The Bible VS. Humanism (2)By Steven F. Deaton |
|
Man is the all-in-all. Man is the problem and the solution. This is humanism’s view of the universe. It is decidedly unbiblical and illogical. Despite the lofty rhetoric of humanists, that we need to respect all men, there philosophy degrades human life. While they have a general attitude that religion foments hatred and war, they call for the outright slaughter of the innocent and helpless. Kill Babies The following quote is long, but worth reading. It is 30 years old, but still the attitude of humanists today.
Involved in the right to birth control is the right to voluntary sterilization and abortion (The Humanist, Jan/Feb 1976). With all we know today, does this quote make you stop and think? Thirty years ago humanists were pushing their agenda of teaching “comprehensive sex-education for both children and adults.” We have all seen the reports or been in the class room and know the type of “sex-education” that is taking place. Condoms are being given out. Contraceptives are given to girls. Texas had a plan to vaccinate pre-teen girls for venereal disease. The humanists have won this battle so far; their perversion has permeated our education system and society. Another point to be made is about a “contraceptive.” Dictionary.com’s first definition is, “tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation.” Contraceptives prevent conception. They do not terminate the conception! Abortion is not a contraceptive. Perhaps one could stretch it to be “birth control,” but it is the most gruesome, violent, radical form. It is birth control like Hitler exercised “population control” through mass murder of Jews. The Bible squarely condemns murdering babies, which was punishable by death under the Law of Moses (Ex. 21:22-25). Murder is still wrong, whether of the unborn or others. Euthanasia The honest humanist will carry through with the doctrine of death. Peter Singer is one such believer who is a professor at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values (a great irony considering the following). He said,
He advocates infanticide and euthanasia, including on babies with Down’s syndrome or spina bifida. His view is that parents ought to have a period of time after the birth of the child to determine whether or not it is worth keeping. If not, kill it. This is nothing short of cold-blooded murder being advocated. This philosophy does not stop with babies. It extends to the elderly and ill as well. Many of us know of Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian. He helped a number of people with supposed terminal illnesses commit suicide. He was complicit in their deaths. He ended up serving time. But, during all the uproar over what he did it came to light that many, many people in our society believe in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Part of the argument is that society has limited resources and must therefore determine the value of each life—they are not all equal. Those who have a lower quality-of-life value should be terminated to give others with better chances or circumstances more resources. By the way, this is part of the fear with a centralized health-care system; the “care” will be rationed and withheld from some who are lower on the scale. Paul’s quality of life really stank at times, from the purely physical perspective (2 Cor. 11:23-25; 12:7). So did Job’s. So did Jesus’. What would the humanist view be on an unmarried woman being with child, engaged to a man who was not the father, and looked forward to a life of relative humble existence under the rule of a foreign power? Would they have advised Mary to abort Jesus? The humanists’ culture of death is frightening. If their doctrines continue to spread and be accepted in our society and others, we can look forward to more innocent people being murdered for the physical convenience and economic comfort of others. It is sick and sad. Let us oppose it at every turn. More to come... |
That which has been is what will be, |
