Replies

In what follows -- and I apologize for it being so long -- I try to connect this item on multiculturalism, and several of the responses, to a major shift in public policy that few talk about, but about which this item provides a glaring example and warning.
Do you agree with our Elite that limiting world population growth is the paramount issue of the Twenty-first Century?
And if you do, does that make you Anti-God?
Note: I considered making this a question in its own thread, but feared it would attract too many disrupters that way. I thought the many thoughtful respondents found here might be able to handle the question better than the whole forum for now.

question by mvpel: Do you know who's running your schools?

Entrenched bureaucrats imbued with elitist thinking of course. How can you expect something else of increasingly remotely controlled contemporary government schools? Is it not consistent with the moral code switch into which we are incrementally being indoctrinated? So, our children are understandably a target.

Can you recall when our society's paradigm officially shifted from preserving the greatest quantity of innocent human life to ensuring the quality of human life?
Answer: It never was announced; but the current approach ought to be plain as day by now.

I believe it unofficially began around 1965 with a publication by the Club of Rome. Subject: Too many people on the planet.

Which brings me to the next two responses:

passage by IceCreamSocialist: 22:8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering

This set the new standard, the lesson and the test of faith for one and every man: we should sacrifice no innocents for our own sins. and

passage by weegee and Forgiven_Sinner: [22:13] And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns

In other words, as Abraham had promised Isaac, God did provide. (Note: you can find biblical scholars saying Satan snared the ram's horns in that thicket, preventing the ram from being Johnny-on-the-spot, just as our troubles and uncertainty often stymie us.)

comment by AnnaZ When the anti-religionists quote the story of Isaac and Abraham as showing the unloving nature of God I always have to laugh

Yes, laugh due to your own faith in God AnnaZ. But please not for the snare the scoffers set for those you love but have not yet reached.

Believers in God have faith that God will always provide them the means to measure up to His expectations. God said "be fruitful and multiply." He did not he say "but don't go crazy." We are simply told to have faith: "God will provide."

To avoid this question, which is arguable but nowhere near definitive enough for social planners, the intelligentsia introduced "God is Dead." And that was followed with the "enlightened" belief that God never even existed.

Well, this clearly places believers squarely at odds with those who doubt, and more fatally, puts them in enmity with those who are convinced He doesn't exist. If He doesn't exist, He cannot provide.

"Listen to us" our greatest minds, the new gods, will say when they dare. You must stop producing children because the planet already has 10 times too many people. "We have replaced God. Stop being fruitful. It's now okay and normal to adopt lifestyles which reduce the chances of pregnancy. It has become public policy to promote homosexuality like we once did heterosexuality. It is now almost time to make heterosexuality what homosexuality once was. We must do it for the children! Their "quality" of life must not suffer. (Well, for what children remain anyway.)

So take careful note of the spewings of the most virulent environmentalists. Their talk about how the world really should have no more than one half billion people should be viewed with more than a little suspicion. Given all the bloodletting of the Twentieth century, one can see that the "intelligentsia" has only been warming up to the task at hand. Their lack of protest when they could stop much of that bloodletting should be a warning to us all.

If the extent of such misanthropic thinking in the powerful is not the very essence of what it could mean to be Anti-God, how can one conceive what Anti-God really means? Whether or not one believes in God, there can be no doubt that such leaders, left unfettered, will make the Aztecs look like rank amateurs.

Oh, and by all means stop protecting the innocent! Since we have too many people, any exra who exist CANNOT be innocent. Every extra human being on the planet is a threat to our "quality of life." To the elitist, the ones who plan to remain on the planet, this is logical and just. It's just because they say it is.

It certainly looks like C. S. Lewis was right. We appear to be at the threshold that "The Abolition of Man" predicted. Those in power, those above it all, the superhumans, view those below as subjects somehow no longer human. Man, as we know him, is about to cease to exist.

We mere mortals, we who are no longer human, are therefore no longer vested with "certain inalienable rights" grante to us by a creator who -- how convenient -- also no longer exists.

Once the thinkers closest to the higher levels of our government began to fear unchecked world population growth, a conflict with the religious community was inevitable.

This all helps explain the gradual introduction of multiculturalism, even of cultures long dead -- like the Aztecs -- that found human destruction favorable.

And how about the media propagated buzz of "who are we to say which culture is better." And barely a peep out of the highest religious leaders! It appears that too many religious leaders were co-opted to this way of thinking. How many have become the new Pharisees? How else to explain their silence?

If the majority of us have begun to believe that cultures which worship death are on an equal moral footing with the Judeo-Christian ethic which helped establish the justice system of our great constitutional republic, we may be too far into decline to recover. Who will give up without a fight?

Thus the religious need to understand what is at stake. What has been an unspeakable thought for the last 35 years needs to be discussed openly. Especially if the religious think it is their duty to try and prevent the onslaught of Armageddon. But if we are to believe that God will provide, how can we remain passive?

Does God wish the Godly to prevent Armageddon or to give in? If they give in, are they really Godly? If the Godly uncritically permit man to forcibly limit procreation, to go against his explict wishes, does this make them and the country Anti-God? Are they God's soldiers or are they not?

In summary:
A fundamental disparity appears to set up the battleground, the reason, the cause celebre, for the confrontation predicted in Revelations known as Armageddon.

The God-fearing belief they must be allowed to procreate, to obey what they see as God's wishes, that the choice to have children ought be left solely to the couple and providence. They note that no matter how many people on the planet, God has provided when man is free to worship freely. The overwhelming success of this country is testament to that.
Those without faith in God have a different belief: the unshakable, Malthusian driven fear that believers in God must be neutralized in order to save the planet from the inevitable geometric growth of humanity if the wishes of "the great unwashed" are left unchecked. They fear the planet cannot stand further human growth, and are therefore dead-set against any who promote it. So they have aided, abetted and employed the God-scoffers to indoctrinate our children against God and belief in Him. Our children are being indoctrinated to not have this faith in God, to believe man must limit himself. Our children will be warned not to believe that God said be "fruitful and multiply." Our children will think it patriotic to not have children of their own. Our children are being taught to believe that those who "breed" are traitors.

Even non-believers ought be able to see how this conflict sets the God scoffers against the God believers. If Armageddon is inevitable -- and many believe it is, as if we really don't have free choice -- then few will rise to protest. And that in and of itself appears to be unforgiveable sin.

Yes indeed DoughtyOne, "the sad thing is these people totally miss the significance of Abraham's willingness to obey God."

Limiting population growth is not the paramount issue of the 21st or 20th century. It is a straw dog, a stalking horse for people seeking to promote sexual licentiousness and/or abortion.

I recall the Club of Rome pronouncements in the 60's when I was in elementary school. I remember my first computer program, a population program to project the size of the world population in 30 years, in 2000. Since then, food production has greatly increased, with the population and the doomsters have been discredited. The issue is not population, but production and distribution. The major cause of starvation seems to be despotic governments. The major solution seems to be a capitalistic farm economy.

bump.
Sorry. Your name truncated off my original addressee line (at number 48)

Yikes.

Yor really believe all of that nonsense you just spouted without ANY logic at all to back it? Get thee to a psychiatrist. You sound an awful lot like those Aztecs who understood nothing of the world they lived in and made everything they didn't understand the will of some God or another. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.