be alarming, depending on one’s view of religion and one’s world view. It will be interesting to see if a nation whose roots are deep in religion will be able to remain free and prosper if cut off from those roots.
At this point in our history, I think it’s a tossup as to who will win this cultural war. The humanists have control of the majority of the universities, the major media, and the public schools. The traditionalists and the conservatives have control of talk radio and the home school movement. They are writing far more books and still have the majority of churches supporting them. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next decade. You might have noticed that I left God out of the equation. If you bring Him in to the equation it sure raises a lot more questions. LD
What About Gay Marriage?
Gay Marriage
In the last few months, I have had a number of people call me to ask my opinion of gay marriage, and they attempted to change my mind when I told them I did not think it to be a good idea. I listened to them politely and then shared with them my opinion. The following is that opinion. In this article, I have purposely tried to avoid any argument based on religion or morality.
Recently, I received a number of telephone calls asking my opinion on gay marriage. In actuality, the calls were an attempt to convince me to vote for the state of Maine to approve gay marriages. In some respects, I could care less as to whether the state approves or disapproves of gay marriages, as it will have no impact upon my thinking about it. To me, the truth about any matter is not established by a mob or by counting noses. However, I do feel it will most likely have an impact on my freedom of speech in this country. As we see in Canada and Europe, after gay marriage was accepted, it became illegal to speak against it publicly. In Canada, clergymen are not allowed to speak against sodomy and homosexuality except in their churches and cannot even post a biblical verse in public that condemns the practice. So, I guess as a preacher, I should speak my mind now, before my liberal friends put me in jail.
I also believe that once gay marriage is accepted by the state of Maine or our country as a whole, public schools will be forced to teach it as an acceptable lifestyle, therefore normalizing sodomy as a lifestyle that is not morally or religiously accepted by the majority of Americans. Proponents of same-sex marriage say that this will not happen. However, in many cases this is purely a lie for they know it is already happening in most states that have accepted same-sex marriage (California has already passed such laws). It seems that most states that have enacted this law, find it impossible to merely be neutral on this issue. In view of this, I do not believe we should give the state of Maine power to force the gay agenda on the rest of us. Of course, I also know this is exactly what our progressive liberal friends want to do.
For those who will call me a homophobic, I want to point out that I have a number of gay friends with whom I have discussed this matter. Some of them like the idea of gay marriage, while others hate it, and many are indifferent. They seem to reflect the same feelings of the general population. Therefore, rejecting the idea of gay marriage does not mean that one hates gays.
Is It a Civil Right?
One of my callers informed me that marriage is a basic civil right. I strongly believe in civil rights, but I also believe that those rights can and should be limited by one’s culture, common sense, common decency, and respect for others’ customs and traditions. When these things are violated, the government has the right to place limits on people. Just because I want to do something does not mean that it’s my civil right. To be a civil right, the thing I what to do should be civil. I don’t have the right to go into the ladies’ room no matter how urgently I have to go. Should I have the attitude that if women don’t like it, then that’s just too bad? They’re just bigots. They’re just hung up with a social taboo called modesty. Maybe we could change the definition of modesty or do away with it all together? Would that be civil? Should I start a movement demanding that everyone be gender blind because our culture has a law that says that I have the right to use a men’s room? Does my not being able to use the ladies’ room violate my civil rights? I just do not believe that marriage is a civil right any more than a man going into a ladies’ room is a civil right.
The Cost of Gay Marriage
I also have some serious questions about the cost of redefining marriage in our culture. One of the callers assured me that it would have no financial impact upon the culture. How can that be when it has the potential of bringing millions of uninsured people into the system at a lower rate? Someone will have to make up that difference. Will it be heterosexual married couples or will it be single people? Why should a single person pay more for insurance than gays? Gays want the same rights as married couples but more rights than single people. Is that fair? They want the state government to do to singles what they say the state has done to them by giving married heterosexual rights that they do not have. Moreover, what about the cost of changing all the marriage forms to accommodate gay marriages? That should be good for a few million dollars.
I do not know about you, but I am personally weary of paying for the so-called civil rights of minorities and special-interest groups. Recently, the U.S. Navy retrofitted their jet planes to accommodate women pilots. This little project cost the American people millions upon millions of dollars so a handful of women could be happy and fulfill their dream. Those modifications also disqualified males over a certain size because they could no longer fit into the cockpits. What about their rights? Is that fair? Can we any longer afford such extreme policies to make a few people happy? Recently, the government mandated that every motel in the country that has a swimming pool must also have a mechanical elevator in their pool to accommodate handicapped people. This little law will cost the American people billions of dollars and will only be used by very few people. How many handicapped people traveling will actually use these pools? Would it not have been smarter to give tax breaks to motels that would install these machines, giving those motels an advantage over their competition? Should we provide escalators up all the mountains so everyone can climb every mountain? Is it not their civil right to have equal access? Yes, if it is within reason and common sense, which it seems some Americans no longer possess.
Do you see where all this is going? The concept of civil rights has morphed into a catchall term that means “the government must make me happy.” My response is—nonsense. If you want to climb a mountain, and you cannot walk up it, get a friend to carry you or change your desire. If you want a contract with your partner, get a lawyer to draw it up. Enjoy your gayness, but do not force it on my children or me.
Is Same-Sex Marriage Fair?
One big problem with gay marriage is that it is not fair for the gays to be treated as though they are a third sex. Why should their feelings for someone give them some special rights over other single people that are not sexually attracted to the same sex? Why shouldn’t people who are good friends of the same sex, who do not have erotic feelings for those friends, not have the same rights as married people and gays? Because of the insurance and tax benefits of marriage, I could see in the future all single people claim they are gay in order to get the benefits. In view of this, one would have to conclude that gays are not asking for equal rights, but special rights. Let’s do some clear thinking and come up with a system that will protect everyone without changing a human and religious tradition that has been around for thousands of years.
You see, the thing that people are missing in this debate is that marriage was never about adults meeting their need for sexual fulfillment or even companionship; it was for the children. Its primary purpose was for procreation and the raising of children. Therefore, people can be friends and love each other without being married. We can also give everyone the same rights of married people without calling their relationship marriage. Why restrict the word marriage just to gays? Why not apply it to all relationships where people want a legal contract to define their relationship? However, the real question is why use the word marriage to define a relationship that religion and Western culture have held for eons to be between a man and a woman. Why divide our culture over a word? What the gay movement is doing makes no sense, and I suspect a large number of unspoken motives are behind this agenda. I personally believe that if we use the word marriage to define a gay couple’s relationship, we are well on the way down the road to destroying the concept of traditional marriage, which has been defined by nearly all religions for over two thousand years as between a man and woman.
Picking a Fight
When the gay movement chose marriage as a term to denote their relationship, they should have had the foresight to see the battle that they would have with conservatives, traditionalist, and religious people. Their attitude has been—to hell with them. We want the world to change and give us special rights. Why would anyone believe that people should change a tradition that has existed for as long as human history without debate and resistance? What kind of people would do that, other than radical liberals and progressives?
As a traditionalist, the gay movement has given me no overwhelming or compelling arguments for me to change my thinking about marriage. All I hear from them are little sound bites like “It is the fair thing,” or “It is our civil right,” or just name-calling to intimidate me.
What is Next?
I asked one of the callers what was next. He responded with “What do you mean?” “Well,” I said, “if people that love one another should be able to get married, what about polygamy? His response was that would be stepping out on the slippery slope. I then asked him if same-sex marriage might be a similar step. His response was, “It is different because more people think polygamy is wrong.” I then asked him if his statement would not have been true ten years ago about gay marriage, before the gay movement began their PR campaign to normalize their brand of sexuality. There was silence. The truth is from a rational point of view there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy or for that matter, incest. Why would it be wrong for a boy to marry one’s mother if they love each other and are sexually attracted, assuming it was impossible for them to have children? Is not incest like homosexuality, just one of those past taboos of ancient man? Once people embrace utilitarianism and relativism, there is nothing left but a slide into the abyss. We are already on that slide. Of course, there are those who think sliding down a slide is progress.
The Government and Same-Sex Marriage
The young man who called me stated he did not believe that the state should be involved with marriage. However, from my point of view, petitioning and lobbying the state to approve something is not getting the state out of it, but rather an attempt to get the state on your side of the issue. Whenever this is done, it is for using state power to force one’s agenda on others. You can be assured that the militant gay leaders have an agenda for state power. Could it be to use the public school system to normalize homosexuality? It may be a good idea to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, and I think I would support the gays in that effort, but I really do not think that is their goal. In defense of the state (an institution that I do not like too much), I believe it was quite rational for the state to favor marriage over singleness. Marriage produces families, and families produced good citizens; consequently, they passed a number of laws to help people in their marriages for this in turn strengthens the state. So, I believe the state was acting in good faith and for the general welfare when it gave married couples certain privileges. I still have no problem with that position.
A Dangerous Experiment
One of my main concerns about same-sex marriage is that there has at no time been a culture in the history of the world that has accepted, or notwithstanding, proposed same-sex marriage. Even the Greeks and Romans in the height of their perversion never suggested the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Is it really a wise idea to undertake such a huge social experiment without a lot of thought and debate?
Marriage has been from the dawn of civilization between a man and a woman. Even our language is built around that supposition. When I refer to my wife, people instinctively know that I am taking about a female partner. If we legalize gay marriage, men will have to be called wives and woman will have to be called husbands. If we don’t do it, the politically correct police will probably sue us or call us homophobic. Will the male playing the female partner in a gay marriage be able to go into a lady’s room, or will we have to build another set of bathrooms? Remember, we cannot put any traditional norms on people without violating their civil rights.
I mentioned something along these lines to my callers, and their reply was that we are more moral and progressive in our thinking than the Romans and Greeks. From my study of history, there was a time in Rome and Greece when the people would have thought that we were the barbarians, and they would have been right. Only a radical liberal could believe and apply the concept of progress to Western culture in the last few decades. Western culture in the last one hundred years has been sliding into the worst declension the world has ever seen. In the last century, there has been more genocide, abortion, and war than all the rest of humanity has perpetrated together from the dawn of time. In business and government greed and narcissism reigns. Addictions have enslaved millions of individuals. Sexual perversions have escalated beyond the imagination of Greeks and Romans. Yes, we have come a long way, baby. Liberals and progressives need to face the fact that the high humanists of the Enlightenment are dead and gone, and all that remains are a new hedonism and paganism cloaked by a thin veneer of liberal self-righteousness.
The Real Source of Gay Marriage
What the gay movement is attempting is far beyond anything that could have been imagined 20 years ago. What changed? The change did not begin with the gay movement. What is happening in our culture is the fallout of a philosophical movement called postmodernism, which began in our universities a few decades ago. Those involved in this movement are called deconstructionist (for a good reason). Out of this group came our radical feminists, radical environmentalists, and our radical gays. This movement and those involved believed that our culture and institutions are so corrupt and flawed that they must be destroyed and replaced with something totally different, even though they cannot quite yet define what the other looks like. One of the larger contributors to this movement is the radical feminist who believes that the institution of marriage was created for establishing and continuing male dominance over women. This means that in their brave new world, marriage between a man and woman must go. It also means that our culture must become gender neutral. This means same-sex marriage, same-sex bathrooms, same-sex classes, and same-sex dorms. This movement will continue to force same-sex norms on the world until the world is gender neutral. Their goal is a sexually vanilla world. (It sounds pretty yucky to me, if not purely boring.) The ACLU is one of the promoters of the deconstructionist movement.
Let me make a few observations, the first one being that I do not believe that postmodern ideology is going to usher in any kind of utopia. Those who believe this are naïve and outright foolish, as most central planners seem to be. Based on our past liberal utopian experiments, the odds would indicate that we are heading toward another fiasco of epidemic proportions, like the loss of our civilization. This, however, does not bother the deconstructionist for they believe that the system must collapse so the unknown can take its place. The problem is they don’t know what the new looks like, but they do believe that they will be in power to shape its future.
When you understand that nature is not very forgiving, it should be obvious that Western culture should be extremely selective about the roads it travels. This includes changing the meaning of marriage. It takes thousands of years sometimes to build a civilization, especially one like Western civilization. However, civilization is fragile and can be destroyed easier than most could imagine. We need to be very much aware of the deconstructionist among us, and there are many. They are angry and often hateful people bent on destruction. Unfortunately, a lot of nice naïve people get duped into aiding them in their mission.
Where Does This End and When Will It Stop?
When does this all stop? If our culture compromises common sense and morality for every group that can organize and create some civil unrest, where does it end? Does the culture have to surrender its civilization to be liberal? Do we have to stop thinking to make people happy? Can a culture make everyone and every lifestyle equal? Should we accommodate the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which wants to lower the age of consent in order for older men to have sex with boys? Their group is growing.
Canada is an example of a liberal government trying to make a moral-free culture where no one can make a negative judgment about other people’s lifestyle. A judgment-free culture is not a culture, and it will not be a free culture for very long. In order for a culture to be judgment-free it must restrict the free flow of information and restrict freedom of speech as they have done in Canada. In fact, with all the reading I do, I have not seen one honest debate on homosexuality or gay marriage. Why? I’ll tell you one reason—homosexuals and advanced liberals intimidate any dissenters by calling them homophobes and other names (as one of my callers did). I personally think it is time to draw a line in the sand and take a stand on traditional marriage.
Before you vote for gay marriage, please take the time to think through the issue very clearly. Take into consideration all the consequences and implications of voting for it. Do not be swayed by propagandists’ arguments based on emotionally charged expressions like: “It is only fair.” “It is the right of two people who love one another to get married.” Remember, the gays I talked to do not believe that people should have the right to enter a polygamist relationship. So they really do not believe that everyone that loves each other should have the right to get married. Why not? Where is the fairness? Polygamists love one another as much as other people. Is it not fair to put limits on their relationships? What about the brother and sister who love one another? Should we deny them the right to get married? Why not, if they love one another and do not have children or for that matter, why not a mother-son marriage? Do we really as a culture want to open up these debates?
My Conclusion
My conclusion is that we should be cautious about legalizing gay marriage. If this cultural experiment fails, it may be extremely hard to correct it. I ask you to exercise prudence and caution in voting for gay marriage.
I have purposely left out of this discussion any appeal to religion or any discussion about the myths created by the radical gay community to justify homosexuality and gay marriage. However, for those interested in an exchange that I had with a pro-gay marriage person in which I do bring religion into the discussion, please drop me an email, and I will send you a copy.
The following is an interesting video on homosexuality.
Is Socialism Christian?
Is Socialism Christian?
A letter to a young Christian
In your letter you asked if socialism is Christian. By asking this question, I am assuming you are asking whether or not it is compatible with Christianity. Before answering the question, we might need to ask another question. Does it work? Socialism, like so many other theoretical systems of man, looks good on paper, but in real life, it doesn’t seem to work very well. History seems to verify that socialism is flawed and not a workable system. In fact, it has never worked anywhere in the world. It promises equality and plenty for all but seems to make everyone equally poor, except the top two percent. Of course, all those who endorse or promote it imagine themselves as being a part of the two percent.
Not only has socialism failed in other countries, it has failed here in America as well. The first two settlements in this country attempted a pure communistic type community. These communities had common storehouses and no currency. In other words, they had no money. Everyone could take from the storehouse what they needed. I believe these communities included Jamestown and Plymouth. Now keep in mind that these were deeply devoted Christians who loved one another. In a short time the storehouses were empty and the communities were near starvation. The leadership was forced to change to a purely capitalistic system. “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” In a short time the community was thriving and people were back working. Even those who were sickly and weak miraculously got better and went to work. There is something about the grim reaper of starvation that seems to motivate people to work.
For socialism to work, massive power must be given to the state in order for the state to be able to manipulate and control the masses. The state must have enough power to change human nature and do away with sloth and greed. The problem with this is that the state can never have enough power to change human nature for human nature cannot be changed. The people who believe that it can are materialists who believe that humanity has no nature, which contradicts our faith and is rejected by science. However, if you do believe that the state can, with enough power, change human nature, you then have a problem with who will control the state. Once the state has been given this massive power it will soon become demonic as it begins to plan and control the lives of every individual. No group of men should ever have this kind of power. Remember that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Here is where we see the wisdom of the founding fathers of our nation. They knew for men to be free there must be limits placed on the size and power of government, lest government exalts itself to the place of God. We should be thankful to our founding fathers who instilled in our form of government limitations on the power of government.
It is a well-kept secret that the founding fathers knew all about socialism and communalism. Benjamin Franklin ran into it in France and was less than impressed. He saw the theories of socialism as the source of the bloody French Revolution and the chaos that followed. Samuel Adams said of socialism: “The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution) are as visionary and impracticable as those which ivest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”
The reasons for socialism failing are many. One of the greatest, I believe, is the fact that it is based on a false view of human nature. It assumes and arrogates that man is basically good and born totally neutral in his nature toward good and evil. In other words, he is born into the world as a blank slate on which his environment writes the script of his life. This theory sets in motion a number of dangerous concepts. One is that through centralized planning the government can manipulate the very nature of man. The government can remake man to be unselfishly seeking what is the best for the community. They believe that government can undo all the faulty programming put into an individual by the institutions of a capitalistic system. If the institutions cannot be reformed or captured by the government they must be destroyed. This is why socialistic and communistic governments are never friendly toward Christianity or any religion. They see religion as a major hindrance to their central planning and manipulation.
Moreover, this centralized planning and its corresponding manipulation raises some serious questions. Who will do the planning and who will choose the agenda? Who will determine what constitutes the good? This view of man as a blank slate is also in conflict with the Christian faith which teaches that man basically has the propensity to do evil. Some refer to this propensity toward evil as original sin. However, you do not need the Bible to tell you that men are prone to evil; just read a newspaper. It is one of those self-evident truths that the founders spoke about.
Now, the greatest danger with this false worldview of man and his nature is that there is enough truth in it to make it believable. The truth is that man is both good and evil. In this, man is a unique creature who has a dual nature. He stands uniquely between heaven and earth. He has a will both to do good and evil. In other words, every man has a shadow. Therefore, our faith teaches that man needs God to strengthen his desire to do good and grace to keep him from doing evil. Left to himself, he will tend to gravitate toward the evil. It is also true that many men and maybe even the majority can be manipulated by controlling their environment, but there are always the exceptions, and we all like to think that we are the exception. These exceptions are what demonstrate that the humanistic view of man’s nature is false.
Now, if we compare socialism and Christianity, we will see a tremendous contrast. First, the church never was constituted by Jesus to force people to pay taxes or give to their neighbor. It is not an institutional Robin Hood. In the same vein, Jesus never took away from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, Jesus never commanded His disciples to give to the poor. He simply assumed that they would out of their love for their brothers. He did command them to love one another. He knew that out of love would come a freewill offering from their hearts. He had no need to level taxes or ties on them. “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work” (2 Cor. 9:6-8).
The Bible or our faith should not be used to justify any kind of collectivism which invariably will take economic freedom away from the individual and lead into totalitarianism of the worst kind. Socialism seems to be an attempt by secular man to control his own greed and his love for money. In this, those who endorse socialism fail to realize that money is a spiritual power that cannot be defined or defeated by any earthly systems. Jesus spoke of it as a spiritual power, as an idol that rules in the hearts of men. Only God can destroy the love of money in the hearts of men by replacing it with love for God and their brothers.
I have a friend who is a socialist and believes that the government should have a lot of programs to help the poor. However, he believes that paying taxes is his giving. He very seldom gives money away personally and on a spiritual level that is the only way to defeat its power. Even in giving your money away, such giving should be done with the upmost caution and wisdom. It should be done in humility and not for the purpose of seeking the praises of men. The Lord said, “Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Giving in secret will strengthen your heart with grace.
You also need to remember that giving money to people can often hurt them and actually create resentment. Money is a mediator. Do you remember the song that says “money talks”? Money does talk; it tells you who the boss is and it mediates between the classes. In a recent survey I read, the largest group of people that dislike the government was those who received the most benefits from the government. Money does not bind people together; it separates people. If you ever want to get rid of a friend, just loan him some money. You will immediately see a change in your relationship because you are no longer his equal; you have become his benefactor.
Socialism will never serve God’s purpose in the world nor any other system of man; this includes capitalism, though at the present time capitalism seems to be the lesser of two evils. When you take money away from one group to give it to another, it has nothing to do with righteousness or goodness in a Christian world view. Socialists refer to their distribution of money as social justice. In some cultures it might be called stealing. The rich and powerful in every society including socialistic ones, give money to the poor for two reasons: To keep the poor in their places and for their own glory and praise. As Jesus said, “They love the praises of men.” Look at what the presidential candidates gave to the poor a year before the election: almost nothing. Don’t think for a minute that any government really cares for the poor. The poor are used as pawns in their political chess game.
Only in Christ is found the true equality of the rich and the poor. For in Christ there are no rich and poor, professionals and nonprofessionals, educated and uneducated; for all are one in Christ. In Christ the rich and the poor are blind to each other’s social standing. “The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom fall and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business” (James 1:9-11).
Mankind has had many utopian schemes to bring heaven down to earth. The Tower of Babel was one such scheme, and we see how it ended in misery and chaos. Remember what the Bible said, “It is not in man that walks to direct his steps.” In the story of the fall of man in the book of Genesis, it is recorded that when God ejected the man from the garden, he set two angels with flaming swords at the gate to make sure that mankind would never enter by his own power. The pied pipers of progress have been trying to storm those gates since the dawn of time. Some of them may have good intentions, but they have caused great misery and chaos in the world. Their good intentions gave rise to communism which has killed over 100,000,000 people in the name of equality. It has also created a welfare class that is dependent on the ruling class for its bread and circuses. In doing this, it has stripped these people of their humanity and the dignity that comes from self-sufficiency. These people may think they are doing good, but the devil has a way of using the misguided good to do evil.
Therefore, I encourage you to be wise in your search for social justice and in the ways that you help your fellow man. Make sure that all you do encourages and builds up all those whom you are trying to help. Remember the words of President Lincoln: “If you give a man a loaf of bread you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” Above all, remember to point people to Jesus Christ and the one and only true heaven.
Gratefully redeemed,
Lyle Duell
Lyle Duell 