Replies

There are many good answers on the commentaries of this thread. I would only add that God had manifested Himself to people in 3 basic ways. Logos-the word. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ (God who became man and dwelt among us), and in Natural Law. Our Founding Fathers spoke of self-evident truths. These are foundational prindiples, First Principles, which has nothing behind them. They are know by the rational animal, man, because of his Nature, his logic and rational throught. J.Budzisewskie spoke of them as what we can't not know. He states that these foundational moral principles are not only right for all, but at some level known by all. For example we all know that it is wrong to take innocent life, or sleep with the neighbors wife, or torture babies for ones pleasure, or mock God. That is not to say that all people adhere to Natural Law. But when they do wrong, they know they are doing wrong. Romans 1:18 and following references this as does Romans 2.

Now, an entire generation has agreed that it is a liberty to kill ones children. After professing themselves to be wise, they become fools and 'evolve' to kill the helpless and by euthanasia and infanticide. Whereas it was once thought the helpless had the greatest claim on our protection, right has become inverted and now they have the least protection. The Germans, who learned their trade largely from Sanger and her ilk, developed another tool of their trade that beinglebensunwerten Leben - "life unworthy of life". It is a eupemism to adjust their guilt so they will, but they know it is wrong. Natural Law, that which the cannot not know causes this response. And so it is with the issue at hand. We all know marriage is between a man and a woman. But those who chose to violate that law put up barriers to evade guilt. They change the name to 'same-sex' marriage, but it is not marriage. In fact it is homosexuality attempting to go mainstream. Jesus did say this was wrong and unseamly. Being wrong is a result of a moral obligation. To whom is that obligation owed. It is owed to the author of that Moral Law. And so it will be. The assumption that we make up our moral foundations as we go along has become a malalligned assumption. If we do not like them,....we can change them. To these people who have turned away they think the moral code can be abandoned or re-created. This is what we are watching happen with this cultural question put before us. But they know it is wrong...it is the law. Disbelief in Moral Law is becoming a pillar of middle-class prejudice. They are essentially claiming tolerence by claiming "My morality says you shall not impose your morality on anyone else." They go further and declare that there never was Moral Law - that it is an illusion, and an illusion from which we can escape. They say that the emblem of Moral Law has become immorality itself. They say being "judgemental" and "tolerent" is their way of judging interance has been judged and will not be tolerated.