Humanism vs. Christianity
The Polarization of America
by Patrick Vosse
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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–
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
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
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
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
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
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.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN SOCIETY
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
 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