While watching the institution of marriage being assaulted on live national TV yesterday by three federal judges, it became eminently clear that American society is in the death grip of the secular humanists.
What stuck out for me was the question, "what is the rational basis for traditional marriage?" This question is indeed the product of a humanist mind. One could rephrase the question as "what is the scientific basis for traditional marriage?"
Yesterday's hearing picked up where the radical secularist court decision of Judge Walker left off. God was not allowed to step into the courtroom. No religious arguments were allowed in favor of marriage.
As a result the proceeding took on an absurd, almost comical character. The arguments seemed to come directly from Alice's trip through the looking glass (mirror). Tweedledum and Tweedledee could have been the lawyers arguing the pros and cons of marriage before the judges. And the Mad Hatter and the Hare could have been the presiding judges.
"Absurd" does not begin to describe the proceedings. In the background one could almost hear the Red Queen admonishing, "Off with their heads!" Indeed.
Once placed under the secular humanist microscope, the meaning of marriage seemed to vanish in thin air like the Cheshire Cat. There was nothing left but a thin smile which once detached from its body lost all its true significance.
To hear the attorney arguing against traditional marriage point out the fact that the Supreme Court in all its history has never defined marriage as between a man and a woman; and then to hear him argue that this was somehow proof that this definition was never intended was the absolute height of ridiculousness.
This was only matched by the feeble arguments of the attorney defending marriage. The best he could come up with was an argument revolving around the procreative aspect of marriage. Such a flimsy argument was easily countered by the judges through the glaringly obvious observation that there are couples that are married and are infertile. Somehow the attorney seemed unprepared to counter this argument; as if it had never occurred to him.
But all this just points out that religion when placed under a scientific microscope does not stand a chance. Yes, once you deny the existence of God then religion has not a leg to stand on. And Christianity cannot withstand any logical argument once the divine nature of Christ is denied.
I know there are apologists that claim to be able to defend Christianity under these terms. But as demonstrated by the case of Proposition 8, once the humanists are allowed to set the ground rules then a fair fight is not possible; rather the court proceedings resembled that of the Roman Colosseum under Emperor Nero when the defenseless Christians were thrown to the lions.
The time has come for America to decide whether it wishes to continue to be a Christian nation, or whether it wishes to become an atheistic nation. We have flirted long enough with the idea of a religiously neutral nation and we have seen where that leads us – a religiously neutered nation. If the Christian majority is not willing to defend itself and re-establish the nation on Christian principles, then the long slide towards secular humanism will continue.
This is sometimes called "progress". But how is it that "progress" abandons all the accumulated wisdom of humanity embodied in tradition in order to institutionalize the latest fashion? True progress would maintain the Christian principles of the majority while at the same time respecting those who do not share our views. But this does not mean that Christianity must be totally rejected in order to accommodate those few who are actively seeking to destroy it. Christianity is an inherently tolerant and forgiving religion. It is much more humane than those who call themselves "humanists".
In this season of Advent when we anticipate not only the birth of the baby Jesus at Christmas, but also the Second Coming of Jesus in triumph over the world; it is fitting to remember these closing words of the Book of Revelation, "Come, Lord Jesus!"
The ridiculousness of this whole same-sex marriage arguement is just too much!! Don't these judges realise that their WHOLE WORLD is based on the Christian bible...even the court they stand it?
ReplyDeleteAnyway...to the silly arguement I will quote directly from Genesis 2, 20-25, the King James version. I also went to a protestant school and I still believe in God.
...And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the air, and to every beaast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a HELP-MEET FOR HIM.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from MAN, MADE HE A WOMAN, AND BOUGHT HER UNTO THE MAN. THEREFORE SHALL A MAN LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND SHALL CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE; AND THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH.
And they were both naked, THE MAN AND HIS WIFE, and were NOT ASHAMED....
Marty
Marty. The courts are fashioned after Roman temples. I was thinking about this as I watched the proceedings. Probably, originally this was meant to evoke Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. But now the meaning has reverted to that of a pagan temple. The statues of Blind Justice are of Greek and Roman origin.
ReplyDeleteThis is the culmination of enlightenment thinking. From a Christian perspective, the writings of the Ancient Greeks and Romans foretell the coming of Christ; just like the Old Testament prophets do. Even in the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo painted the Greek Sibyls alongside the Old Testament prophets.
From a secular humanist perspective Christians appropriate ancient traditions, since for them prophecies have no validity. They see the connection but draw the wrong conclusion because of their limited view of the world which restricts them to what they can perceive with their senses. And yet throughout the history of mankind, there has been an acceptance of the divine.
The great mistake that humanists make is to think that the world can be understood on a purely "rational" basis. Yet if we were forced to provide a rational reason for every decision we make, we would not be able to make any decision at all. This is like a child constantly asking why, why?
Why is marriage only between a man and a woman? There is no rational reason. As you say this takes us back to the creation of Man and Woman. Why did God choose to create us in this way?
But even that is not the question being asked by the judges with regards to Proposition 8. They have modified the question to "What is the rational reason that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman?" This is just an extension of the humanist principle that unless a "rational" proof can be shown of the existence of God, then God does not exist.
But should we limit our understanding of creation to only our physical senses? This is essentially the limitation that humanists place on us when they demand a "rational" proof of God. They want to be able to see God and touch God. But then they would probably want to control God and alter God to their choosing. Just like they do with nature and even the reproductive processes which produce the miracle of human life. It is this same humanist philosophy which has legally sanctioned abortion, artificial contraception and sterilization, which now wants to impose same-sex "marriage".
This is as you say a rejection of 2000 years of western history and culture which is based on the teachings of Jesus. This is a radical revolution that is being pushed forward through the legal system. And because even most conservatives have accepted the basic humanist idea of "radical rationalism" there is very little strong opposition to it. Most of the opposition is so weak that it can be easily pushed aside by the constant pressure for change put forward by the humanists. The biggest serious threat to the humanist forces in the United States is the Catholic Church which is why it is under such a constant attack.
The similarities between the humanist philosophy and objectives and those of the communists should not go unnoticed. They are both atheistic and claim to embody scientific principles. They both seek to radically transform society by pushing aside religious beliefs. They are both products of enlightenment thinking.