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. …

"And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

The ‘weird’ fringe is the biggest ..."
"To the extent that we're talking about evangelicals, if they feel their lives are a ..."

The ‘weird’ fringe is the biggest ..."
"PUDDLEGLUM!! *hugs for doggo* <^o^> Who's a good furbaby. <3"

The ‘weird’ fringe is the biggest ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Actually, Doug Wilson—not an obscure character in right-wing fundamentalist evangelicalism—argues just this.

    “If Christians admit that the Bible’s treatment of slavery may be outdated, it’s only a short way down the slippery slope of relativism toward relinquishing the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality and other hot issues.”

  • You, um, you might want to look up the history of the words you’re using there, sparky. See, the first humanists were religious. They kicked off the Italian Renaissance because they were trying to expand their knowledge beyond medieval Christian understanding of cosmology, but they, and this is key to the point, were Christians at the time and remained Christians throughout.

    Humanism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive categories. Humanism is also most definitely not a philosophy inextricably linked with atheism (or science, for that matter). The fact that you seem to think that the world is neatly divided into categories of “religious” and “humanist” goes more towards telling me more about your lack of education and understanding in this matter than supporting your position or winning me over to your side. I would, in fact, say that our host is a fantastic example of a Christian humanist. As an atheist humanist, I can join with him on the grounds of humanism. It’s pretty simple.

  • I apologize for accidentally skipping that crucial adjective “secular” in my brain. I have edited my original comment. Yes, Fred does appear to be a Christian Humanist.

  • JustoneK

    Yer personal identification categorizing is complicated.

  • What evidence do you have that religion offers greater social benefit
    than secular humanism? Cars and planes, after all, are irreplaceable in
    their task of transporting people or goods over rough, undeveloped
    Edited to add “secular”.

    Adorable edit there, really.

    Again, you prove that you don’t understand what the words you’re using mean. “Secular” does not mean “anti-religious.” It simply means that it’s something that is not sacred. The earliest humanists could have also been called “secular humanists,” because they believed that human knowledge had value and that pre-Christian civilization had a lot to add to the knowledge of humanity. Please, go look up Petrarch and get back to me.

  • And I already commented to point out that your edit doesn’t change anything. Now you’re just arguing semantics. And digging a deeper hole.

  • Should I edit it to “atheistic” humanism? According to Webster’s, secular humanism is

    humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

  • I never called myself an “intellectual”. No, it doesn’t count as it does
    not answer my question. Focus on the soundness of the argument itself,
    not on its purpose.

    For the record, I also didn’t call you Christopher Hitchens. There are three categorizations there and it would seem I left you separate from both the dead fella and the internet intellectuals.

    And I told you: your argument is a rhetorical flop due to being a logical fallacy. As such, I’ve told you exactly how sound I find your argument.

    The burden of proof is still on you. Find a way to not beg the question and I might agree that your point is worthy of debate.

  • Foelhe

    What’s hilarious about this is that you think you know anything about decency and kindness. After all the crap you’ve been spewing in the salmagundi thread, I really don’t think you’ll find anyone here willing to buy that.

  • Okay, fine, but then you have to prove that secular humanism gave us the automobile, the airplane, and alcohol. I believe my point was that you don’t get to categorically reject something just because it might cause a problem down the road.

  • Fusina

    But apparently it is just crap. No superstitious poisons in it.

    Catherine the Great

  • JustoneK

    I don’t think he can logic so he fills up the text boxes. Or he is v v good at the trolling thing.

  • Foelhe

    Maybe you’d like me to explain what the word poison means, hmm?

  • “Okay, fine, but then you have to prove that secular humanism gave us the automobile, the airplane, and alcohol.”
    -WTF! You don’t even understand your own analogy. If religion is to be compared with the auto and the plane in your analogy, it has to have benefits greater than those of non-religious humanism. The burden of proof is on you for showing that it does.

  • And you still don’t get it. You’re defining all religion as “superstition” and “poisoning” as “possibly injecting superstition in to things.” You’re then implying that “possibly injecting superstition into everything” means that “superstition is necessarily injected into everything, therefore ruining it.”

    To which I say, “bullshit, you’re making a circular argument and the burden of proof is STILL ON YOU.” That is a response. It is, in fact, the only worthwhile response to a loaded and begged question. I reject your premise. You need to come up with a new one if you want any other response. Period. Done. End of story.

  • A bad thing.

  • The_L1985

    Next thing you know, they’ll start wanting gays to get married! Oh wait…

  • Foelhe

    You are fucking adorable.

  • Well, um, it can pretty much be argued that civilization itself exists because of religion. In fact, the earliest massive building projects were all religious in nature and they required people as far back as the end of the last Ice Age to gather together and figure out things like logistics and engineering.

    I’d say that’s a pretty big benefit right there. But, hey, maybe you prefer living in a cave and getting hunted by sabre tooth tigers? Who’s to say?

  • JustoneK

    The impression I keep getting is that we, in le slacktiverse in general, are defining decency and kindness wrong.

  • Which premise(s) of my circular argument do you object to? To make it clearer for you, my premises are:
    1. All religions promote superstition
    2. Superstition is a form of irrationality.
    3. Irrationality leads to false conclusions.
    4. False conclusions are bad things, and are, thus, poisonous.
    5. Thus, religion poisons everything it touches.

  • How?

  • Jamoche

    Horses are actually better than cars at travelling over rough terrain.

    Airships are safer than planes, provided you don’t use an explosive combo of fuel and skin coating.

    There. Replacements.

  • Correlation is not causation.

  • Lunch Meat

    Me, too. I, however, believe the poison is always there, although it may not always cause harmful effects.

    That sure is some rational reasoning you’ve got there. The poison is there, even if its effects aren’t, so you don’t have to “prove” anything! Also you’ve defined religious teaching as poison, so this is a tautology.

    I can define dihydrogen monoxide as a poison, and then prove that everyone is poisoned, even if they don’t experience any harmful effects.

  • Lunch Meat

    Correlation is not causation.

    Except when it proves your point?

  • I knew I should have added a word in my original comment. That word was “quickly”. I have now added it. Horses aren’t quick enough, neither are airships.

  • Where have I used this fallacy?

  • Foelhe

    Post faster, EH. Those goalposts aren’t going to shift themselves.

    Wasn’t there a Darwin’s Award about someone who strapped a rocket to the back of their car and slammed into a cliffside? There you go: quickly.

  • Lunch Meat

    “religion poisons everything it touches”

  • That wasn’t a confusion of correlation with causation! My argument there was based on the fact that religion promotes superstition. This fact is undeniable.

  • I’ve added “and safely” to my original comment.

  • Lunch Meat

    Define “superstition.”

  • Foelhe

    You’ve clearly never been in a head-on collision at sixty miles an hour.

  • Mark Z.

    Hitchens poisons everything, apparently.

  • “Safe” is relative. Most people don’t die from or are seriously injured by auto accidents.

  • spinetingler

    Johann Sebastian Bach FTW.

  • Beliefs that contradict very solid evidence and are supported by little to no evidence.

  • Foelhe

    Yes, safe is relative. Quick is relative too. So how are either of those terms useful the way you’re using them?

  • The poison is in a dose too small to be detected by most people here.

  • This is actual, no shit, I’m-not-misunderstanding-the-term-like-99%-of-the-people-who-use-it begging the question.

    I love you so much for this sentence.

  • Planes are quicker than airships and cars are usually quicker than horses.

  • Sarabird

    A mention in the comments thread over in The Friendly Atheist sent me to this blog. Two enthusiastic thumbs up, this is the kind of religious thinking that I can get in bed with (metaphorically, of course).

  • I can use logic, though not always well. I am not trolling; I’m expressing sincere disagreement, which is sometimes misguided.

  • Foelhe

    Y’know, my argument was horribly weak and I was mostly poking fun at you. The fact that you can’t address it except by repeating your original point is just sad.

  • Mark Z.

    Enopoletus Harding Teaches Rhetoric, Lesson 2: the argument by unassailable vacuity.

    Make a broad, sweeping assertion with no evidence or justification at all. When challenged on it, say “How is it not true?” Since you haven’t made any argument for your position, your opposition won’t have anything to attack, and you win!

    Argumentation is war, and the supreme form of warfare is to attack the enemy’s strategy. If the enemy’s strategy is to dispute the accuracy of your evidence, don’t give any evidence. If it’s to show weaknesses in your logic, avoid logic of any kind. If it’s to appeal to your human decency, don’t display any of that, either. Just state your position and defy anyone to prove you wrong. Cogito ergo I’m right and you’re wrong.

  • arcseconds

    The music of Arvo Pärt.


    Pärt was/is highly inspired by his orthodox faith, at a time when Estonia was officially atheist and the regime banned the music he was interested in.

    There are plenty of religiously inspired composers, of
    course, but Pärt is a particularly good example, given the inclement environment for religion it’s not easonable to suppose he was merely fitting in with the expectations of his society.

    Music is not a ‘conclusion’, so this isn’t covered by your argument below.

    We probably wouldn’t have this music if it wasn’t for religion. And if you have any taste at all, it’s difficult to deny it’s beauty – it certainly doesn’t sound ‘poisoned’ to me.

  • Foelhe

    Which is sort of amusing, since I think those are the only two words EH hasn’t started a semantics argument over.

  • Lunch Meat

    Religion is irreplaceable in its task of connecting people to their personal conception of a higher power and meaning.

    (Please, please try to disprove this statement. I can’t wait to qualify it until it has lost all meaning.)