We live in
the most decadent times of history, but yet one which thinks itself so moral
and upright. It thinks itself so pure. It imposes its sexual liberalist ethic of
licence on all others, including those who do not agree with it, but yet
accuses moral minorities of imposing their views on others.
The sexual
revolution in the west was born in the 1960s. This is a pivotal point in
history which the world had never seen before. Despite many ancient societies
being sexualised, no other movement has had such an ingrained and widespread
impact than the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution is the overthrow of all
basic sexual decency.
The sexual
revolution is deceptively evil. It is the upmost rebellion against all
morality. All sexual perversion is against Creation, and therefore against the
Creator. Rather than being an honest defiance of all that is good, it seeks to
take the good, such as love, and twists it for evil. It embraces all evil and
calls it good. It has taken the intimacy of sex which was intended to be good,
and hypocritically used it for good only when one saw it fit for oneself, and
evil, when one saw it fit for revenge against others. Do you not know that your bodies are
temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received
from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore
honour God with your bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Whether one is saved or
not, the body belongs to God, not the person.
Sexual
intimacy which was intended to be good is still embraced by society, not in any
way to respect God who gave it, but to use it for one’s own material comfort or
power. It is undeniable that women use sex to earn material comfort from
men. Some will marry the man first
before engaging in sexual intercourse, but she almost definitely uses the
marriage relationship to gain material comfort. She then expects the man to
provide for her, but accuses him to being “misogynistic” as an insult to her
“independence”, and “condescending” when he does. Such is the typical witch of
the modern era. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that men use money and
“sexual prowess” to attract women, so many of whom think that sex is the key to
marriage. He then enslaves himself to
the woman by seeking to earn more money to keep her as his wife to gain more
sex. If he sees it unfit to be enslaved, and people by nature will not seek to
be enslaved, he will most likely seek divorce.
The
liberalist ethic of license is that as long there is consent between two
adults, there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex between them. It is the only
basis for determining whether a sexual act was moral or not. Such selfish thinking
is why society singles out rape, paedophilia and bestiality as the only three sexually
immoral acts. While they certainly are immoral, fornication, adultery, lust,
harlotry and homosexuality are no more moral, than rape and paedophilia. The ethic of consent is not loving or
selfless, but utterly selfish – its motive is one of self-gratification of
one’s desires by using another person.
That the other person may gain pleasure is absolutely irrelevant
whatsoever because the very thought of self-gratification is utterly immoral
and depraved. “Flee fornication.
Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth
fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Society has
become so blinded to sexual immorality that it thinks that those who are
against the utterly false ethic of consent are apologists for rape, paedophilia
and bestiality. They those who even dare question that false ethic of consent
as shun as outcasts who have no place in the modern world because of their
perceived immorality on part of the utterly abominable mainstream society. They
are deemed deplorable to the greatest possibility of human deplorability.
The
mainstream amoral secular society is divided to two camps over the issue of
pornography. They are divided into those who support it either actively or
passively because they believe it is all a matter of “choice”, or those who are
against it because it ‘objectifies’ the human body and destroys relationships. Both stances are as evil as each other.
Neither is in any way morally upright. The former stance is immoral because it
approves and indulges in that which is sexually immoral and therefore perverse.
The latter stance is as immoral as the first because it is against that which
is sexually immoral, on the grounds of what benefits it can for personal and
political interests. It, in effect,
implies that if none of these negative effects exist, these negative effects
can be eliminated or if the benefits outweigh the negative effects, pornography
would not be immoral.
Most, if
not, all of these secular people against pornography support fornication or
fornicate. If they fornicate, love their sexual immorality and indulge in it, it
is outright hypocritical to claim one is against pornography because pornography
and fornication are one and the same – sexual immorality. Fornication is acting
on sexual lusts in indulging in them, and these lusts are the same as those who
indulge in pornography, indulge in. They
are both evil self-gratification. Therefore, those secular people who are
against pornography, but yet fornicate, are as evil as those who support
pornography, if not worse because of their hypocrisy.
This has led
society to increasing believe that romantic relationships should be about love
alone. The notion of love by secular society is one that is perverse. It thinks
that love is about giving, as much as it is about gaining. That is the twist
that deceives so many. Love that seeks to gain in return is no love at all. It
is utter self-love which is the height of selfishness. Love is longsuffering
and does not demand its own way. To claim that the notion of love being about
exchanging sexual pleasures is shallow is a dire understatement. It is one
which shows how darkened is the mind of such people who think that love is
about exchanging sexual pleasures who enjoy doing so. These people know not
what love is, but know only what lust is.
Lust is not
love, but hate. Lust demands its own way and is not longsuffering. It does not
make sacrifices, but expects others to make sacrifices for itself. Lust not
only cares for itself along, but also seeks revenge when wronged. Lust can be a
desire after anything that satisfies human nature. It can be that which pursues
power, material possessions, status, relationships, sexual pleasures, family,
career, money or anything else in the world that can be bought at a price.
Human nature, in its own pride, wants to be able to earn and buy things, rather
than gain something for free. It thinks gaining things for free too degrading,
or that if it happily accepts things of free, it is of no or little value.
Sometimes, it may even be happy to gain something for free, but it is only
because it lusts for something but cannot earn or buy the object of its lust,
feeding its pride.
The push for
homosexual “marriage” is a product of romanticism – the belief that both the
means and ends of marriage, sex and relationships are to feel loved. This
explains why the homosexualists, those who support the homosexual agenda feel
as though being against homosexual “marriage” is the most bigoted thing one can
do. They love to accuse people who even dare question the concept of homosexual
“marriage” to being deplorably hateful and deserving of all contempt; all while
expressing the desire for violence against such people. This only shows the
hypocrisy of the homosexualists and the deception they are under – that homosexuality
is love, and therefore merits the status of marriage enshrined in law.
The homosexualists
are not really seeking after marriage, but seeking to destroy the institution
of marriage which protects the natural gender roles of man and woman endowed by
the Creator, and in doing so, provides a stable nurturing environment for
children to be raised. Homosexualists are radical egalitarians who believe that
‘equality’ is fairness such that only when there is equality in “freedom” can
there be fairness and justice.
Such a
notion of “freedom” is based on the idea that all people must have the same
access to the same activities and privileges to be counted as fairly treated. If
such were the case, one may as well say that children have a right to form
sexual relationships because only then will children have equality with adults –
however, many of these people treat such a statement with disgust in their
hypocritical pretentiousness of having a form of moral values, but being
absolutely depraved of all morality. Such people are worse than those who
advocate for sexual relationships between men and boys as young as six,
precisely because of their opposite against young children having sexual
relationships. If one has no moral values, one should not pretend to! One may
as well parade one’s depravity for all to see like to homosexual activists.
The
homosexualists seek to eradicate the natural boundaries between man and woman
which define a true marriage – the union between a man and a woman to be of one
flesh sanctioned by a vow to be in union until death. God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27) The issue is not “love” and
“romance”, but that no matter what homosexualists call their union, it can never
be true marriage. However, in a society, that now treats marriage as a mere
contract between (so far), a man and a woman who happen to love each other, and
one in which the ties are based on romantic feelings, it logically follows that
the modern ‘social construct’ of marriage should not exclude homosexuals. However,
whatever society deems marriage to be, true marriage only occurs when there is
a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others to be of one
flesh, sanctioned by a vow to be in such a union until death (Ephesians 5:31).
Marriage,
being now deemed to be that which is based only on romance is now an unstable
institution. This instability which arises from legitimisation of “no-fault
divorce” allows people to marry to manipulate another person to provide
finances for oneself and one’s child, or to use another for one’s sexual
pleasure until another person who can provide more pleasure is available. As
such, sex is made a form of exchange between people to obtain anything earthly,
just as money is a form of exchange between people to obtain anything of this
world, that is, anything except for salvation from the wrath of a Holy and Just
God, the Creator of the Universe.
Despite
nothing being new under the sun, including the sexualisation of society, the
sexual revolution has steered the world towards a direction of sexual decadence
that increases day by day, and year by year. The sexual revolution has
succeeded as a ground-breaking attempt to destroy all basic sexual morality in
the modern world. It cannot be reversed, unless enough people rise up to
expose, attack and confront the spirit of harlotry, and in doing so, shame
those who commit works of darkness by opening proclaiming righteousness and
practicing righteousness. The sexual revolution has allowed the spirit of
harlotry to literally seduce the west, and increasingly the non-western world
into licentiousness and perversion.
One may ask,
what is it that has keep the spirit of harlotry so emboldened and empowered in
seducing the west, despite a significant albeit small portion of society,
namely the church and non-Christian faith groups being staunchly against sexual
immorality. It is not merely by refraining from sexual immorality itself by any
portion of society that confronted the spirit of harlotry. Her twin spirit of
mammon helps her gain her stronghold over society by making sex a commodity and
asset, either by serving as an asset to maintain economic comfort, or by
serving sex as an ends that one pursues through being enslaved to mammon. This
is facilitated by the degradation of marriage, in which sex is a means to an
end which is that other than love, as well as an ends which is an expression of
anything other than love. Marriage is now treated as an institution for
economic benefit and cheap romance, justified on pretext of the need to hold
one’s fornication partner to account. The key to marriage is now to seek one’s
own interests, obtain a job just to keep oneself economically desirable to
another, make one sexually available to the other person and keep oneself from
being a burden to the other.
Fornication
as a precursor to marriage led to the rise of contraceptives. The contraceptive
pill was celebrated by the west so blinded by the spirit of harlotry and
mammon, thinking it was liberated from the “oppressive”, “archaic” shackles of sexual
morality. Mocking sexual immorality and the Creator of sex, they became blind
to the consequences of widespread sexual morality, not knowing the judgment
from God. The blindness of the sexually immoral itself is a judgment from God,
rendering them to be the fools they are.
Contraception
was truly thought to be the great liberator of society, especially for women. Women
could now fornicate without the consequences, thinking that their reason for
existence was to enjoy pleasure, and that they could gain power over men by
sexual domination. How foolish! Contraception has taken away the incentive of
men to commit to one woman and raise children, not that this is why fornication
is wrong. Contraception is evil not because it leads to increased break down in
relationships, but rather because it facilitates fornication thereby
legitimising it. Only a fool would feel sympathy for pain of the wicked. Pain
in God’s judgment as well as God’s megaphone for a dying world lost in its
sins.
As society
gradually became more sympathetic towards fornicators and adulterers, it saw
abortion as not only desirable but just in order to suit its immorality. It had
become blinded towards the depravity of sexual immorality, approving of such
evil. Abortion was its new idol because it enables it to indulge in lusts
without having to bear the undesirable consequences of producing children, whom
the proponents of sexualised liberalism, especially the feminists hate. The elite,
who were such proponents, in the wickedness of their hearts, whole-heartedly
and unashamedly support child sacrifice, all while thinking they are civilised
compassionate people because of it. They accuse people who do not support
abortion, or those who even dare question abortion of being hateful and
judgmental of those evil, perverse women who seek abortion volitionally.
The general
acceptance of abortion is literally the indicator of an immoral perverse
society whose heart is hardened, and whose conscience is seared. This is
because it is one that is full of hatred of those who serve as obstacles to
their desire to flaunt their sexual immorality. Murder is hatred, and hatred is
murder. Abortion is murder, and therefore is hate. It is the hatred of the
innocent and those who shame the evil deeds of the wicked by acting lawfully
and morally. It is active suppression of the truth. A person who volitionally
seeks abortion is one whose moral conscience is seared. People who even
sympathise with such acts are those who are not against abortion for being
murder, but against it because it “offends” or “hurts” women. A person can
either be lawful or lawless by God’s Law. Whoever is not for God, and therefore
His Law is against Him. Such is the humanistic mindset of the modern pro-life
movement. They are like people who sympathise with paedophiles or rapists –
they are just as morally corrupt as such people.
Abortion and
contraception generally themselves imply that there is nothing immoral about
fornication, adultery or other sexual immoral acts. This mindset itself is
immoral as it mocks God’s design of sex which is to be for procreation and only
for a married couple. Abortion and contraception reverse this design, mocking
God’s design and therefore God Himself.
It was
expected that contraceptives would decrease the prevalence of sexually
transmitted disease. What folly! Contraceptives would make people complacent
about the consequences of fornication and adultery, legitimising such acts in
the eyes of the world. The world determines what is right and wrong according
to the consequences, and loves to turn that which it knows it wrong into a
complicated “grey” issue so as to selectively pick and choose that which it
wants to do. This is precisely what the world does with ‘bans’ on pornography:
it bans only those which are denigrating, but not raunchy movies. Such is the
blatant, disgusting hypocrisy of the world!
Modern
society demands that others pay for their fornication by demanding public
funded abortions and contraceptives, while calling itself tolerant of those who
disagree with their immoral thinking, and accusing those who are righteous of
being intolerant of their immoral thinking by questioning public funding of
contraceptives. This fulfils the prophecy in the Bible that in the Last Days,
people will be haters of those who do good. The pornography, prostitution and
abortion industries make enormous financial gains by feeding of the sexual
immorality of the masses. The people who the world supports in fighting against
these evil industries are the unsaved as the world supports its own. If the
church were to start fighting more actively against these things which all
people know to be immoral, its stance and efforts would be maligned, mocked and
criticised. It would be accused of ulterior motives. It would be accused to
seeking to dictate and judge people, which the church, in the eyes of the world
is not supposed to do according to Matthew 7, such that the world can have
grounds to accuse the church of hypocrisy.
The thinking
and behaviour of parents is passed down to their children. Since most of the
adults today believe that sex and marriage should be only about love, most
teenagers and Generation Y think exactly the same. However, owing to media
influence, and influence from governments who send the message as long as sex
is consensual, it is right, these young people are extreme in their views about
sex. They think that anyone who is against sexual relations outside of marriage
is not only somewhat strange, but bigoted, hateful and judgmental, just by
having that belief. They think that anyone against abortion or contraceptives
to the slightest extent is hateful and a “regressive” who just wants to
“control” women (it’s all about women, isn’t it?). That is the most convenient
argument to make to silence the righteousness, is it not? It invokes sympathy.
Woe to those
who evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Those who call abortion a “choice”,
homosexuality a “right” and prostitution a “liberty” are those who approve of
these things. Romans 1:26-32 described the depravity of humanity which is why
it does not seek after God and hates the Word of God:
For
this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which
was meet. And
even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to
do those things which are not convenient; Being
filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers; Backbiters, haters of
God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents; Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
them that do them.
As long as
the true church stands for righteousness among the wicked, it will always be
criticised for doing so. The only way for a dark world to have light is for the
church to shine as salt and light of the world. The church has failed to do
this as a result of being seduced by earthly desires, that is, to the under the
spirit of mammon.
Jesus in
Matthew 5:13-16 said: Ye are the salt of the earth: but
if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?
it is thenceforth good for nothing,
but to be cast out, and to be trodden
under foot of men. Ye are the
light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a
candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let
your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify
your Father which is in heaven.
The church
has made itself good for nothing as Jesus said in Matthew 5:13. It needs to
confront the evil spirits that blind and enslave millions, and preach the
Gospel to a dying world.
Comments
Post a Comment