Replies

Okay. I'll believe you had some good reason not to look at even one of the links I sent to you privately. The need for what follows would be lessened had you bothered. You now owe me the courtesy to meet me half way on the following effort to help explain how the world has changed and thus makes your efforts, if not outright counter-productive, certainly nearly persuasively futile and thus making you the boogeyman who threatens the installation of repressive laws.

philosophical

theological

The good thing is that Your Creator gave you a mind. Use your mind in conjunction with the writings of wiser men without resorting to Him in this argument. You still may turn to Him privately for the faith that you will need. That seems fair and I think -- at least from what I been told from many like yourself -- it will work wonders if you have the faith you claim you do.

2. Re: Before this immoral modern age this wasn’t even questionable.

Down to hard tacks. Had you written more simply "Before this age this wasn’t even questionable." and had not added the additional adjective immoral (loaded, subjective) and modern (incorrect philosophy) I'd say your statement started correctly. Abortions simply were not performed primarily because, for good or ill, the societal moral code -- and thus its influence upon government -- was indeed theological. You could from there argue about what has been gained and lost since the shift in from the basic theological influences from which this country emerged and upon indeed it was founded into what it has become now that so much of that is being deliberately eroded or discarded.

However, had you not made this error, I may not have stepped in because it hadn't really occurred to me that you didn't know how philosophically regressive the world has become until you used the word "modern."

3. Here's why I call it an error for you to have called this a modern age. The time frame and the philosophical meanings of modern are ambiguous in this instance. Had you used the word "contemporary" to refer to our age you would not be in error even though you'd be less specific. But this is a philosophical discussion, and the second meaning is quite precise. The killing of innocents is decidedly NOT modern.

Modernity has made human lives longer and more prosperous and made freedom much more attainable for every human soul.

Our contemporary world and country has turned predominantly postmodern in its goals. I assert that you'll find our institutions peopled by those who philosophically are more postmodernist than modernist.

4. And that is why I called it an error, misguided at best, to call the current age an immoral one. Your ethos is no longer dominant even though most everybody outwardly gives lip-service to it. The evidence for my assessment here is rampant. You can see it in the growing influence of the "science" of postmodernism: Post-Normal Science. That means that scientific and technical advances will be hampered quite a bit more than you, a traditional moralist, would like. And that, in turn, makes your use of the word "moral" a joke among many of the people who are fighting you. Whether you like it or not, their influence is currently much much greater than yours. They have been turning your view of morality around and against you.

Another way of putting it is what is moral to a modernist is generally crazy talk to a postmodernist. "Who is this so-called God of theirs who would be so foolish as to tell them to be fruitful and multiply without consideration of limits, of sustainability!"

One who has been influenced by postmodernist's preaching of limits to human growth and the consequences of not checking that growth beliefs that it is YOU who is the immoral one, setting up the world to be destroyed by man's marauding in search of food and materials to sustain his God-commanded growth. The very meaning of protecting human life simply because that human hasn't committed a crime against persons or property is not looking at the limits the postmodernists considers a much more moral guideline. The existence of babies simply because they are babies and not because of what they may contribute versus what they will use up is simply IMMORAL to the postmodernist.

Okay. You may not like it, but I think I have painted you the picture of reality. The double-think of which I spoke is that underneath many you will speak with is the thought that there are many people, especially in the third world, who do not share this concern for globalist welfare. They claim on the one hand to be humanists, but on the other is the tacky situation around the globe for most of the last century, and now this one. Like in Zimbabwe where at least half the populations (7 of 14 million) are systematically being killed while the postmodernist west oohs and rails and cries crocodile tears as they encourage Mugabe about as blatantly contrary to the principles of the West when it was guided by truly modern influences.

This was not easy for me to write. There's probably typos in there. There's many other points that I left out. You may disagree with me all you want. If so, then make me defend this thesis. Break your complaints up into multiple posts as needed. If there is something you don't understand, ask it.

This is your personal copy of a thesis I've been struggling with, and still struggling with, for longer than you've known me.

Even if you don't believe me yet, you have enough knowledge here to reevaluate the forces that are fighting you. Their thinking and beliefs and anti-optimism is not the same as yours seems to be. God serves you. They seek to stand in His stead because they cannot or will not believe He exists. And in some instances, your opponents believe your God exists, but they hate Him. Getting any of them to admit what I have laid out here is not all that likely until they no longer fear you. Keep going in the manner you have been, ignore all that I have written here, and you will wind up serving your enemies all too well.