{"id":517,"date":"2013-08-23T20:24:40","date_gmt":"2013-08-23T09:24:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/?p=517"},"modified":"2013-08-24T19:12:14","modified_gmt":"2013-08-24T08:12:14","slug":"the-war-of-meaningless-words-pt-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/2013\/08\/the-war-of-meaningless-words-pt-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Claiming to be civilised, the modern Secularist has laid down his sword and gun. However, this has left him in somewhat of a predicament. The Secularist is in need of an effective instrument with which to bludgeon into submission those who oppose<\/span><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Enter the abuse of language and the courting of hypocrisy!<\/p>\n

The simple reality is that the Secularist does not play fair. When it suits him, he steals from the Christian worldview (e.g., justice, love, society, law). When it suits him, he attacks the Christian worldview (e.g., morality and jurisprudence). When he needs, he destroys language and meaning. When he needs, he places new meaning and non-meaning into words (e.g., what is equality<\/em>, homophobia<\/em> or Political Correctness<\/em>). When it suits him, he claims absolute truth (e.g., right, wrong, and even truth itself). When he seeks to beguile, he lies as though truth was an unknown concept.<\/p>\n

If we are to successfully engage the Secularist, we must be aware of his tactics, his false claims, and his bullying. Thus far, we have made a number of claims. Let us now look at how these things work in practice.<\/p>\n

1. Worldview<\/span>: A worldview is your perspective of and on the world. It is a set of ideas with which you interpret the world around you and by which you attempt to make sense of the data you see. Everybody has one. So do not be fooled into thinking that you don\u2019t, they don\u2019t or that such a thing is unnecessary.<\/p>\n

This worldview is essentially based on faith \u2013 an assumed presupposition that cannot be proven. For the Christian that presupposition is, God exists. For the unbeliever, born in sin and antagonistic to God, it is, God is dead.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

A worldview in action looks like this:<\/p>\n

The Christian<\/span><\/em>, presupposing that God exists and that God has revealed \u00a0 Himself, \u00a0On this basis, sees a rainbow and thanks God for His covenant \u00a0 to never again destroy the world by flood.<\/p>\n

The Secularist<\/span><\/em>, presupposing that God is dead, looks at the rainbow and\u00a0contemplates a meteorological phenomenon in which light reflects off\u00a0water droplets causing a colourful display. It means nothing. It has no\u00a0purpose. It just is.<\/p>\n

2. Religious Battle<\/span>: The second furphy gladly peddled by the Secularist is that he is free from the burden of religion. He happily, if not smugly, highlights the Crusades as evidence of his statement that \u201creligion has been the cause of most wars.\u201d Then he pontificates about the grandeur of Man and Man\u2019s ability to reason his way to a better state and higher plane of peace and respect with no need for a religion of any type.<\/p>\n

In reality, the Secularist is simply in the midst of making a religion after his own image and likeness. He creates a worldview, which means that he has adopted fundamental principles that govern his outlook on life. One of those principles is that God is dead<\/em><\/span>. A consequent principle is that Man is the exalted measure of all things<\/em><\/span>. This is precisely why he attacks Christianity. The Secularist is in a religious war. He wants his god (Man) to dominate the old God; he wants his new worldview (Humanism) to displace and expel the old worldview (Theism). Here, we see the veil slip for the first time. (More later)<\/p>\n

Thus, the Secularist is religious; he has a religion. He is formulating principles by which Man should live. The only difference is that he chooses to make Man his god. Therefore, in opposition to Christianity, the Secularist establishes Man\u2019s god rather than contentedly being God\u2019s man<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

3. Destruction and Reconstruction<\/span>: Central to the Secularist\u2019s takeover is the destruction of any and all forms that give voice to the moral principles that were enshrined in law and culture via the old worldview. In our case, God\u2019s Law-Word (the Bible) was the basis for law and morality in our culture. This same God is the basis of the Christian worldview. As such, the Secularist must find a way to deconstruct these ideas or, at the very least, empty them of any moral implications so that the empty shell can be stuffed with the new dogma. In this manner, the Secularist begins to construct and re-construct the culture according to the new worldview.<\/p>\n

Consequently, as we note in Part 1<\/a>, Secularism unleashes its Bastard child, Political Correctness<\/em>, to begin the process of demoralising and sanitising language. Dropped from the language are all words that have a moral connotation and the implication of judicial penalty: fornication, adultery, sodomy, blasphemy.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

4. Tolerance<\/span>: As Secularism professes to be the new enlightened way, having shed this dictatorial God of the Bible, it adopts as a major tenet the concept of tolerance. It invites all to partake in this new and freer society, regardless of particular beliefs. All are welcome.<\/p>\n

The trouble is that Secularism\u2019s invitation is like the free ride to Toyland<\/em> \u2013 all play and no work, then you awake one morning as donkey! It is all too good to be true.<\/p>\n

Think about it logically. Are all things equal? Are all people equal? Are all pursuits as noble and worthwhile as each other? Are the diligent and the malingerer actually of the same substance and worth? Are the murder and the philanthropist the same?<\/p>\n

Secularism\u2019s claim to tolerance is one more hollow shell.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

5. Hypocrisy<\/span>: It is here that we meet the other key requisite necessary to be a Secularist \u2013 you must be a hypocrite! The simple reality is that Secularism does not and, indeed, cannot meet any of the goals it so proudly pursues. It betrays itself at nearly every major tenet that it professes to espouse and to which it tirelessly works.<\/p>\n

6. Examples<\/span>: With this introduction complete, let us illustrate these things with real examples.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Secularism pretends that it is not a religion. It claims, rather, to be merely a movement aimed at aiding the autonomy of Man. If this be true, why then has Secularism declared war on Christianity and the Christian\u2019s God? If Secularism is inert, why then does our current Prime Minister speak of a Secular State that holds absolute sway over all other institutions? Why, in that context, must the faith of all others capitulate to the will of the State?[5]<\/a>, <\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Naturally, we must ask, if Secularism is so accommodating, Why can it not leave us Christians alone? Why must it change and break a system that has served this nation well? Why must the Secularists force Christians to change their beliefs? After all, what is there to fear? Every culture that has had a genuine Christian (Reformational) influence has prospered.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Again, we must ask, \u201cIf tolerance is a key tenet of Secularism, why are Christians not tolerated?\u201d A better question for the hypocrites is this, \u201cIf tolerance is a key tenet of your religion, why do you not abide by your own stated beliefs and tolerate Christianity?<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n

It is in answering that question that the veil falls completely. It is at this point that the Secularist must vent his spleen<\/em> and admit that Christianity is opposed to everything for which he stands. Consequently, it must be eradicated. As long as there is a Christian, there will be opposition to the plans and ideas of the Secularist. It is in these statements that his rebellious nature comes to the fore. It is here that we see his innate hatred of God and His law. It is at this point that his utter hypocrisy is shown!<\/p>\n

All the talk concerning tolerance, fairness, and equality are shown to be absolutely hollow. The duplicitous nature of their scheming is unveiled.<\/p>\n

How so you ask? Consider the following:<\/p>\n

A.<\/span> Today\u2019s news included an article in regard to the Liberals backing out of a \u201cpreference deal\u201d with the Christian Democratic Party because of comments concerning \u201cgays\u201d. The eye catching headline, \u201cGay Crisis in Sex-Appeal Seat\u201d leads one to a story with the more moderate title, \u201cLibs in preference crisis in Lindsay over gay comments.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

What was the obviously disgusting, degrading, derogatory and inhuman comment that Andrew Green, the DCP candidate, uttered? Well, hold on to your hats, cover the children\u2019s ears, he referred to \u2018gay men as having a “lower life span” than heterosexual males.<\/em><\/span>\u2019 Pilloried for stating, what to my understanding is, truth. Harangued, because when asked for a source, all he could say was that \u201che read it along the way somewhere.\u201d<\/p>\n

