Marriage Eden’s Legacy or Sodom’s curse part II- the threats to marriage and the civil Society

 

First a bit of light diversion from the great American philosopher Bill Watterson:

Funny and insightful and relevant to a point I wish to make. Before Dr. Laura Schlesinger went on satellite I was a fairly regular listener. Once she read an e-mail from a gay man concerning gay marriage. The e-mailer was countering the idea that gay marriage was a threat to the institution of marriage by pointing out the fact that heterosexual couples were already in the process of destroying marriage without any help from gays. (For the record Dr. Schlesinger does not support gay marriage or adoption but does not condemn the gay lifestyle.)

Last time we looked at gay marriage. We looked at forcing the nation to accept a morally deviant behavior as morally equivalent to marriage that God ordained and how doing so erodes the very foundations of a free society.  What I hope to do now is look at some of the greatest threats to the very institution of marriage and suggest how we might put our nation back on a path of cultural and moral stability.

Threat number 1- Loss of Sexual Purity.

This subject has two subcategories that need be addressed, Promiscuity, and abuse.  I am hesitant to include this link the video quite honestly is disturbing and disgusting but it is accurate and maybe it will shock you into seeing what your kids are being taught. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7XR9yH2ETk

Even if the curriculum your school is using isn’t so blatantly obscene as are these Planned Parenthood curriculums, the basic concept is the same. Moral absolutes, the concept that marriage is the only and proper place for the expression of sexuality, and the idea that boys with boys and girls with girls is not morally equivalent is verboten.  I cannot imagine how infuriated my sainted mother would have been if ever I had been exposed to the sex-ed of today. She once gave the Jefferson County School system quite a going over for having school on Good Friday, and she never asked if I could be excused from class she just told them her son would not be there. The problem runs very deep, and perhaps its most significant cause is that parents have come to believe that the government has moral authority over our children. Yet Chief Justice Burger Wrote concerning Griswold vs. the State of Connecticut, “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring tradition ¹⁷ [emphasis supplied]”. Even if the Court gives in to the liberals, this right cannot be taken away, it is inalienable. Don’t misunderstand the government can declare itself superior to the parent, and persecute those who refuse to acquiesce, but God’s law falls to the side of the parent. At some future date we will discuss this at greater length but the point being, parents you have not only the right, but the obligation before God to insure that your children are taught the acceptable use and context for sex, and the sanctity of marriage. I recommend homeschooling, the government system is just too corrupt and too Godless at so many levels for our kids to be sent to. Unless of course you think it’s wise to teach your kids to swim by throwing them into shark infested water.   They might not drown and they might not get eaten, but the odds that they will hold to your beliefs drastically diminishes after 12 years of indoctrination.

The second factor that so drastically increases promiscuity is what New York Times columnist Pamela Paul has called the “pornification” of the culture. Sexual imagery is everywhere, the poster boards in the Target ladies underwear isle would have been resigned to a “girly” book when my dad was young. I am not only referring to the extreme examples, to the ready availability of pornography on the web, or the Oscar dresses made of a handkerchief and two posted notes, I am talking about the general comfort level with sex as commonplace. There is a spiritual element of sexuality, a value that exceeds its biological function. Something of it needs to be kept a “mystery”. Am I the only one who finds a romantic scene in a film so much more intriguing when the curtain is pulled and something is left to the imagination? There is little romance in two people throwing off clothing and slobbering on each other, or maybe that’s just me.  As long as sex is treated as just one more thing people do like brushing teeth or going to the movies, we will never return to a sane and healthy view of sexuality as a sacred part of marriage.

Finally, the devaluation of sex also devalues women.  A woman is a precious and valuable thing. A few proverbs on the subject: Proverbs 19:14 House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.

 Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

 Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

The sexual revolution (actually rebellion against the Lord) did not make women less of a sex object, it made them wholly that. Ideally a woman is to be sought and fought for, and wooed and won, treasured and protected, provided for and romanced, “as long as they both shall live.” In return for this giving of his life for her the woman offers to love and support her “prince” all the days of her life and only when he has made that sacred commitment is he worthy to receive the blessing of knowing her sexually. If she gives that away for less than a wedding ring (and the sincere commitment that accompanies it) she cheapens herself, but by withholding it she demonstrates her true worth. Laura Schlesinger once took a call from a woman who felt disrespected by her live in boyfriend Dr. Laura’s suggestion was to “make him leave 50$ on the dresser in the morning after you have sex, at least a prostitute places some value on herself. How is he going to respect you if you don’t respect yourself?” (Quoted from memory) I agree with the doctor.

The second layer of the loss of purity is more unseemly but must be addressed: sexual abuse. According to a CDC study as many as one in four college age girls have been raped, or someone has attempted to rape them.  Let’s deal with this but first it’s necessary to note that not all women are virtuous and there have been cases where men have been accused falsely by women looking for an upper hand in custody hearings or as some sort of revenge, so men, be careful who you are alone with. However the study in question was anonymous and no men were affected so we can assume these numbers are close.  The question of preventing sexual abuse is of paramount importance and its implications on marriage can hardly be overstated. First of all a woman once abused tends to struggle with issues of self-worth, and this leads often to promiscuity and other struggles with relating to a loving relationship. For woman, a level of caution is required, care with where she goes and who she goes with and how she behaves while she’s there. I think all girls should take self-defense courses.  Getting raped is never a woman’s fault, but a wise girl can lessen her danger considerably by being responsible.  With so many girls being hurt this way the grace and healing of the Lord are the first most important things. Then she will need a man to understand the trials she goes through as a result of her ordeal. It can be done, thank God!

 

We tend to look at Sodom and Gomorrah and see the homosexuality and relate it to the destruction of the cities, (GEN 9) after all we do call it “Sodomy”.  However though Homosexuality is a sin, I think the real evil in Sodom was the violent and abusive nature of the men. Not that the homosexual aspect isn’t of importance, the image we have been getting of the loving gay or lesbian couples just wanting to love each other is often false. Homosexuality is not a preordained condition; most men who identify as gay were victims of child sex abuse.  ( http://www.home60515.com/3.html ).  Gays tend to be violent, not all of course, but many are.  http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/homoviolence.htm  and http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/gay-activists-threaten-violence/   America is desperately in danger of losing its very soul and the violent abusiveness of the culture is largely to blame.

Men are constantly bombarded with sexual images, violent porn is readily available, and there is a perverse mythos that women secretly want to be dominated. The curse of sin takes the natural desire to love and cherish and turns it on its ear and makes it a desire to own and dominate woman. No college professor would acknowledge that he condones rape, but when they teach the concept of moral relativism they do just that. If nothing is inherently wrong   on its own than the 35% of men who say that if they knew there would be no consequence would consider forcing a woman to have sex are not morally wrong. Not all men could be salvaged by moral absolutes but many could. For the rest we have law enforcement.

There is more to get to but given the length thus far we do that next time.

Until then keep on the firing line!

 

 

 

 

Marriage – Eden’s Legacy or Sodom’s Curse?

 

Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. Marriage has been defined since the literal first moment of the existence of the two genders as the joining of a man and a woman.
23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh (GEN 2:23, 24)

The debate over rather to allow homosexuals to marry is fundamental to the survival of the American way of life. We have come now to a place where good is called evil and evil good. (Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!)

First of all, Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is a sin before God. Scripture is clear on this matter. Both the old and new testaments proclaim this with no uncertainty or wiggle room for interpretation.  This question is a question of morality; are we a moral nation or a degenerate one? Do we accept morality as having certain absolute codes or is it strictly a question of relativity? Leaving aside for the moment the most important aspect of the morality debate, the judgment of God,  let us remember that without a moral underpinning a free society cannot stand. One of the great philosophers of the great enlightenment Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu made the following observations on moral absolutes or to use his word virtue; “ There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue… When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigour; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the licence of many.”

The first argument that the gay rights activists will use is the claim that marriage is a right hence cannot be denied gay couples.  Never has “marriage” been an inalienable right. Federalism allows that the all matters not specifically enumerated in the constitution are relegated to the states. The states therefore have the right to choose whom they will and will not issue a marriage license to. 2012 saw the first electoral success for the gay rights lobbies and no conservatives are actively seeking to use the power of the judiciary to take away those state’s decisions. In Fact the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) was passed by a Republican house and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton with the expectation that some states would allow for gay marriage, and its key provision is to allow states the authority to recognize or not to recognize same sex unions from other states. Marriage is a spiritual institution and a cultural one that states recognize and encourage because it is beneficial, yes even essential, to society. States however did not invent marriage; they simply recognize “what God hath wrought”. Calling gay couples “spouses” does not make it so. A man cannot marry another man any more than he can marry a lamp post or a sports car. Marriage is what it is and not even the US Supreme Court can change that.

Don’t get me wrong, gays and lesbians have rights. They have the freedom to speak out on their beliefs, they have the right to keep and bear arms, they have the right of assembly and no one can take away their personal property without just compensation. They have the right to due process and they have the protection of the law against harm to their persons or possessions. They can engage in whatever deviant behaviors they wish in the privacy of their homes without the fear of unreasonable search and seizures.  They can find sympathetic clergy that will perform a ceremony over them; they can choose to live in the committed relationship they always talk about. They have no desire for liberty, what they want is for the rest of the country to be coerced or straight out forced to acknowledge their reprehensible arrangements as morally equal to “what God has joined together.”

Certain issues are presented by those who support gay marriage which should be addressed, such as death benefits or hospital visits, conservatism offers the solution without casting aside morals in a manner reminiscent of Sodom.  Federal regulations should allow for insurance companies to decide who they want to insure and who they do not. Some companies either for matters of principle or economics would love to extend their benefits to the “non-traditional” partners of potential customers while other providers would market to the more conservative consumers by only insuring traditional families. Likewise companies could determine rather to recognize common law arrangements, etc. the market is perfectly capable of dealing with these matters. Likewise anyone wanting to grant visitation to a partner other than a wife of children should merely have to go and have a paper drawn up in advance that says in event of my incapacitation I want the “so and so” to be allowed access  to visitation and to make decisions on my behalf. That simple, gays and lesbians can sin if they choose, live as free moral agents without using the heavy hand of judicial activism to force their conduct on the rest of us.

So you see my views, which are the Christian views, are not bigoted but they are principled. We don’t want to see gays and lesbians mistreated or punished, we do however want them to see the error of their ways and come in repentance to the Cross of the Lord for forgiveness and healing. We want them to bend the knee to God willingly, it is not the Christian, nor the conservative, way to force anyone to comply with our morals, and we simply ask the same respect in return.

The Gay Agenda is not the only threat to marriage. It may not be the most pressing, just the hottest topic. Next time we will look at the greater threats to marriage (AKA our civil society) then in the third part we will remind ourselves what marriage was meant to be!

Keep on the firing line.

PS our prayers go out to the people of Boston and the families who suffered loss or injury in yesterday’s terror attack. God bless you and bring justice to the evil bastards responsible.

 

 

 

 

Christ-killers

Christ-killers

Have you ever wondered why Easter changes every year rather than falling on the same date or at least the same week? Naturally we celebrate Easter on Sunday as the resurrection of Christ was on the first day of the week (John 20:1). This would be the equivalent of commemorating the attack on Pearl Harbor on the first Sunday in December rather than on the specific date December 7. What is more interesting is how the week of Easter is chosen. It is the Sunday following the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. I always wondered why there was almost a month’s variable in when Easter rolled around. It is in the cycle of the moon.

However I don’t recall any Biblical reference to the Spring Equinox or the full moon. Historically Christ’s resurrection was on the first day of the week following the Jewish Passover. Over time however the Church, originally considered by the Romans as a sect of Judaism began to desire separation from its Jewish roots. In fact it is shocking how much anti-Semitism shows up among church leaders both Catholic and Protestant until at last the Church claimed no kinship with the “Christ killing Jews”.

Unfortunately this caused them to loose sight of the fact that the correlation between Passover and the Resurrection was not happenstance, Jesus became the Passover for us all. You see the Children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt and the Lord declared judgment upon all the first born, only if the blood of a sacrifice was upon the door of the house would the angel of death Passover that home. This most important of Jewish feasts was the most important prediction of the coming of the Messiah. So much of Jesus life and work can be understood through the traditions of the feasts of the Lord as given to the Hebrews through the law of Moses, and this concept of the Jews as the murderers of Christ long kept us from it.

So who really killed Christ anyway?

First there was Religion. The Jewish leaders of the Sanhedrin were the Religious leaders of their day; it pertained to them to examine the teachings of any new Rabbi to see if they were accurate according to the law and the prophets. They examined Jesus, as was the custom of the Passover and could find no fault in Him or His teachings. In fact the Pharisees understood Jesus’ teaching better at times than his own disciples did. But religion was corrupted and unwilling to surrender its power to the very Messiah they claimed to long for, unwilling to abandon their misconceptions about who the Messiah should be so they rejected Him. Religion did not have the power to kill the Man so they took him to the Government.

The Government of the day was that of Rome. We as Americans owe much of our governmental structure to Rome and many of our ideas of Jurist Prudence. The Roman Governor Pontius Pilate not a weak vacillating man as a rule and though he was exceptionally harsh with dissent was not an unjust administrator. It was his place to examine the man and see rather he was a criminal or threat to the peace. He did his job, examined the man and found no fault in Him. Alas though men are weak and cannot govern themselves justly. Pilate knew what should have been done, and even his wife warned him, but he tried to “pass the buck” first to Herod, the Roman appointed King of Galilee, and then when that failed he brought the matter before the people. He did not want to condemn an innocent man but the political pressure was so heavy that he feared to do the right thing. It was a Roman tradition to honor the Jewish feast by releasing a prisoner condemned to death so Pilate decided to give the choice to the people.

The people, the decent ordinary everyday people, the hardworking souls of Jerusalem, these are the ones who would decide. Surely Pilate thought, and the Pharisees feared, these people would choose the Lord over the murderer Barabus when offered the choice. It was democracy in action. The final say was in the hands of the populace and they voted to crucify. Every institution of humanity, every level of society conspired to kill Christ, none were blameless: the military and the civilian, the public servants and the private sector, Clergy and the laymen. Who are the Christ killers? Every last one of us.

Perhaps we should not be so arrogant, did we really have the authority to kill Christ? Legions of Angels stood ready to save Him. When they came to arrest him with a great multitude they asked for Jesus of Nazareth and When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:5). Had Jesus desired it, he could have struck down the whole of the Sanhedrin with a word the Angels would have laid waste to the Roman Empire from one wide ranging border to the other, and the Angel of death could have emptied the streets of Jerusalem, of the Earth for that matter, and heeded no Passover blood. This was not the will of the Lord. You see God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8) we were not worthy of His sacrifice except that he deemed us worthy, we were not deserving of his love but he gave it anyway. Perhaps the real Christ Killer was a forbidden love, the love of a king for the unwashed peasant, the love of the Son for the adulterous wench, but in His love the adulteress transformed into the fair maiden, the waiting virgin bride, pure and acceptable to her Lord, and we wait for our Prince to ride in upon his white charger to carry us to a castle in the sky. The death of Christ is the greatest love story man has known, and thankfully it has a happy ending. Death which had held the final victory over every man until it came up against the Man Christ Jesus and the grave itself lost its power and death its very sting.

God be praised for writing his story of redeeming love and resurrection power into our hearts.

starting next week i am going to begin a new series of posts relating moral absolutes and natural law to the state of our and move away from current events. This is the change I have been working on and I believe the direction we need to go to rescue our beloved country.

Happy Resurrection day. (Originaly posted Easter of 2011)

An elective despotism

 

I gave up trying to reason the issue of taxes. For one reason even as I worked to explain how higher taxes equal less revenue and less freedom I knew that Boehner and the boys were going to sell out. They did.(Our girl, Shelley Capito stood her ground and voted no, odd mix this Capito, she talks like a moderate and votes like a conservative, unlike her leadership that sits opposite) Oh now the debt ceiling is when we make our stand they say, but already come the rumblings from those like Newt Gingrich (now that he is not a candidate he is back to being the guy who endorsed Dede Scozzafa) saying no, lets cave on this and fight the battle when the budget comes due. As though the Democrats were going to pass a budget anyway! What will happen is that our guys will kick the can down the road one too many times and it will go over the REAL fiscal cliff and the country will go right over with it.

The problem is we are no longer dealing with an informed electorate, informed conservatives are furious over the lack of spine that their representatives have, and the uninformed only know the President is a nice guy, Mitt Romney told them so!

I will leave the subject of taxes and spending for now, to be revisited soon, because another terrible threat to our liberty arises and we must tackle it head on. But I won’t simply quote facts and make a reasoned argument as to why none of Barak Obama’s myriad of executive orders and legislative initiatives will do no good and potentially much harm.  Others will do that better, and the informed already know it. The uninformed think Obama loves kids and doesn’t want them hurt, because as Mitt Romney and John McCain told us, he’s a nice guy.

First let’s look at the second amendment itself: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Some will argue that the amendment applies only to the militia, but precedent is on the side that the second part of the statement applies to the individual. The current rot coming from DC is that hunters and sportsman and those who purchase a gun for self-defense need not fear. “The Federal government isn’t going to take all your guns” as the President comforted us. While hunting and sports and certainly self defense are important the real reason for the second amendment is found in the first part of the sentence, being necessary to the security of a free state. Some quotes from one of the chief founders, Thomas Jefferson.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.

‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

The second amendment, which was indeed of lesser importance than only freedom of speech and religion, was not put there to offer us better hunting options than bow and arrow, its fundamental root is to avoid tyranny.  Why then do the liberals so despise it, feel so threatened by it? When has the President or his party offered a solution to any problem that does not have at its heart, “People have too much freedom”?  Riots in Benghazi: too much freedom of speech. Obesity: too much freedom of choice. Etc. the Libs want to dominate and control every aspect of life and at some point an armed citizenry becomes the counterbalance that prevents the overreach of government.  I turn again to Jefferson:

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

The President has declared war on the bitter clingers and he’s winning. Remember his quote, “And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” So he has attacked religious freedom through Obama-care, he has hit immigration through executive order and now he’s after guns. Is the President trying to push the country into civil unrest? He attacks openly in word and deed all the things that are American. Free enterprise free worship and gun ownership. I fear an insidious plot, an attempt to force people to defend their liberty by extreme means, perhaps even to start a new civil conflict in order to expand his power. (God let me be wrong) there has to be reason to push gun control when he knows and even said, “none of these measures alone would have stopped the tragedy in Connecticut.” Back to Jefferson:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

It’s time for rebellion, oh not the armed kind, but simply writing letters and talking isn’t going to cut it. Jefferson believed that occasional rebellion was essential to liberty and we must fight back now.  My suggestion right now is that states begin saying no to these executive orders. Simply refuse to implement this tyrannies!  Jefferson:

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

 

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

There is more to be said of course but this is the basic most reason for the right to bear arms, if we lose it we lose much if not all.

Let’s keep on the firing line