Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Caught in Their Own Nets
American Vision ^ | Oct 14, 2009 | Bojidar Marinov

Posted on 10/15/2009 9:47:27 AM PDT by topcat54

No wonder Whoopi Goldberg said what she said. She can’t help it. She is a victim. She is a victim of the liberal propaganda she believes in. That same propaganda that is based on emptying the words of our language of any moral meaning. So when it comes to applying moral meaning to words, she is confused. “Rape-rape” or “just rape”?

“I don’t necessarily want my 13-year old to have sex with a 45-year old man.” What does that phrase mean? She probably wouldn’t be able to tell. Does she say that it is not “necessity” that tells her what to want or not? Or does she say she is not forced to want her 13-year old to have sex, she just wants it on her own accord?

Depends on what the definition of “sex” is, declared President Clinton. Again, he is acting on premises that exclude any moral meaning in language, and therefore excludes any possible absolute definitions, including his own.

President Obama is smarter: He uses a teleprompter. But the moment his eyes leave the teleprompter, he is forced to speak out of simple common sense, and says things that directly contradict all his policies and ideology.

These are all connected symptoms of the same sickness: Language emptied of moral meaning eventually turns against those who use it. The shrewd are caught in the nets of their own craftiness. The history of the US in the 20th century abounds with examples. My personal favorite is the trade unions’ accusation against the employers: “If you don’t give us more money, you are greedy!” Or the communist critique against fascism: “Fascism is an immoral dictatorial one-party rule with total control over the economy by the State and persecution of political opponents.” Or atheism’s basic tenet: “To believe in the existence of absolute moral standards is absolutely immoral.”

Language was created by God for a purpose: to convey the moral truths of God. It has first and foremost an ethical function, and then everything else. We inescapably talk morality every time we open our mouths, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we admit it or not. Created in the image of God, man is first and foremost a moral being, and his language necessarily must have moral content and meaning before everything else. Whether we talk about biology, math, entertainment, computer programs, art, or cleaning a house, we are declaring certain moral truths to the world, and we are declaring them on the basis of a worldview that has first and foremost an ethical foundation on which everything else stands. We can’t escape talking morality, and we can’t escape making moral judgments every time we open our mouths.

That’s why the liberal war against God in the 20th and 21st century is self-defeating. Based on moral relativism, it is trying to negate God by negating the very moral character of language, by emptying language of its moral meaning. Far from giving the liberals a weapon in the debate, it is in fact setting fire to their own intellectual house. Every definition now is dangerous because it turns against them, every statement becomes its logical negation—and by default, negation of the very liberal position it is designed to promote and defend. Therefore every definition needs multiple sub-definitions and sub-sub-definitions, until the very talk of the anti-Christian thinkers becomes completely meaningless even to themselves.

Cornelius Van Til informed us about the “epistemological maturing” in history of the two seeds. The epistemological maturing of the unbelievers will make them more and more irrelevant and helpless to use language as their tool and weapon against God. More and more every word they say will turn against them and will undermine their own position. No wonder there is no great philosophical thinker in the non-Christian world today; no wonder Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins pass for “thinkers” these days: the unbelieving world is becoming more and more epistemologically self-consistent with its own basic premise of meaninglessness.

The unbelieving world is in intellectual bankruptcy, and has been so for the last 60 years. It has tried to preach meaning while negating the very basis of meaning; it has been trying to moralize by negating morality; it has been trying to speak while defining its very language out of existence.

This is the time for Christians to wake up and see that the “giants” are in fact very small. There is no logical reasoning left in the world, there is no meaning, there is no purpose to live and exist. The expectation that a mythical “Antichrist” will rule the world is not Biblical, and is not realistic. Such a world ruler will have to overcome the very fruits of the anti-Christian ideology—the lack of meaning. Without meaning no one can rule themselves, let alone the whole world. No one gets excited about ultimate meaningless, and no one gets excited about an ideology that can’t even defend itself against its own inconsistencies. Meaning can be found only in Christ, and therefore Christianity is the only religion that can overcome the world in an active, aggressive sense of the word.

The supposed triumph of liberalism is non-existent. All the social, economic, legal and political “victories” of liberalism in the United States and abroad are only result of the cultural retreat of Christians. God catches His enemies in their own nets—like He does with Whoopi, Obama, Clinton and many others—and thus He gives us assurance for our victory in history. If we will only act.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: deconstruction; postmodernism

1 posted on 10/15/2009 9:47:28 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Permission to reprint granted by American Vision, P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.


2 posted on 10/15/2009 9:48:48 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Don't whine to me. It's all Darby's fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

For the whole series of Zero dollar bills, go here:

"Flickr Archive of Zero Bills"

3 posted on 10/15/2009 9:51:31 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
These are all connected symptoms of the same sickness: Language emptied of moral meaning eventually turns against those who use it.

The great misfortune of the twentieth Century is to have been the one in which the ideal of liberty was harnessed to the service of tyranny, the ideal of equality to the service of privilege, and all the aspirations and social forces included under the label of the "Left" enrolled in the service of impoverishment and enslavement. This immense imposture has falsified most of this century, partly through the faults of some of its greatest intellectuals. It has corrupted the language and action of politics down to tiny details of vocabulary, it has inverted the sense of morality and enthroned falsehood in the very center of human thought.”  


The Flight From Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information
1991, Random House Jean Francois-Revel


4 posted on 10/15/2009 9:53:37 AM PDT by Noumenon (Work that AQT - turn ammunition into skill. No tyrant can maintain a 300 yard perimeter forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Language was created by God for a purpose: to convey the moral truths of God. It has first and foremost an ethical function, and then everything else. We inescapably talk morality every time we open our mouths, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we admit it or not. Created in the image of God, man is first and foremost a moral being, and his language necessarily must have moral content and meaning before everything else. Whether we talk about biology, math, entertainment, computer programs, art, or cleaning a house, we are declaring certain moral truths to the world, and we are declaring them on the basis of a worldview that has first and foremost an ethical foundation on which everything else stands. We can’t escape talking morality, and we can’t escape making moral judgments every time we open our mouths.

Awesome thread material, topcat54!

5 posted on 10/15/2009 10:01:33 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Does Whoopie even have children? It’s easy to talk about imaginary children


6 posted on 10/15/2009 10:04:32 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Great article but only us, the choir, will pay any attention to it. Liberals will not read such as this.


7 posted on 10/15/2009 10:09:18 AM PDT by fish hawk (Lord, help us to attain knowledge and the wisdom to apply it toward your ultimate will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Whoopi is symptomatic of the moral relativism that pervades much of our society. Morality is a matter of personal taste much like picking out the color of a carpet. Without moral absolutes, the best that a parent can do is establish her own house rules. This is the way that I run my house, but I cannot say that these are moral standards for anyone else. Of course, Whoopi, does have moral absolutes in come areas, all moral relativists do. Whoopi wondered if she had anything to fear from strict constitutional constructionist that slavery would be reestablished. Slavery is not a matter of personal taste for Whoopi, but slavery ought to be absolutely condemned. Why is that so? Maybe I choose not to own slaves, but who am I to say that others shouldn't? At least that would be a logical conclusion for a moral relativist.
8 posted on 10/15/2009 10:10:08 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

Yes, one daughter from her hooker days (no lie). Her daughter had a kid out of wedlock at 16, so Whoopie is a grandma. This is why liberalism is a real mental disease. Whoopie should know better, even with her own personal mistakes, she knows she is blessed and has been given the ultimate second chance, wealth and fame.


9 posted on 10/15/2009 10:28:54 AM PDT by Clock King (There's no way to fix D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
Does Whoopie even have children

lol, probably a chihuahua in clothes, unless she and "blacface" Ted Danson conjured up some

10 posted on 10/15/2009 10:39:39 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (everything that deceives, also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“Those who control language control minds.” Ayn Rand


11 posted on 10/15/2009 10:41:00 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson