Chapter 15

Agendas That Polarize

Humanism vs. Christianity
The Polarization of America

by Patrick Vosse

Living Water at the Oasis
Living Water at the Oasis

Part Three
Polarization of America

Chapter 15 - Agendas That Polarize

There are many polarizing issued in America today. Arguments abound regarding economics, joblessness, border security, terrorism, racial issues, and the direction of government policy. The polarization between conservative and liberal politics is increasing. Big government versus limited government. Increase taxes and more government spending versus decrease taxes and less government spending. Here we are concerned only with those issues of polarization that involve Humanism and Christianity. Most, if not all, of the issues that polarize Humanists and Christians would not, in themselves, cause a problem – disagreement, yes, but not a deep polarization. For example, evolution per se need not be a problem as discussed earlier in the book. There is nothing in the Bible that would rule evolution out unless one takes the literal meaning of Genesis. Even so, the issue of evolution does not begin to polarize until the concept of Atheistic evolution is forced on the Christian community. People can hold different views and discuss them, argue about them (sometimes with passion), but when the discussions are finished, part company still friends who agree to disagree.

However, Progressives have implemented their agenda to have evolution by natural selection (without the influence of God) taught in schools and, as discussed in the last chapter, it is also used to take us down the slippery slope to opposing any mention of God and implement many items on the Humanist agenda. It is the Progressive agenda that aims to impose the Humanist philosophy on society, including Christians, that is objectionable. Coupled with the expressed opposition to Christianity, one can understand why Christians find the forced imposition of Humanist dogmas uncomfortable, to say the least. In this chapter, we will consider the main issues that are polarizing Humanists and Christians. There is a common thread that joins the issues discussed here--faith. We all have faith. The difference is that Humanists put their faith in humans and Christian put their faith in God: Flatland vs. Spaceland.



The Humanist says there is no God or, as in the case of the Religious Humanist, God is an impersonal force of nature. Humanists want to eliminate religion; they see no place for it in modern society. They have succeeded in eliminating most references to Jesus from public schools and other public venues. While Humanists claim to be against all forms of religion, it is Christianity that receives the brunt of the attack. In fact, Islam gets more than a free pass; it is encouraged in the public schools and defended by the ACLU. At the same time, the ACLU and sympathetic activist judges are attacking the traditions of Christianity.

Increasingly, Christians, particularly Evangelical Christians, are facing ridicule from the political and academic elite and the sympathetic media. Christians are portrayed as superstitious and ignorant. A belief in God is, at best patronized by "those who know better." The operative word here is know. The Humanist approach to God is empirical. Can one prove that there is a God scientifically? The Humanist response to that question is, "No." Therefore, since one cannot prove there is a God by the scientific method, God does not exist. Flatlander logic yields Flatlander answers.

For the Humanist, since there is no God, "heaven" is a social utopia here on Earth and the goal of Humanism is to bring all humanity to the higher society and share in the utopia equally. The Humanist existence is the physical universe, nothing more. There is no spiritual existence and there is nothing after death. Have a nice day.


The fundamental premise of Christianity is that there is a God. God is personal, omniscient, omni powerful, eternal, and the Creator of all that exists in the universe. God is one being with three personal manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is spirit, and as such cannot be known by the usual human senses; he is beyond our rational comprehension. The best we can do is to ascribe attributes to him metaphorically. He is a spirit and, as such, as we discussed in Chapter 9, God is several dimensions above our comprehension. But just as Square experienced Spaceland resulting in an unequivocal knowledge of it that his fellow Flatlanders rejected, so the Christian has an experience that Humanists reject. However, those who seek him can sense his presence in their lives and this give the assurance that there is a God. Much of Chapter 18 is devoted to this subject.

The Trinity is a concept difficult for many to grasp. Although there are three persons in the Godhead, there is only one being. Perhaps a lamp metaphor will help. Consider a lamp with a white light inside a three-sided enclosure. The top and bottom are solid and the sides consist of colored glass. One side is yellow glass, one side red, and one side is blue. When you turn on the lamp, the light source is one color, white, but each side manifests a different color, yellow, red, or blue. There is one light, but thee "manifestations" of that light. This is just a metaphor. It is difficult for us to actually comprehend the Trinity because there is nothing in the physical universe analogous. Or is there?

The same book of Genesis that describes the creation of the world, also describes God making man in his own image. You are a trinity composed of a body, soul (mind and emotions), and a spirit. Humans have a unique spirit and that is what makes us "in the image of God." That is what makes humans different from animals. In a sense, when Humanists deny God, they deny humanity. Since God is beyond our comprehension, we cannot know him through reason or scientific testing. God must reveal himself to us. He does this through prophets who have written this knowledge in scriptures accumulated over several centuries.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Is 55:8, 9

All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16

For the Christian, all authentic knowledge about God comes through revelation, not through reason (as some in the Political and Social Churches might suggest). For the Christian, it is a matter of faith, not reason.


God is the basic difference between the Humanist and the Christian. Without a divine entity, the Humanist must rely on humans to be the ultimate source and the ultimate goal. If there is no God, there is no one to hold us responsible for our actions except society – a collection of humans. If there is no God, religion is meaningless superstition, the Humanist Manifesto is right, and the Progressive agenda has merit. And Christians are just wasting their time and tithes.

However, what if there is a God? What if he is revealed in the Scriptures? That would put the Humanist position in peril, mortal peril. It would mean that there is an authority higher than Man. It would change the purpose of our existence. It would mean society and the state are not the final answer and all philosophies and the political structures based on them are wrong. Perhaps this is why Marx was so negative about religion:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people. To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.

Christianity is a threat to Humanism. Rather than the "sigh of the oppressed creature", Christianity is the halleluiah of individuals free from the bonds of sin. When a person puts his faith in God, the state is no longer so important; everything is in perspective. When a person looks forward to a life with God after death, things of this life, including the state, are no longer so important. Totalitarian governments throughout history saw Christianity as a threat: Rome, Nazi Germany, China, Russia, and the fledgling Progressive movement in America. Christians get their marching orders from a higher authority and that makes the Humanist uncomfortable.

As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture. HM2, Article 2

Who do you put your faith in, Man or God?



The Humanist position on ethics is clearly stated in HM2, Article 3:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.

For the Humanist, morals are self-defined. We answer to ourselves and to society because there is no higher authority. Humanism describes moral standards as variable, not absolute. Morality is situational and changes with society. It requires no discipline. What was immoral a century ago or in a different set of circumstances my be moral now – if society says it is moral. As HM2, Article 5 states, "We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility." It seems the Humanist position is that you can do whatever you like, as long as it does not cause harm to others. And the converse is you do not have to do anything you do not want to do. The rebels of the '60s took this philosophy as their motto, "Do your own thing." The result is a society that abhors discipline and expects entitlements to compensate for that lack of discipline. Humanists rejects the discipline of a moral standard (code of conduct) and attribute many negative results to such discipline as stated in HM2, Article 5:

We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality.

The question that is presented by this philosophy is, "Can there be an ethical moral society without a moral code and the discipline to follow it?" The Human Manifesto, Article 3, states the basic philosophy of the Humanist: We strive for the good life, here and now.


The moral standard begins with the Ten Commandments. Except for the first couple of commandments that refer to God and his objections to idolatry, it is difficult to see how Humanists can be offended by them. However, the ACLU is active in trying to get them removed from public venues. The Old Testament law is much more than the Ten Commandments; it consists of four books, each dealing with it completely or partially. As explained by the apostles in their letters, the Law was the standard God set for his people. God set the bar high. In a sense, God was saying, "If you want to be justified and worthy to enter into my presence, you have to conduct your life as though Adam and Eve never sinned and the human character was never corrupted. Here's how to live a righteous life." In order to live such a life, a person had to have superhuman discipline. However, we are not superhuman and no one followed the moral code set by God. No one, that is, until Jesus. Not only did Jesus fulfill the law, he set the bar even higher.

The Law said, "Do not kill." Jesus said, "Do not even become angry with your neighbor." The Law said, "Do not commit adultery." Jesus said, "Do not even look upon a woman with lust." However, humans are still plagued with the corrupt nature inherited from Adam and the moral standard set by Jesus is impossible to attain. That is why we need to rely on Jesus, as discussed previously. However, the Christian is committed to repent, turn away from a life that does not meet God's standard. The question is, turn from what to what. The answer is found in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul provides a concise description of the "fruit" of the natural life.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21

Then he gives us the standard by which we are to live in order to please God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Gal 5:22-24

Of course, these are rather abstract and further guidance is required for a practical application to one's life and both the Old and New Testaments are full of this guidance. It is the goal towards which the Christian strives. None of us reaches that goal. However, that does not make Christians hypocrites, just human and more aware of our need for divine assistance. The attempt to reach the moral goal set by Jesus requires discipline. The followers of Jesus were called disciples. Christians who have repented and committed themselves to Jesus are modern disciples of Christ. The discipline required is great. That is where the Holy Spirit comes in. Using the Flatland metaphor, the Holy Spirit is the "Sphere" to the "Square" Christian. The Holy Spirit reveals God's moral standards to each Christian by fine-tuning his conscience and making him aware of the sin in his life. Then he gives the spiritual strength to live by those standards. However, being human, we continuously fail. That is where Jesus comes in. His salvation is not a one-time event; it continues and is an integral part of every Christian's life. As the Holy Spirit "trains" the Christian soul, the discipline becomes easier. The old ways become unappealing. The new moral standards become more appealing, more natural. Eventually, the Christian does not have to live according to God's standard; he or she wants to live that way.

Humanists decry the dogma of Christianity as being restrictive, stifling creativity, and preventing humanity from reaching its full potential. Is that true? Michael Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci owed their ability to create, in large part, to the sponsorship of the Church. And that was the Political Church, the most dogmatic in history. Handel and Bach composed their best work under Church sponsorship; again under the dogmatic Political Church.

Dogma is discipline. The fact is, humans need discipline in order to achieve. We need standards to measure our life by. We need a moral compass to give us a direction and to tell us when we are lost. The Christian needs the moral standards given by the Church.


It would seem that the dispute over morality is as much about discipline as it is about the differences between the standards themselves. The increase in Humanist influence in our society reflects this lack of discipline, the "do your own thing" mind-set, the Dr. Spock mind-set discussed in the last chapter. The music composed under the dogmatism and discipline prior to the onset of Humanism reflects care and order. The success of that music is measured in centuries. Music today is considered a success if it survives a month. Concerts today will include modern, Progressive, composers in order to claim a complete repertoire, however, if they want to draw a full house, the fall back on Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and the like.

The Progressive lack of discipline is reflected in art as well. Consider the masters that painted in the period before the rise of Humanism in our society. They apprenticed for a decade or more under a dogmatic master– discipline. Their works are now almost priceless and– rare. They are rare because the painter of today have a difference mind-set, a Humanist mind-set. Back in the '60s I saw a painting in the University of Nebraska Gallery. It was a 3 X 4 foot canvas painted red with a 6-inch horizontal yellow line. It was titled, Yellow Line and got rave reviews by the critics. I am not sure, but I think a 5-year old could have done as well. We live in a world without discipline where an ape can finger-paint on a canvas and win first place with raves from the art critics, who acclaim the work as a fine example of "primitive expression". Or, consider the "artist" who spread his feces over the canvas. It hung in a major art gallery and, as you might expect, received praise from the critics.

The Humanist philosophy of maximum individual autonomy can result in creativity, or it can result in chaos. Not all sound is music. Not all line and color (or feces) is art. Not all free expression is creativity. Not all philosophy is enlightened, some of it is merely mental flatulence. How can you know the difference without and immutable set of standards? This is where Humanists and Christians diverge; absolute moral standards are necessary. For the Humanist there are no boundaries. For the Christian, God sets definite and unchanging boundaries. A lack of limits results in dispersion and chaos. Definite moral standards require discipline and maturity. However, the difference in the standards is even more significant than the lack of discipline that results in those standards. A few of the more important standards that form the Christian "dogma" are discussed in detail in the following section.



All forms of Humanism deny the need for individual salvation from personal sin. That individuals commit offenses against other individuals is acknowledged, but the infraction is against society and the person is responsible only to society. Even Religious Humanism, as expressed in the Humanist Manifesto 1 and Unitarianism, denies a personal God and perceives some type of natural influence like the "Force" in Star Wars. For these, the social gospel of Collective Salvation is the closest a Humanist will come to any form of salvation. For Humanists, our society is "saved" as it advances in technology, eliminates poverty and war, and implements the Humanist Manifesto in its entirety. This is based on the fact that humans are fundamentally good.

To some extent, the "salvation" of the Humanist is an integral part of evolution. If one accepts the evolution by natural selection hypothesis, it follows that humans are still evolving. In time, we will develop biologically, mentally, and socially into a "super race" that will build a utopian "super society" consistent with Humanist principles. That is the salvation of the Humanist.


Christians approach the condition of Man from an entirely different position; mankind is fundamentally sinful. This is found in Genesis, that same book that brings us the evolution-creation debate. Scriptures tell us that initially, Man was different than he is now. Made in the image of God, he had a spiritual component and a different nature. He had the potential for eternal life, no need of health insurance, and complete compatibility with nature. He directly communicated with God on a daily basis–spirit to Spirit. He had it all. However, Man was tempted to participate in a forbidden knowledge that would make him a god. He wanted to break free from his personal relationship with God and "do his own thing." When Adam and Eve fell to the temptation and began the road to "self-salvation" through knowledge, their nature changed. Something fundamental changed.

To some extent, the Christian concept of humanity is the polar opposite of the Humanist view. Humanity devolved into a lesser state rather than evolved to a higher state. In this lower state of existence, we no longer have eternal life and health. No longer are we compatible with nature. Humanity's character has descended into violence, pride, greed, lust, dishonesty, selfishness, and ...well, the list is too long to cite here, but you get the idea. However, most important, we lost the personal relationship with God.

One might say, "So what? Sure humanity has all these faults, but we make the best life we can, fill it with as much pleasure we can, then die." However, what if our soul has a non physical character (Flatland-Spaceland)? What if there is a God who will judge us by our thoughts and actions; those same actions that our degenerate state of existence produces? What if we have an immortal soul and must be accountable to God? In that case all the knowledge in the world will not help us. The Scriptures also tell us that God is just in his judgments (no judicial activism here) and his standard for our behavior is the same now as it was with Adam and Eve. No sin allowed in his presence.

A common attitude toward salvation is that if one's good works outweigh one's bad works, God will give you a pass. However, this is not what the Bible says. Metaphor time again. Assume I give you a glass of water, and I contaminate it with a very small amount of botulism poison, but enough to kill you. Botulism poison is made by the botulism microorganism and one or two drops is enough to kill everyone in your neighborhood, so you don't want to even touch it to your tongue. Obviously that water is contaminated and not suitable for drinking, you don't want it near you and you don't want it mixing with pure water. If you mix the contaminated water with sugar and fruit juice or any mixture of "good" things, the poison is still there. To make the water fit for drinking, it is necessary to remove the poison. But the toxin molecules are spread throughout and mixed with the water molecules. The toxin will survive freezing, and radiation. The only way to make the water acceptable is to boil it for several minutes. Sufficient heat will destroy the toxin and make the water safe. Adding "good" things makes no difference. The boiled water is just as safe with or without the flavoring.

Humans are contaminated with a toxic sin that is death to our spirits. It contaminated all humanity when Adam and Eve fell and made us unacceptable to God. We can do thousands or millions of good works but the sin is still there. The solution is to deal with the contamination. However, since humans are not capable of "flavoring away" our corrupt nature, God must provide a solution, salvation requires divine intervention. It is the basic tenant of Christianity, that a just God requires atonement for the sins of humanity and that we are incapable of providing that atonement. God provided that atonement through Jesus. However, Jesus was not just another man; after all, no human can atone for his own sins, let alone all of mankind's sins. Jesus was begotten by God–-the Holy Spirit. So, while Jesus is a man, he is also God– the Son (remember the light metaphor). As such, he was capable of atoning for all sin in the world. He was not just a great teacher and example; he led a perfect and sinless life. Although innocent, he took upon himself the sins of the world and sacrificed himself as atonement for all sin so that all people could be restored to a personal relationship to God. In this, Christianity is unique among all religions and philosophies.


If one starts with the premise that there is no God, it follows that one cannot offend him, therefore there is no sin and no need for salvation. If, on the other hand, there is a God, then the observed actions of Mankind must have offended him throughout history and even be getting worse. If there is a God, we are in trouble. Salvation begins with the acknowledgment that we need a restoration with God; that we are in a position that needs improvement. Every religious person agrees with that last sentence; the differences are, 1) restored from what to what and, 2) how that restoration is accomplished. However, among religions, there is disagreement about both of these differences. Among all humanity, there is one point of agreement on this issue: Man rises to _________ (Utopia, Nirvana, Heaven, God – fill in the "heaven" of your choice) through his own efforts. Man works his way to God. However, Christianity is unique in that it is God who comes to Man and it is God that accomplishes the restoration. This is graphically portrayed in Figure 14, below.

Figure 14. Comparison between the various concepts of salvation. All human construct require Man to earn his way to development or restoration. Only Christianity receives salvation from God through faith in Jesus.

For Christians, there is no compromise in salvation, it comes through faith in Jesus. This is a fundamental concept of the New Testament.

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12

Thomas said to him, Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except though me." Jn 14:5,6

This is a point of contention, not only between Humanists and Christians, but between Christians and all other religions and philosophies. The concept that there are many ways to heaven is the politically correct point of view. No one is offended by the idea of universal salvation or collective salvation or "anything" salvation. The major difficulty that Progressives have with religion is Jesus.

A common argument offered by atheists is that an atheist can be just a "good" as a religious person. This argument is valid for comparisons between atheism and the religions shown in Figure 14. For those religions, the person strives to become better, evolve morally, as does the Atheist. In both cases, the effort is human. In the case of Christianity, the person never becomes "good' but remains a sinner. The Christian strives to walk God's path and meet his standards, but acknowledges that, by himself, he cannot. His salvation is personal and it is not accomplished by human effort but by the divine effort of Jesus. That the Christian grows in ability to walk God's path is the result of the salvation, not the cause. It is agreed that both atheist and Christian share the same level of "goodness" but that "goodness" is a sinful nature.



It is clear that without evolution, Humanism and all the philosophies and political systems that rely on it would be on shaky ground. As stated in the Humanist Manifesto (Article 2), "Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces." The operative word here is "natural". For the Humanist, evolution is the "science" that affirms there is no God. Evolution is the tool by which doors locked against the assault of the Progressives is unlocked, allowing the gradual encroachment of Humanism into our society. As discussed in the last chapter, it provides the key to abortion, euthanasia, right to suicide, opposition to Christianity, and socially directed morals. Without Atheistic evolution, Humanism would be just another philosophy, a minor one at that. With evolution, Progressives are on the brink of success.


As discussed in Chapter 2, there are several positions that Christians take on evolution. Some outright reject it. In that camp, one finds mostly the Evangelical Christians and a few members of mainline denominations. It is the predominant Christian view. Other Christians may accept some form of evolution. Most of these are in the Philosophical and Social Church. However, all who are authentic Christians reject evolution by natural selection alone. All hold to the basic concept that God created the universe and God created all that is in it. Even those Christians that accept evolution require a divine influence and oversight.


The basic polarizing issue with evolution is God, and the fact that a philosophy denying God is forced upon Christians. If the issue remained academic, each side could agree to disagree and move on. However, that is not the case. Evolution by natural selection is a required subject in schools, accepted as fact by the media, and imposed by judicial activists. The message, direct or indirect, is, "Here is proof there is no God." This is clearly stated in HM3:

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.

In addition to the direct attack on God, Christians object to the use of evolution to further other elements in the Humanist agenda that are in opposition to Christian principles. Some of these are discussed below. It is clear that evolution is not just basic to Humanists as an issue in itself but a thread that runs through many of the other issues important to Humanism. Eliminate evolution from Humanism and it is rendered null and void. On the other hand, A Godless evolution forced upon the Christian community, particularly the children, is unacceptable. It undermines the Gospel and the values promoted by the Christian family. The Christian, without some compromise, cannot accept evolution.



The Humanist position on homosexuality is that it is not a perversion and it must be accepted by society. This is summarized in HM2, Article 6:

The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.

Anything goes, as long as you do not harm another person. Of course, if there is no higher authority one must answer to, there is no need to restrict behavior, sexual or otherwise. For the Humanist, sexual behavior and preference is an individual decision. The individual sets his own moral standard and society must accept the resulting behavior. To not accept the actions of others is just not politically correct. However, as discussed in the previous chapter, the "law of the slippery slope" is as certain as the law of gravity – in both cases, things go downhill. With the assistance of the ACLU and activist judges, pedophilia is being handled with less severity. Children in public schools, as young as kindergarten, are being taught that homosexuality is normal and merely a variation on the theme.


The Christian position is based on an absolute moral standard. It is not up to the individual to decide if homosexuality is acceptable or not. Homosexuality is a perversion condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, the famous city of Sodom was a center of homosexuality; not unlike a certain West coast city today. The term "sodomy" comes from the city where the practice was ubiquitous. God considered the sins of the city so grievous that he completely annihilated the city. The Law was expanded from the Ten Commandments in Leviticus and there homosexuality was clearly forbidden.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable. Lev 18:22

Homosexuality has a history as long as humanity, but that does not make it natural or acceptable. Paul gives us a clue to why homosexuality increases in a culture.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created thing rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. Rom 1:25-27

Homosexuality to some degree exists in all societies. However, it expands and becomes overt in societies that abandon absolute moral values and focus on the material here and now. Ancient Rome comes to mind. That is why Christians become alarmed when they see homosexuality expressed in their own society and imposed as an acceptable activity. While homosexuality is a sin in itself, it is also a symptom of a deeper problem within society. Paul continues his discussion on homosexual perversion:

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what ought not be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Rom 1:28-32

For the Christian, homosexuality and its acceptance is a symptom of a degrading society.


There is one aspect of the homosexual issue on which Humanists and Christians can agree. The homosexual should not be abused. Any Christian who does, violates a greater moral standard: Love your neighbor. As the preacher says, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." Jesus put that in practice everywhere he went and the Christian must follow that path. Over the years, I have met and become acquainted with several homosexuals. With few exceptions, they were excellent company; intelligent, humorous, and well informed. I like them and, contrary to some opinions, they are just folks. But I must admit that when I consider their sexual preference, I am put off. I was repelled by the activity before I became a Christian. You need not be a Christian to consider homosexuality a perversion. But Paul told the Corinthians that Christians should reserve judgment for those within the Christian community and let God judge those outside of the Christian community. That does not mean that the Christian must accept a sinful lifestyle, just reserve judgment on the one living it. Only God knows his or her heart.

Left to practice sodomy in the privacy of their bedrooms, the Christian can dismiss the behavior as another symptom of a sinful world; another sin among many. However, as Progressives force acceptance of homosexuality on society, it becomes a public issue that deeply affects the Christian. Particularly when schools indoctrinate the children to accept the sin as well as the sinner. It is not just Christians who object, but it is the Christians who feel the assault the most because it presents sin as acceptable and a normal way of life.

A major difficulty arises when the Progressive promotes "Homosexual Rights." This implies that a homosexual has rights over and beyond the normal rights of other citizens. An employer may refuse to hire me without giving a reason, or just because he does not think I am right for the position. In many states, a homosexual can sue for discrimination if denied employment under the same conditions as me, and win.



For all its talk about furthering the human condition, Humanism seems obsessed with the killing of humans. Articles 6 and 7 of Humanist Manifesto 2 state that abortion, euthanasia and suicide are rights to be encouraged. As we discussed in the previous chapter, the implementation of these "rights" developed as they were pushed down the slippery slope by Progressives. In this section, we will consider the "right to abortion.

The premise for justifying abortion is the woman's right to the privacy of her body. It is her body and she can do with it what she wants - no argument there. The question is, where does her body end and the fetus body begin? The Progressives have difficulty with this question. As discussed previously, there is a smooth continuum of development from conception through birth (and eventually death in old age). Progressives have taken the legal approach in implementing abortion because, as we quoted Aristotle earlier, "Law is mind without reason," and activist judges need not struggle with an answer to that difficult question. Activist judges need not concern themselves with reason.

Initially, the question was avoided by allowing abortion in special cases that most people would accept, even a few Christians: Rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is threatened. However, most Christians objected to the first two. With the door to abortion open, it was just a matter of time for Progressives to expand the conditions for abortion to agree with the Humanist philosophy. The "threat to the woman's life" was liberalized to, "threat to the woman's physical health." Then that was liberalized to include her mental health, and finally her emotional discomfort. Gradually the Eugenicists imposed their Progressive philosophy. A test of the amniotic fluid can indicate the possibility of a child with mental abnormalities. What an inconvenience that would be! Recall the goal of the Humanist: We strive for the good life, here and now. Obviously, a child with mental or physical handicaps would interfere with that. And, of course, such a child would not contribute to the advancement of the species.

So far, the courts have stopped partial birth abortions (even though some activist judges have ruled in favor of it), but the Progressives, particularly the ACLU have not given up. It is just a matter of time until an activist court will exercise its "mind without reason" and justify infanticide with some obscure reason.

Planned parenthood clinics offer various rationalizations to ease the woman into the abortion. It is not yet human. It is simply a growth, a lump of cells. It won't feel a thing. It really isn't a person until birth and it has consciousness. Science has proven all this statement false. However, one Humanist moral axiom that I have observed is that "the means justifies the ends." Humanists will achieve their goals, whatever it takes.


Christians believe that a human is made in the image of God. Humans are unique and special. This is one of the fundamental differences between Evolutionist and Christians; between Humanists and Christians. Christians consider an individual a unique person, body, soul, and spirit, from the moment of conception. As such, the fetus has a God-given right to life to the same extent as any other person. The right to life comes from God, not a judge, court, or state. The mother has no rights over the life of the child.

Given these beliefs, the Christian community remains steadfastly against abortion and, in fact, considers the term feticide more appropriate. For the Christian, feticide is as much a sin if the fetus is newly conceived (morning after pill), a few weeks old, or a few months old. In all cases, the child is a human – fully human, if not fully developed. The child is a human because, in spite of what Evolutionists claim, a human is more than its biological, physical existence. It is the spirit that makes you and me human and different from all other creatures. The spirit is imbued at conception and the fertilized egg is now an individual human. There something Humanists, in spite of being proponents of "reason and science is everything", do not want you to know. Science confirms that the fertilized egg is indeed a unique individual. Upon conception the DNA components of the mother and father combine to form DNA unique to the child. The DNA you have right now in all of your cells is the same DNA formed at the moment of conception. You are 9 months older than what your driver's license states.


This polarization is fundamental. You either rationalize that killing a fetus is not murder or you think that killing the fetus is murder. You think the fetus is not a human individual or your think the fetus is a human individual. You rationalize feticide and suffer the consequence later, or you accept what God says and, in spite of the inconvenience, live with a clear conscience. Society is clearly moving toward the rationalizations that support feticide.



The Humanist phrase, "We want the good life and we want it now" defines a certain lifestyle that smacks of hedonism. This is encouraged by self-determined moral standards that allow indulgence without concern for spiritual consequences. As the influence of Humanism increased over the last six decades, so has the hedonistic lifestyle of America. Beginning in the '60s, the "if it feels good, do it" mind set emerged and embedded itself in our society. Once sexual promiscuity was socially unacceptable, now it is a part of most movies and TV shows. Sexual promiscuity is now part of the fabric of America. In the 50's, drugs, including marijuana, were the exclusive purview of the fringes of society, the elite intelligencia and the hippy rebels. Now drugs are found throughout society and are gradually being legalized.

Pornography, once illegal and considered a sign of a perverted character is now found on newsstands, movies, and cable TV. The ACLU fights for the right to ply the pornographic trade in spite of the fact that is demeans women; another contradiction found in the Humanist Manifesto. The family is seen as archaic and an impediment to advancing the species. A few quotes from the National Education Association's 10th annual Yearbook (see Appendix 4) will give a clue as to where liberal teachers are leading our children.

"Presumably the person which has specialized in child psychology and other sciences is better prepared to engineer a group of boys and girls in certain socialized activities than is the lay parent..."

Under the condition of freedom and plenty generated by industrial society, the youth of the country are abandoning the severe sex taboos of the past; the sanctity of the marriage relationship is being challenged; the dogmas and ceremonies of the church are losing their power."

Education must be redirected if it is to become the chief means whereby society will attempt to remake itself.

Relativity must replace absolutism in the realm of morals as well as in the spheres of physics and biology.

After a few decades of this classroom indoctrination, it is no wonder our society is drifting towards the Humanist mind-set. The removal of moral restrictions is and expressed goal of Humanists and there is a slow drift towards that goal assisted by the NEA, ACLU, activist judges, and Progressive politicians and, yes, even some clergy in the "Social Church" who would, in the days of the early Church, be considered heretics.


The apostle Peter foresaw the decline of morals in society as part of the conditions preceding the last days.

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into dispute. 2 Pet 2:2

These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity–for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 2 Pet 2:17-19

Since Christians believe in God, an afterlife, a corrupt human nature, the need for salvation, and a just God who will punish the unredeemed, it is not surprising that lifestyle is important to Christians. A commitment to a God-approved lifestyle is part of the repentance process. Christians are human and, as such, occasionally fall. OK, maybe a bit more than occasionally. Nevertheless, they get back up and press on. A supportive Christian community and moral lifestyle help to avoid the falls and live a life that pleases God.

The sinfulness of the Humanist lifestyle is offensive to the Christian; however, that is not the main concern. The problem, and it is increasing, is that this lifestyle is pressing down on the Christian community enticing the weaker members to follow and to stumble. It is hard enough without the external temptation. A major concern is that Christian children are being indoctrinated in the Humanist lifestyle and the courts are ruling against the parents.

The early Christians were referred to as "disciples of Christ" and that term is as appropriate today as it was 2,000 years ago. The Bible encourages the Christian to obey the teachings of Christ; to walk in his footsteps. Since Christians have the same weaknesses as everyone else, it is important to avoid temptation as much as possible; therefore, the need for a lifestyle that avoids the temptations.


The difficulty is that the Humanist lifestyle is becoming embedded in society and is ubiquitous. Christians in high school are ridiculed for their lifestyle by other students who follow the Humanist moral standards. Evangelist is a term of derision in much of the media and can be counted on to get laughs in a late night talk show. In the political world, the evangelical Christian is the "fringe right" because of their lifestyle. The Christian lifestyle is as offensive to Humanists as the Humanist lifestyle is to the Christians. So much for political correctness without bias.

As I mentioned in the Prologue, my conversations with Humanists regarding evolution and the scientific method are usually met with hostility. However, the hostility is only superficially about my challenge to evolution or one of the dogmas of Humanism. The hostility is directed to me as a fanatic, ignorant Christian. My position regarding religion never enters the conversation and yet they make the assumption that I am a Christian based on the fact that I oppose Humanism. In fact, there are many nonreligious persons who oppose at least a few of the issues promoted by Progressives for political reasons. I have noticed that once the person is identified as nonreligious, the objections are met with reasonable argument (albeit passionate) and the hostility dissipates. To put it simple, Humanists do not like the Evangelical Christian.

Regarding the Humanist lifestyle, it is the Evangelical Christian that compares it to the standards of morality set by God. It is the Evangelical Christian that points out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies with the rationalizations that are used to defend it. It is the Evangelical Christian that shows an alternative lifestyle that may touch the Humanist, not in the head but in the heart, and stirs the conscience. It is the Evangelical Christian that make life difficult for the Humanist. The two lifestyle are incompatible; they are poles apart.



The utopian world of the Humanist is unified under one government with no national boundaries. The world government controls the world economics, judicial system, education, and defines the moral standards as determined by society at the time. This objective is stated in HM2, Article 12:

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus, we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.

This concept of a world government is also expressed in Marxism and some religions such as Islam. Initially, Communism seeks the control of the national government, however, since Communism cannot compete with Capitalism economically, it can succeed only if there is a world government and that government is Marxist.

Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)[1]

Serious efforts to establish a world government began with the League of Nations and continued with the United Nations. Today Progressives press to strengthen the United Nations and morph it into a world government.

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. ~ George Soros, June 2006

A "world order" cannot be established as long as the world has a superpower that has as a fundamental principle national sovereignty. Particularly if that sovereignty is mixed with a generous dose of Christianity.


The Christian position on world government is complex. As in the case of evolution, there is no consensus within the Christian community. And, as in the case of evolution, the issue does nothing to affect the core beliefs of Christianity. However, as in the case of evolution, there is a significant percent of Christians whose theology is such that they oppose any hint of a world government. To understand the division within the Church on this subject, it is necessary to understand millennialism.

Millennialism is a theology that is taken from several Biblical references to the last days and the return of Jesus Christ. Some interpret these references to mean that Christ will physically return and, with his Church, establish a world government, dispensational millennialism. Others interpret the references as metaphor and mean that the "kingdom" is a spiritual kingdom and Christ will rule the world through his Church, amillennialism. There are variations on these two concepts, but this is sufficient for our discussion.

It is the dispensational millennialists that severely oppose a secular world government. Among Christians in America, Evangelical Christians are growing the fastest in both numbers and influence. The Progressives refer to them as the "fringe right conservatives" but there is nothing "fringe" about them. According to a Pew religious pole conducted in 2007, Evangelicals are now the largest category of Christians in the United States. And they are the most active. And they are dispensational millennialists. And they do not like the idea of a secular world government. And the Progressives do not like them!

The reason the Evangelicals (and many others in the Christian community as well) object to a secular government is that the biblical references to the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom on earth also predict that it will be preceded by the rise of a secular world government. That secular world government will be the vehicle for the Antichrist's world dominion. It is easy to connect Humanism and its values with a secular world government; the Humanist Manifesto makes the connection. As a result, there are many Christians who are threatened by a secular world government that is atheistic and promotes the Humanist morality as discussed above.


It is not just Christians who oppose the idea of a world government. Many fear the loss of national sovereignty and political accountability. However, the Evangelical Christian is the major force in this opposition. When one considers the results of a Progressive political movement in America with the increasing implementation of the Humanist moral degradation and anti-Christian atmosphere, the concept of a world government and its multiplying effect is alarming.


People disagree about everything. There are several topics that tend to elicit significant passion: politics, religion, a favorite football team, to name a few. Until a few decades ago, people had their "heated" conversations, agreed to disagree, and then continued their lives as usual. However, the '60s brought a tsunami of social, political, and religious change that swept across our nation and touched every life. These changes caused strife in families, in the workplace, and even in the churches. Humanism had been a philosophy for over a hundred years without causing more than a serious conversation between friends with differing perspectives. However, when the social climate shifted to a greater acceptance of liberal ideas, the Humanists, through their implementation arm the Progressive movement, advanced their philosophy and today it is the center point of most discussions in one way or another. These discussions are not like those of the past. They are heated and often mean spirited. The passions run deeper every year.

If the issues were politics, religion, or sports, per se, compromise can and usually does resolve the differences. However, the root cause of today's conflicts is much deeper. The reasons for the disagreements have changed. Once, the differences between liberal and conservative politics were focused on economics and the size of government. Today, politicians are concerned with the differences between Humanist values and Christian values and this presents a dilemma because, unlike purely political conflicts, there can be no compromise between these groups on most of the issues.

As you review the issues expressed in Humanist Manifesto 2, it is obvious that there are a few that are acceptable to both sides: Prevent wars, eliminate hunger and disease, improve the human condition. However, for the Christian, this "sugar" coats a poison pill. Also, for the Humanist, the issues expressed in HM 2 are fundamental to their philosophy. Eliminate any of them and you have destroyed the philosophy. Table 9, below summarized the major areas of difference that appear to have no room for compromise.

Table 9. Summary of the Humanist-Christian irreconcilable differences.


There is no spiritual existence, There is no personal God. At most, God is a natural force that permeates the universe. Heaven is a social utopia here on earth.
There is a spiritual existence. There is a God who is personal, intelligent and above the physical. Heaven is a realm of existence beyond the physical in which God and Man spend eternity together.


Ethics are situational. Society and the individual sets moral standards and they change according to the changes in community attitudes.
Moral standards are established by God, as written in the Bible. These standards are immutable and not subject to the whim of the individual.


There is no sin, therefore, there is no need for salvation. "Salvation" is advancing the world society to a utopia in which all humanity lives without poverty, conflict, or illness.
There is sin and every person will be judged for all sins committed. Atonement for sin is beyond good works and rituals; it requires the sacrifice of the perfect offering. Jesus became the perfect offering and in his death and resurrection, atoned for all sins.


The universe is "self-existing" and all life, including humans, evolved by natural selection without God.
God created everything and nothing exists without the creative action of God.


The practice of any sexual perversion is the individual's right and must be accepted by society. Homosexuality is a matter of personal preference, like one's preference for chocolate and should not be condemned.
Homosexuality is a perversion of nature and is expressly condemned by God. Christians should love the homosexual, as does Jesus, but must also condemn the perversion.


Killing a fetus has no moral implication. It is the right of the woman over her body. The fetus is not an individual and has no right to life.
The fetus is an individual from the moment of conception and has a right to life given by God.


Based on the Humanist moral standards and philosophy of "I want the good life and I want it now", a liberal lifestyle of sexual promiscuity, perversion, abortion, and drugs is acceptable.
Based on the moral standards established by God, sexual promiscuity, perversion, abortion, and drugs are unacceptable. The Christian must live a life acceptable to God and avoid the Humanist lifestyle.

World Government

The solution to global poverty, ecological disasters, war, and financial crises is a world government.
A secular global government is a threat to national sovereignty and can impose the Humanist ethical standards and anti-Christian policies worldwide.

The issues summarized in Table 9 are fundamental to the way we live. They affect politics, education, religion, and even family relations. As long as Christians are quiet and say nothing about the Progressive agenda, discussions remain at the superficial level, as they always have. As long as gay marriage, abortion, or prayer in schools stays at the political level of consideration, compromise is possible. However, once Christians raise the morality of the issues, the discussions "go nuclear" and become divisive. The Progressives charge the "Christian Far Right" as dogmatic, ignorant, and regressive. Their views are represented as on the far conservative margin and not worth considering. This is understandable because the Christian position is a threat to the principles of the Humanist philosophy.

With the exception of those on a Philosophical, Social, or Scientific Church, the Christian community is bound by the standards set in the Bible regarding salvation and lifestyle. To yield on these issues is to reject the fundamentals of the Faith and that would have an eternal consequence.

If one looks into the major issues of today, goes beyond the superficial rhetoric, at the root there is a conflict between the Humanist and Christian. As the Christian community becomes more vocal about these issues, so does the Progressive movement. Since there is little room for compromise, the division deepens and affects all American. In addition, since there is little room for compromise, the middle ground is becoming narrower. America is polarizing.

[1] Congressman A. S. Herlong address to the House of Representatives, January 10, 1963. Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12.

Copyright © 2011 by Patrick Vosse
All Rights Reserved

Click the link below to return to
Purity Publications Free Christian Ebook Store: