Liberals continue their attack on the authority of scripture

Once again, those progressive, mainline Protestant and liberal Jewish types are teaming up with the Obama White House to defy clear biblical teaching.

In explicit denial of the authority of scripture, these postmodern, anything-goes folks are calling for a “Global Fund to Eradicate Modern-Day Slavery.”

God is not mocked. If we turn our backs on the absolute truth of scripture and deny the authority of its clear teaching on the traditional institution of slavery, then we no longer have any basis for morality, meaning, truth or virtue. We lose our foundation, our anchor, and we are adrift. We become godless nihilists, or we set ourselves up as God.

This is how it always begins. People claim that their idea of morality should replace what the Bible tells us. They start out by attacking a God-given institution blessed by scripture and eventually they wind up calling for the abolition of all Ten Commandments.

It’s no coincidence, after all, that the same people seeking to “eradicate” slavery also deny that thy neighbor’s wife is his property. No wonder these people don’t want to see the Ten Commandments posted in our courtrooms. They hate the Word of God.

This is how things started in Germany. But where are the modern-day Bonhoeffers who will stand up against this anti-biblical crusade? Unless Christians take a bold stand in defense of clear biblical teaching, this will lead to the end of the Christian nation the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Once you come to see things this way, you’ll learn to decode the language of these “progressive” so-called Christians. You’ll come to understand that when you hear talk of things like a plan to “eradicate modern-day slavery,” what you’re really seeing is a plan to overthrow the traditional institutions established by the Bible. What you’re really seeing is a denial of the authority of scripture and a plan to persecute American Christians.

Update: Dr. James Dobson summarizes the gravity of the situation:

I am writing you this month about the institution of slavery, which is rocking and reeling like a ship on a stormy sea. Attacks on its stability and integrity are coming today from every major center of power. Each seems determined to redefine slavery and destroy its underpinnings. This 5,000-year-old institution, dating back to the dawn of humankind, is almost defenseless against the federal judiciary, the White House, the Congress, the Entertainment industry, large corporations, the Education monopoly, and the entire liberal movement. If people of faith don’t come to the aid of traditional slavery very quickly, it will be damaged beyond repair. …

"This is not fair criticism.He gave the quote on the understanding it was for publication. ..."

Unspoken testimony
"Have American presidents ever faced prosecution for their crimes against humanity? It's not a precedent ..."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address
"That's not "irony". It's JUSTICE."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address
"They barely have a basic understanding of words that appear in dictionaries."

Romans 13 and the Gettysburg Address

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ahem. Do you read my blog? If not, how could you make such a broad statement?

  • Foelhe

    Calling it a necessary evil doesn’t make me think the bible is disagreeing with it though, not in any meaningful way. The bible may not support slavery as a philosophy but it does support it as a way of life, which in my mind is a lot more important.

    Romans, you should really read the rest of the chapter for context. Romans doesn’t say being gay is wrong so much as it says people were turned gay because they worshiped false idols. Which isn’t so much flexible as it is bugfuck stupid, but unless you’re going to argue that other religions turn people gay you can’t use that verse to back up much. And the verse in Corinthians generally gets slammed for being a really sketchy translation, but I’ll leave that to someone who knows more about the original language.

  • No. If I wanted to think myself powerful, I wouldn’t hurt my Disqus rating so much by commenting here. I don’t hate the world.

  • Pi’s mentioned in the Pentateuch? [citation needed].

  • So, you’re arguing against one or more of my premises, as stated in ? Are you arguing that irrationality or superstition are desirable? That religion does not promote irrationality or superstition?
    I declare your premise that water is poison ludicrous, as water is usually quite beneficial and is GRAS.

  • That wouldn’t be “homeopathic”; I do not claim a sufficiently small dose of religion becomes rationality.

  • They’re handy on feminist friendly sites that get an influx of dudebros coming in to complain about a hot button topic. But, yea other than that they are worthless.

  • Agreed.

  • Lunch Meat

    You have not defined either religion or superstition adequately for me to even understand, let alone dispute, your premises. Your definitions are so vague and qualified as to be meaningless. You are a bad communicator; that is not my problem.

    I also reject your [unstated] premise that all bad or undesirable things are “poison.” That is a completely unwarranted assumption.

  • Lunch Meat

    By the way, you’re the one who said that poisonous things can still be beneficial, as religion “encourages good behavior”. You also said that poison does not have to cause detectable harmless effects. Therefore, there is no reason that water cannot be a poison.

  • I’ll see your 1859 and raise you a 1996 (and republished in 2004):

    Wilson and Wilkins are quite specific about the many benefits of slavery for African-Americans, and they conclude that southern slaves genuinely appreciated those benefits and supported the system that provided them. As such, they claim that “slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War [the Civil War] or since.”

    (…) “There has never been … a multi-racial society that has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.”

    (Source.) That’s Douglas Wilson. Prominent, mainstream, fundamentalist evangelical, endorsed by John Piper, seen as credible enough to stand in a public debate with Andrew Sullivan (& moderated by Peter Hitchens).

  • Lunch Meat

    (“harmless” above should be “harmful.”)

  • Wednesday

    Pi is the ratio of the circumference to a circle to its diameter. There is a description of a big golden bowl as having this ratio of 3, which given when the OT was written isn’t a bad estimate at all. A cursory Google gives chapter and verse as I Kings 7, 23 and II Chronicles 4, 2, which may not be the Torah proper but is still the Old Testament.

    So, not in the Torah itself, but still mentioned in a religious text, but not poisoned by it (unless you are honestly going to tell me that pi is somehow harmed by ancient civilizations being less precise, or that pi is now harmful to people?)

    Since you didn’t challenge items 1-8, I assume you accept them as examples of things which have (a) been touched by religion, and (b) not poisoned by it? (All it takes is a single counterexample to disprove a universal statement.)

  • mountainguy

    Hitchens drinks everything he touches

  • Supporting a Christofascist and turning around and saying religion poisons everything is so obviously hypocritical that the most charitable interpretation might be that you just like to argue for argument’s sake, making basically anything you say completely and utterly pointless.

    I would have more respect for you if you literally DID poison everything. I love Lucretzia Borgia.

  • I have defined “superstition”:
    You’re right; I should have defined “religion” before asking you to challenge one or more of my premises.

  • Did I ever say religion did not poison North’s work? I certainly do not support North’s Presbyterianism.

  • Lee B.

    No, the correct response is, “What a stupid concept.”

    But don’t get discouraged. Keep trying, and you’ll eventually understand the hu-mans.

  • I am a hu-man. I was trying to be subtle.

  • Lunch Meat

    I challenged your definition by pointing out that it does not apply to actual, real-world religions and their beliefs. Since you have not defended it, your first premise stands disproven. Shall I assume you are conceding the argument?

  • For both ironic mocking and additional geek cred, you could have license plate holder that says “Who is Andrew Ryan?”

  • You summarized my positions accurately, though I don’t see how Geds provided a “formal logic explanation of why this is an invalid argument”.

  • Mark Z.

    It would seem so much simpler to just recognize that slavery is wrong no matter what either testament says.

    Yes, and it would be even simpler for everyone to just shut up and do what I tell them. Unfortunately that is not one of the options available to us.

  • arcseconds

    I don’t think I understand your response.

    You tell us it should be easy to disprove your statement by coming up with one example. I came up with an example, and you… well, you don’t like it.

    Why? Well, you point to a post which seems hard to apply to instrumental music.

    Do you think Pärt’s ‘Spiegel Im Spiegel’ promotes superstition?

    I suppose you do, as that’s what your response was to spinetingler’s similar example of Bach. It contains poison (i.e. promotes superstition) in some tiny and mysterious way.

    And you think religious people are the superstitious ones…

  • Not all of them. I imagine the folks pushing to make divorce harder or institute Domestic Abuse Licenses “covenant marriage” are among the opponents of marriage equality.

  • Lorehead

    I’m no fan of those (or the attempt by North Carolina Republicans to drag all divorces out for two years), but in fairness, covenant-marriage laws do consider domestic violence grounds for divorce (again, in clear contradiction of the NT definition of marriage, which states that only adultery by the wife would qualify).

  • EllieMurasaki

    But aren’t covenant-marriage law proposals coming out of the same sector of religion that says the correct thing for an abused wife to do is to try to reform her husband?

  • To live like the hu-man / to love like the hu-man. Why are these things against the plan? At what point on the graph to “must” and “cannot” intersect?

  • Lorehead

    Maybe, but can you give me an example of a covenant-marriage law that would have the effect of giving license to domestic violence? (I can think of some instances where conservatives claimed a right to abuse children or did not want restraining orders to be available and enforceable.)

  • Fusina

    Out of curiousity, do the downvotes–or the upvotes, while we are at it, mean anything to anyone other than the person who posts the comment?

    Is Big Brother watching and keeping track of our silliness? /whisper

  • Not that I can see. I can’t even see my downvotes on my disqus profile. It’s just nice to see community disapproval when someone shows up acting repugnant, like rape apologists in a thread on cosplay=/=consent threads and stuff.

  • Fusina

    Thank you for the clarification.

    Um. I was reading bits of the conversations on this post to my atheist friend, and even she declared a certain party illogical and downright weird. She intimated that he sounds like a guy sitting in his mother’s basement posting to groups out of boredom or just to “make a difference” without doing anything more. She is now thinking of reading some of this blog–I told her there were lots of atheists here, she should feel right at home.

    Ah, and she has declared me religiously poison free. ;-)

  • Carstonio

    Yeah, I sounded incrediby messianic. My point was that these folks spend a great deal of time rationalizing and defending positions that, to me, sound morally repulsive. Almost like part of their conscience objects to discrimination based on orientation and they’re trying to suppress these qualms. Or maybe they’re like a slaveowner telling himself that he and his slaves deserve their respective positions.

  • arcseconds

    Look, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a …

    …oh, I’ve had enough of this, I’m bored… I never wanted to be a logician, anyway, I always wanted to be… a lumberjack!

  • Rhubarbarian82

    I think “TDADDY” is kind of funny in that ironic hipster fashion.

    Also, mocking people for having a tiny penis on FB is pretty jerkwad behavior. You might want to not do that as a general rule. I don’t see how those two even relate, honestly.

  • Fusina

    Leaping from tree to tree, as they float down the mighty rivers of
    British Columbia. The Giant Redwood. The Larch. The Fir! The mighty
    Scots Pine! The lofty flowering Cherry! The plucky little Apsen! The
    limping Roo tree of Nigeria. The towering Wattle of Aldershot! The
    Maidenhead Weeping Water Plant! The naughty Leicestershire Flashing Oak!
    The flatulent Elm of West Ruislip! The Quercus Maximus Bamber
    Gascoigni! The Epigillus! The Barter Hughius Greenus!

  • Nick

    No worries.

  • The guy used the occasion of a passing firetruck in a downpour to cut a bunch of people off and jump a line. This is pretty much indicative of the fact that the driver is a jackass and the “TDADDY” indicated less of an attitude of “I have procreated and also am a driver of a TDi,” than, “Hey, look at me, I’ll be asking who your daddy is tonight.” For the record, I wouldn’t have even noticed his license plate if he wasn’t being a giant ass in the first place.

    Drawing attention to yourself and your car like that and being an ass is generally perceived as a form of overcompensation, hence tiny penis jokes.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    “…passing firetruck in a downpour to cut a bunch of people off and jump a line” is a jerk maneuver.

    “TDADDY” is a pop culture reference.

    Do you make fun of overweight people on Facebook also?

  • sketchesbyboze

    “… and you were just disguising yourself as a liberal hippy so you could wait until the perfect moment to strike.”

    “It was I, you fools! The man you trusted wasn’t Wavy Gravy at all! And all this time I’ve been smoking harmless tobacco!”

  • Not everyone can be Django.

  • Lincoln’s birthday is 12 February 1809. Darwin’s birthday is 12 February 1809. Guess which one is celebrated in Alabama.

  • P J Evans

    Neither: ‘Presidents Day’, on the third Monday of February.

  • Valancy Jane

    This was hilarious to read. Good work. The problem is that there is no sport in being a Poe, because a Poe is at this point completely impossible to tell from a Christian really saying or thinking this BS.

  • Kristen Rosser

    There are books and pamphlets from 1855-65 that pretty much make these exact arguments. Only they’re serious.

  • Consumer Unit 5012