What this shows is that tolerance is not a part of the Secularist\u2019s agenda, persecution is! Why is Mr. Green not entitled to express his view on this subject? Why is the Liberal Party so sensitive? Hypocrisy! It wants to be seen to be abiding by the \u201cequality\u201d mantra<\/em>. Yet, by taking the action it did the Liberal Party shows that it believes in neither tolerance nor equality<\/strong><\/span>.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Contrast this to a situation I witnessed. (Prepare to harangue as I cannot give the source.[10]<\/a>) It was a news article describing the lesbian lifestyle. This particular, lesbian was at a caf\u00e9 or some such watching women pass by. She saw a relatively attractive lady. Something about this lady came to the fore, perhaps a wedding ring, causing the lesbian\u2019s scathing comment of disappointment, \u2018She\u2019s a breeder!\u2019[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

Hang on! Wait for the outcry. Her it comes. \u2018Shut down that caf\u00e9!\u2019 Clear the street.\u2019 \u2018Send in the Storm troopers!\u2019 (Deafening silence) Hello? Anything? Maybe just a token whimper? Possibly a little downturn to the sides of the mouth to show a little disapproval? No! What\u2019s that? Oh, a \u2018double standard<\/em>\u2019 you say. Oh, I see, she can belittle because she is a homosexual. Got it!<\/p>\n

B.<\/span> We are constantly told that the sanitising language of PC is aimed at equality and not allowing anyone to be stigmatised<\/em>. Our story above shows that such a claim is hollow. However, the problem is not a lone lesbian at a street-side caf\u00e9. The problem goes to the very top and to the deliberate murder of language and the open display of hypocrisy by our leaders.<\/p>\n

Just last week, Kevin Rudd publicly stated that there was no room in Australia for \u201cRacism, Sexism or Homophobia.\u201d Wonderful! Maybe? Well, no. Given the way the Secularists murder language, we must enquire as to what Mr. Rudd means by these terms.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, we had the situation involving Adam Goodes and a 13 year old girl. The confrontation went national as a case of Racism. Really? Not even close. Racism is the KKK hanging someone from a tree simply because of skin colour. Racism is what motivated Hitler to destroy the Jews. Racism is the Serbs and Croats duking it out in front of the Tennis Centre for no other reason than that they (or more likely their fathers) were born on different sides of a line.<\/p>\n

Racism is not making a statement of truth in regard to someone of a different ethnicity. Racism is not found in asking that migrants support and uphold the standards of this nation. Racism is not found in asking that there be one law and one rule for all.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

Moving on to Sexism. Was Tony Abbott\u2019s \u201csex appeal\u201d comment sexist? Not at all. It was a compliment in support of a candidate. Those who were offended by the comment only proved that they were ignorant of Australian colloquialisms. The terms \u201csexy\u201d or \u201csex appeal\u201d do not always refer to a sexual act or to derogation based in sexuality. Used in certain contexts, like that of Mr. Abbott, it simply means someone has vitality, persona, and therefore, a general appeal.<\/p>\n

Now we move to that hybrid term homophobia<\/em>. The use of this term is offensive. Mr. Rudd, I am offended<\/em><\/span>. By taking to the microphone and using this term, Mr. Rudd<\/strong><\/span>, with the authority of the Prime Minister\u2019s office, actually stigmatised every person in this country who is opposed to homosexuality<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Again, the veil falls. Tolerance and equality go out the window faster than Casanova when a husband returns early! In order to give homosexuals equality, Mr. Rudd is prepared to concretely malign and stigmatise a large proportion of the population who oppose this practice<\/strong><\/span>, no matter what their reason.<\/p>\n

This is a repugnance that simply cannot be tolerated. Allow me to explain. Firstly<\/em><\/span>, I hate the term homophobia. It is a conjugated hybrid that has no place in language. It has been recruited by that disorderly Bastard to batter and stigmatise those who oppose homosexuality.<\/p>\n

Secondly<\/em><\/span>, I hate this term because it is a gross distortion of the truth. Let\u2019s get this straight (pun!), just for the record. Homophobia suggests that I have a clinically diagnosed, irrational fear of homosexuals.[13]<\/a> This is not even close. I do not fear homosexuals. I detest them. I, for moral reasons, find their sexual choices to be abhorrent.<\/p>\n

Thirdly<\/em><\/span>, the term homophobia is not, to my knowledge, a recognised clinical psychiatric disorder. Wikipedia makes this comment, \u201cHomophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias<\/strong>, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders<\/a> (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems<\/a> (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense<\/strong>.\u201d<\/sup>[14]<\/a>\u00a0 <\/sup>Consider this statement:<\/p>\n

\u201cHomophobia is not an actual phobia<\/strong>, according to three University of Arkansas psychologists. In a recent study, these researchers showed that homophobia originates not out of fear or anxiety<\/em> \u2013 as true phobias do \u2013 but from feelings of disgust<\/em>. The UA researchers also found close associations between homophobic tendencies and concerns about contamination as well as conservative views about sexuality in general. Their findings suggest a social, attitudinal basis for homophobia rather than a psychopathological one, as the term itself implies.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

This being the case, we have the Prime Minister of Australia using labelling language to discriminate against a whole bunch of decent and upright citizens in this country<\/em><\/span>. He has stigmatised these people with an official pronouncement. He has effectively told these people to \u201cpack their bags\u201d for they are not wanted in this country.<\/p>\n

Incredulously, Mr. Rudd has chosen to bully and stigmatise these people with a non-word, a word that has been conjured. He has called for disgrace and shame to fall upon these people by describing them as suffers of a mythological, non-existent, pathological disorder<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

The real kicker, of course, is that Mr Rudd, until very recently, was one of the condemned who suffered from homophobia<\/em> because he opposed homosexual union. Having now changed his mind on that topic, and having stated that he will not take a national lead on the issue, he now stands before the media as Prime Minister to point fingers, bully, stigmatise, and forcefully subjugate those who have had the integrity to maintain their opposition.<\/p>\n

This is the War of Meaningless and contrived words; invented for two purposes: First<\/em><\/span>, to obfuscate. Second<\/span><\/em>, to shame people into capitulating. However, as we have seen, the Secularists cannot be consistent with their own worldview.<\/p>\n

Hollow words from hollow men! Meaningless words used in a religious war.<\/p>\n

(Part 3 for the Application<\/a>)<\/p>\n


<\/p>\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> Paul makes it abundantly clear that the ungodly willingly suppress the knowledge of God because God is evident in everything that they see. Romans 1:18-20.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Some terms, such as \u201ctheft\u201d and \u201cmurder\u201d are retained, but not without much modification. What is 1st<\/sup>, 2nd<\/sup>, or 3rd<\/sup> degree murder? Are these categories consistent with Biblical revelation? No, they are not. So what do they mean? Essentially, they are Man\u2019s invention. They are a way to find excuses for murder or to take away Man\u2019s responsibility to punish the murderer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> Remember JJ Rousseau\u2019s magnificent world in which all would be tolerated except the intolerant. Any who were intolerant would be punished with death. Conundrum! How do you identify the \u201cintolerant one\u201d without first becoming intolerant yourself?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> We will try and illustrate these concepts with current content. That is to say, with reference to homosexuality and the current political landscape.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> \u00a0\u201cI have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.\u201d The problem with this, as we have highlighted<\/a>, is the question of, \u2018What happens outside the physical institution?\u2019 When I go to Church on Sunday, I can decry, presumably, the debauchery that is homosexuality. I can also refuse to marry Adam and Steve. On Monday, I go to work. In response to a question, I outline my position on homosexuality \u2013 in exactly the same words as the day before. Now, I am charged with a treasonous act. I have betrayed a major tenet of the State\u2019s religious belief system. Then, I receive a demand<\/em> from my employer to attend a \u2018human rights\u2019 seminar conducted by Adam and Steve. I do not wish to go, but it is mandatory. How then do I divide myself? The answer of Secularism is this: \u201cEasy. Become a hypocrite like us! Believe what you believe. Simply feign acceptance and compliance.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> The Secularists know that their system is a failure. For proof of this, look to the French Revolution. Yet, they will not give up their fight against Christ and His Church.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> America was built on this foundation. She was, to a large extent, a light on a hill. She has now shifted ground. The Secularists have taken control and have sanitised law, education, justice, and the like. They have removed God. They have banned prayer. Creation cannot be taught.<\/p>\n

Is America a better nation today? No. She has become reliant upon her might and her technology. She has forsaken God with dire consequences. She is weak and feeble. She is in catastrophic debt. She is hypocritical. She goes to war against tyrants on foreign soil, but does not bring justice to the tyrants on her own soil. Why do we think that a Secularised Australia will be any different?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0[8]<\/a> http:\/\/www.news.com.au\/national-news\/federal-election\/exclusive-libs-in-preference-crisis-in-lindsay-over-gay-comments\/story-fnho52ip-1226700883582?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/a> Did the Liberal Party ever stop to ask, \u201cIs there truth in this statement?\u201d If there is, why shy away from it? Again, hypocrisy! They are not interested in truth, but in winning an election<\/strong>.<\/span> Thus, they walk the eggshell road of veiled answers, non-commitment, and seeming conformity to the demands of the noisy minorities. Here is one article reporting on the shortened life expectancy of homosexuals. It can be dismissed because it is a Christian site: http:\/\/carm.org\/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one<\/a>. This one though, is from the homosexual community. Whilst not dealing explicitly with homosexual lifespan, it does deals with homosexual suicide (which significantly impacts lifespan) and notes that research shows higher suicide rates: http:\/\/theconversation.com\/preventing-suicide-among-gender-and-sexual-minorities-11637<\/a>. So, the conclusion of the matter is this: The Liberal Party does not have researchers or they are not interested in truth?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> I am trying to recollect this as accurately as I can. Details may be sketchy, but the point is not.<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/a> My story may not be documented, so try this one: \u201cOkay, I was at an LGBT conference last month and I was talking with an open lesbian. She asked me what I identified myself as and I said, “A heterosexual Ally.” She kinda snapped back at me with, “we don’t need sympathy from breeders<\/strong>.” I wasn’t even sure what the term meant but I knew it was offensive and related to my being straight. I reply to her, “What? Why don’t you want the support of heterosexuals? Seems kind of counterproductive doesn’t it?” She muttered something and walked away. I was really confused. I talked to other Allies at the conference and they experienced similar things as well. I went home and then looked up the definition of a “breeder” and this is what I found: \u00a0“Breeder is a slang term (either joking or derogatory) used to describe heterosexuals<\/strong>, primarily by homosexuals. It is drawn from the fact that while homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry.”<\/em>\u201d At: http:\/\/www.wrongplanet.net\/postt160289.html. Accessed 21\/08\/13<\/a>. Bold added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/a> In point of fact, on this last point, it is indeed Racism to divide the nation by applying different rules to different ethnic groups.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/a> Homophobia is \u201can extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.\u201d Oxford Dictionaries Online. At: http:\/\/oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/english\/homophobia<\/a>. Accessed 22\/08\/13.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/a> http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Homophobia. Accessed 20\/08\/13<\/a>. Bold added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15]<\/a>At: http:\/\/mentalhealth.about.com\/library\/sci\/0602\/blhomo602.htm. Accessed 22\/08\/13<\/a>. Italics added. In fairness, one of those interviewed states that homophobia is more in line with racism. He suggests that the answer is attitudinal reform. Thus, the implication is that those suffering from homophobia are bigoted rather than mentally ill. I, for one can, live with this.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Claiming to be civilised, the modern Secularist has laid down his sword and gun. However, this has left him in somewhat of a predicament. The Secularist is in need of an effective instrument with which to bludgeon into submission those … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[4,21,15,10,39,12,17],"tags":[38,41,40],"class_list":["post-517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apologetics","category-australia","category-christian-warfare","category-culture","category-secularism","category-sexuality","category-society","tag-homosexuality","tag-political-correctness","tag-secularism-stigma"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2V1tu-8l","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=517"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":524,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/517\/revisions\/524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}