In reading Thomas Brooks' work on Satanic Devices to attack Christians I have looked at contemporary public actions where Satan is pushing large scale assaults in the war for man's soul. Turning Christians away from God and toward worldly concerns as the end-in-itself without interest in after life or Christian ethics in the meanwhile is a standard operating procedure for the main adversary of humanity. Infiltrating and corrupting marriage in the United States is one fundamental front of the war. Like Hitler's S.A. it has sent its best trans-social disordering forces to take down human rights. America modeled marriage on Christian guidelines; now thee government is like a plug up toilet corrupting marriage to send its sewage flowing back up into the church establishment. Unfortunately too many weak church pastors follow they state's power and social will more than the will of God as discerned in scripture. The PC U.S.A. has taken up the corruption of marriage doctrine for one, and there are others in a state of apostasy too.
audio-
Marriage in the U.S.A. historically is a Christian institution along Christian guidelines. It was not a Muslim structure with polygamy permitted as normal. Neither did government provide any benefits for marriages to start with. In fact the only thing government did about marriage was to register those who where to clarify property lines and such as the United States was not a communist society. Homosexual marriage is a direct attack on the Christian foundation of marriage as well as on private property and inheritance. It is wrong to associate Christians with the perverted egression of homosexual marriage or of a monogamous institution of marriage as not being exclusively heterosexual.
Because of the wide-spread use of effective birth control and abortion medical interventions and the elimination of heavy physical labor as the primary occupational of employed citizens as well as broad corruption of morals marriage is somewhat obsolete as far as its original purposes go in a cntext that concerns government. Plainly the vast legislative benefits added to marriage went to far to unequalize citizen's rights with a corpus of specialized class rights exclusive of everyone else. Since public sentiment and the judiciary have been determining that Christian marriage is no longer a desirable model for the state to regulate it would be wise for the state simply to vacate future involvement in marriage.
It may be time for government to get out of the marriage business and just protect the rights of citizens in concerns such as those of youth. It might be right to assure that genetic parents have an obligation for child support to pass on their wealth to their genetic offspring at least as much as to adopted offspring. Government should just simplify as chess players do in reducing pieces to clarify the end game-in this case eliminating superfluous and unfair laws so government can go about the business of protecting human rights equally.
Plainly Christians can continue to have church marriages and vows that they would be accountable to if they want to go that way. Muslims too could have several wives, yet those would not be recognized by the state. Also, homosexuals could marry to sin in the Church of Satan and be accountable for-themselves in the afterlife. It probably would be wrong to repress the desire of the sinful with force if their sins only doom themselves.
Government can legally enforce civil contracts between individuals such as people want to encumber themselves with, yet government ought not itself be offering some sort of adulterated neo-Christian marriage establishment as an ossified social institution for residents of the United States to live within. That is as wrong as the butch power of public radio to oppress individuals in order that communes might expropriate power and form a command economy.
Marriage in the U.S.A. historically is a Christian institution along Christian guidelines. It was not a Muslim structure with polygamy permitted as normal. Neither did government provide any benefits for marriages to start with. In fact the only thing government did about marriage was to register those who where to clarify property lines and such as the United States was not a communist society. Homosexual marriage is a direct attack on the Christian foundation of marriage as well as on private property and inheritance. It is wrong to associate Christians with the perverted egression of homosexual marriage or of a monogamous institution of marriage as not being exclusively heterosexual.
Because of the wide-spread use of effective birth control and abortion medical interventions and the elimination of heavy physical labor as the primary occupational of employed citizens as well as broad corruption of morals marriage is somewhat obsolete as far as its original purposes go in a cntext that concerns government. Plainly the vast legislative benefits added to marriage went to far to unequalize citizen's rights with a corpus of specialized class rights exclusive of everyone else. Since public sentiment and the judiciary have been determining that Christian marriage is no longer a desirable model for the state to regulate it would be wise for the state simply to vacate future involvement in marriage.
It may be time for government to get out of the marriage business and just protect the rights of citizens in concerns such as those of youth. It might be right to assure that genetic parents have an obligation for child support to pass on their wealth to their genetic offspring at least as much as to adopted offspring. Government should just simplify as chess players do in reducing pieces to clarify the end game-in this case eliminating superfluous and unfair laws so government can go about the business of protecting human rights equally.
Plainly Christians can continue to have church marriages and vows that they would be accountable to if they want to go that way. Muslims too could have several wives, yet those would not be recognized by the state. Also, homosexuals could marry to sin in the Church of Satan and be accountable for-themselves in the afterlife. It probably would be wrong to repress the desire of the sinful with force if their sins only doom themselves.
Government can legally enforce civil contracts between individuals such as people want to encumber themselves with, yet government ought not itself be offering some sort of adulterated neo-Christian marriage establishment as an ossified social institution for residents of the United States to live within. That is as wrong as the butch power of public radio to oppress individuals in order that communes might expropriate power and form a command economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment