Well . . . What Did You Expect?


With the recent anti-sodomy ruling, a ruling on "gay marriage" pending, and even more blatantly propagandistic shows for our "entertainment" next television season, the homosexual juggernaut seems unstoppable.  Indeed, the only thing more depressing is the stuttering, unsure responses of the homosexual movement's opponents.  Over and over again spokesmen invoke populism (the right of the people to decide what they want to consider moral and immoral), tradition, family, and the consequences to society . . . everything but the one and only response to the issue:  homosexual activity is forbidden (and decreed a capital offense by) HaShem.

But what else was to be expected?  The vast majority of spokesmen for "family values" cannot tell the world about HaShem because they have never heard of Him.  And they cannot invoke their own "gxd" because American law does not now, and never has recognized, any deity as its basis except perhaps for Thomas Jefferson "nature's gxd."  And "nature's gxd" is not HaShem.

American law cannot enforce the Will of HaShem because it does not recognize Him and never has.  One may piously invoke the Pilgrim Fathers from sunup to sundown but the fact is that the people who actually created our government some one hundred sixty years later were a different breed than their ancestors.  Relativistic "conservatism," with its false doctrine of a different truth for all peoples, cannot condemn these men for their irreverence because it demands that they be treated almost as chr*stian apostles.  No matter how much these "conservative" people attack the liberals' "misuse of" separation of church and state, they cannot attack the principal itself, since it was bequeathed to us by our sainted founders.  Yet it is the principal itself, with its enlightenment and chr*stian ancestry, that makes it impossible for the United States of America to recognize the Will of HaShem as the standard of law and morality.

It may be pointed out that originally the First Amendment forbade only an establishment of religion at the federal level and that many states had official churches.  It may be further pointed out that the "original intent" of the Bill of Rights was as a series of limitations on federal power rather than a positive granting of enumerated rights (culminating in federal courts forbidding local school principals to edit obscenites out of student newspapers).  Yes, both of these claims are true, but the result of enlightenment American philosophy and of its chr*stian parent before it both made the current situation inevitable.  And even today the most "conservative" spokesmen for "family values" (except for the "identity" fruitcakes) cannot even invoke their own false "gxd" (much less the True One) without fearing that their tongues will turn to ashes within their mouths.

So how did this come about?

In traditional Protestantism, religion and law are two different things.  Law is G-d's will as applied to everyday life, but religion is the individual's salvation from sin through the sacrifice of J*sus.  While all are expected to obey the law, whether they are "saved" or not, the fact remains that G-d's laws are thrown upon the state for enforcement while the church deals exclusively with salvation.  In fact, it is declared, mankind's nature makes one's obedience or disobedience of the Law of no consequence whatsoever in one's eternal destiny.  Whether one is "saved" or "lost," one is supposed to obey the Law, even though the saved are saved in spite of their obedience and the obedience of the "lost" does them no good.  Law is thus transferred from the sphere of G-d and religion to that of the mundane, the practical, and ultimately the secular, as the Protestant state was succeeded by the enlightenment secular state.  Devout Protestants were not prepared for this, but it was inevitable and it happened.  The people whose churches were concerned only with the conversion and salvation of individuals apart from the moral law and who were totally dependent on the state to enforce G-d's law were uniquely unprepared for the abandonment of G-d by the enlightenment state when compared to religions that more closely linked law and religion.  It is ultimately because of this law/religion duality, in which law was relegated to the state, that we have come to this situation.  The Protestant state (the state that recognized G-d's laws but recognized that it was the churches' business to save souls) might invoke G-d's authority, but its enlightenment successor never could.  Thus no law in the history of enlightenment America, even that against murder, has been based on Divine authority but only on what is necessary or practical for "the good society" to function.  Earlier rationalists might not have stated this philosophy so boldly, but their successors breathe it in with the very oxygen and suppose the rest of us do as well.

Now what I have stated thus far is well known among those chr*stians who belong to the ancient, pre-reformation liturgical churches.  In fact, they are actually so blind as to feign ignorance of where Protestantism got this radical dualism and loudly proclaim their own more ancient chr*stianity the "obvious solution" to all the problems of the modern world.  The irony of this situation would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Protestantism's much-condemned splitting of law from morality was merely a corrective of the blatant hypocrisy of chr*stianity up to that point, which used a proto-Protestant philosophy in order to discredit the only authentic word of G-d to man, the Holy Torah (meaning not only the Written Torah but the entire authentic Torah system).  The Jews, it was argued, were trying to "work" their way to Heaven by means of obedience to G-d's Laws and were in fact "insulting" Him.  Obviously, if they had any real appreciation of how truly holy G-d is and how truly sinful they were they would have realized the utter fruitlessness of any such a religion and trusted entirely in G-d's mercy.  Of course, for classical liturgical chr*stians this "mercy" arrived some two thousand years ago in the person of J*sus.  This J*sus (they claim) then repaired everything by his death on the cross and his "resurrection" so that now (and this is the irritant in the oyster that ultimately resulted in the pearl known as "Protestantism"), now that this has been taken care of, we are right back to earning G-d's salvation by our obedience to His law.  Only His law, it is argued, isn't the Torah.  No, obedience of the Torah was legalistic, dead hypocrisy that insulted the holiness of G-d; but thanks to the "salvation of the world" achieved by J*sus mankind could now rack up points by obeying the "new law," which cannot be found in the Bible (not even in the "new testament").  In other words, obedience of the Holy Torah = arrogant, prideful, vain, egotistical presumption of putting a holy G-d in the debt of a sinful man; obedience of the "new law" = a humble, sweet, modest, pious "appropriation" of the "unmerited salvation" allegedly achieved for the human race by J*sus.

Gag me with a spoon.

Except for the gods worshipped and laws obeyed, the two systems were identical.  Only one was Biblical and revealed to over three million people at once at Mt. Sinai by the G-d of Genesis, the Creator of the Universe.  The other was a post-Biblical innovation--a novelty--resting on the authority of a man who worked miracles (while the same people who invoke his miracles as proving his "divinity" insist that an "anti-christ" who works identical miracles is not to be heeded!).  And the philosophical justification it adopted for replacing one with the other was the seed of Protestantism.

This teaches us two things:  first, no good Protestant need fear "insulting" G-d by turning from chr*stianity to the Noachide Laws, as chr*stian history attests that this "works of the law vs. faith in chr*st" apologetic was hypocritical from the start and meant to be used only as an excuse to replace one system of works with another.  Recognition of our responsibility to obey the Laws as best we can, and our eventual judgement by them (as well as by G-d's mercy for which we pray), is not in any sense a diminution of either of G-d's holiness or our own essential nothingness.  The second thing it teaches is that the cause of this disastrous situation--liturgical chr*stianity, with its hypocritical partial Protestant polemic restricted to the observation of Mosaic/Noachide Law--cannot extricate us from it.  Woe be it to us if we turn to these siren songs that started the progress toward Protestantism and enlightenment secularism.  How tragic that they are louder and more often heard.  (In fact, some of the loudest voices demanding that Protestant antinomianism be abandoned in favor of salvation by obedience to "the law" are fanatical anti-Semites!)

Ultimately, there is a lot more wrong with us than merely the overturning of anti-sodomy laws.  Those laws were never based on the authority of HaShem anyway and ultimately depended on secular rationales.  This means that even those laws that remain unchallenged (such as those against murder and theft) are not based on G-d's will (else they would also be "unconstitutional") but on more immediate and practical (ultimately Hellenistic) reasons.  We must not only insist that sodomy be a crime punishable by death (when all the criteria are met) but that this is so because it is the decree of the True G-d.  And our "practical" laws against murder and theft must be placed on a Theocratic basis.  Ultimately, it is because of the Divine decree that such acts are corrosive to society.

Of course, this can't be done in the current United States of America, the product of the enlightenment.  Nor can this be done by "family values activists" who invoke every reason under the sun except for the Living and True G-d and His will.  Nor can it be done by recourse to an "enlightenment" ideology one feels bound to because it is the founding ideology of one's country.  And ultimately, it cannot be done by false religions who set in motion the disastrous march to our current G-dless secularism.  Not only the United States, not only the past two humdred years--even the past two thousand years--must be undone, but our entire modern world and outlook must be discarded.  And that is something only a crank like yours truly, to whom no one gives heed, can afford to say.

Finally, if any feel a hostile reaction to the facts I have presented about America's own inherent flaws, allow me to point out a curious coincidence.  Technically, the United States of America became independent on July 1, "1776" (corresponding to 14 Tammuz, 5536) when nine colonies voted for Richard Henry Lee's resolution, two voted against, one was divided, and one abstained.  The next day another vote was taken in the interest of unanimity, with twelve yeas and one abstention.  On July 4, "1776", the Continental Congress adopted as its official justification of what it had done the Declaration of Independence, the work of deist Thomas Jefferson.  That document invokes the false deist "gxd" ("nature's gxd").  On the Hebrew calendar, this was on 17 Tammuz.

On the Jewish calendar 17 Tammuz is a fast day commemorating a series of tragedies.  The first of these was Moses' breaking of the original Tablets of the Covenant when he came down from Mt. Sinai and found the people dancing around the golden calf!

Coincidence?

Back