Is Reality Really Real, or Is It All in Your Head?
Quoting from George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-four, Part One, toward the end of Chapter 7: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
It continues: "And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre." The Main-Stream Media bombard us from every side that biological facts don't matter - only what you self-identify as (that is, whatever you imagine) is really real; that people who believe in divine order and who love their country are the same as club-wielding Nazi nutcases, thus fit only to be beaten into submission by the Antifa storm-troopers, browbeaten by the MSM and legally compelled by the political elite; forced to think that the duly-elected conservative leaders are somehow embroiled in a vast conspiracy with Russia to do something or other - it's never explained what "it" is because that would reveal the absurdity of the whole thing: in reality the whole "conspiracy with Russia" thing is simply guilt projection on the part of the MSM and political elite.
George Orwell goes on to describe the hero Winston's affair with young Julia, another Party member who's a secret rebel like Winston. But here he gets his future prediction totally wrong and completely reversed, portraying the Big Brother government as anti-sex and their rebellion as throwing off state-sponsored sexual inhibitions. Perhaps that was true when Orwell wrote his book in the 1940s but in today's reality the MSM and political elite advocate discarding "old-fashioned" sexual inhibitions that are a remnant of our fading Judeo-Christian culture.
In Rod Dreher's recent blog Cheap Sex = Dying Christianity he explains how the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s in the U.S. has normalized fornication, abortion, illegitimate children, adultery, divorce, and now homosexual and lesbian "marriage." The culture has become so neo-pagan that the pressure on Christians, especially our children and young adults, entices them to indulge in cheap sex. This, in turn, drives them away from traditional Christian morality and from the Church. It's no wonder that 60% or more of young adults raised in traditional Christian families abandon the faith.
"The look of their faces testify against them. They parade their sin like Sodom. They don't hide it. Woe to their soul! For they have brought disaster upon themselves. ...Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (Isaiah 3:9 & 5:20-21).
Orwell invented the term "Doublespeak" to indicate how authorities can manipulate the language in order to equivocate about morality and cause us to think evil is good and good is evil. A prime example of this is in "The American Medical Association vs. Human Nature," an article describing the AMA's equivocation regarding medical ethics. The AMA’s latest Code of Medical Ethics lacks any explanation of the moral principles that provide a foundation for medical ethics. Nowhere in this Code of Ethics does it define human nature or what constitutes a human being. That is apparently left up to popular culture to decide:
"While it enumerates a short list of 'Principles of Medical Ethics,' these are primarily statements of professional hygiene (e.g., physicians should provide competent care, uphold standards of professionalism, respect the law, etc.). The only telling revelation appears in the document’s preamble, which defines medical ethics as also encompassing 'matters of social policy.' This is our first clue that the AMA’s code of ethics is something other than a search for universal and immutable moral truths."
It states: "The conflict regarding research with embryonic stem cells centers on the moral status of embryos, a question that divides ethical opinion and that cannot be resolved by medical science." So rather than getting involved in messy metaphysical definitions of what exactly human nature is or if and when an embryo is or becomes human, it simply punts. But the scientific fact known to all medical doctors is that an embryo is a separate, full, complete human being. It is not just a "growth of tissue" or a "lump of cells" - but contradicting our sex-crazed popular culture is too difficult for these medical "experts" who are moral midgets.
Then comes the equivocation (high-sounding lie): "Embryonic stem cell research does not violate the ethical standards of the profession." Right after saying that medical science cannot determine the moral status of embyros, it states that it has determined that killing these embryos isn't a violation of ethical standards. Isn't that calling evil good and good evil, saying white is black and black is white? "This bewildering display of ethical doublespeak is offered without explanation." Welcome to Orwell's 1984!
The AMA Code of Medical Ethics goes on to say: "Because of the potential for abuse, genetic manipulation of non-disease traits or the eugenic development of offspring may never be justifiable" [article author's emphasis]. The key word here is "may" - maybe or maybe not? This is what I call a "definite maybe" or a "qualified absolute" statement - is it really never justifiable, or is it only sometimes never justifiable? Again, we see another example of multi-syllable, high-sounding nonsensical doublespeak.
Eugenics is the genetically planned breeding designed to produce superior human beings. It is the same policy as practiced during Hitler's Third Reich, in which "inferior" ethnic groups and medical categories of human beings were systematically exterminated by gas chambers and firing squads. But today it's not so obviously violent: the "inferior" babies are killed in the womb or in the test tube.
Now we come to the other end of human life span: the question arises of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The AMA Code states that these acts are "fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks." But again it doesn't tell us why: what it is about human nature that makes this "fundamentally incompatible" if killing embryos "may" be justified, why not at the other end of life?
The article continues: "The AMA is reportedly reviewing its longstanding opposition to physician-assisted suicide at this time and considering whether to adopt a 'neutral' stance, which, in effect, would be tantamount to tacit consent." In other words, it's a bait-and-switch: "Rest assured, we're going to take good care of you" (until you're too weak or senile to resist, then we'll change our mind, just be sure you've placed your living will in our files).
Christians, it's high time that we all get involved in these political, ethical, moral and medical issues! The high tide is coming, and if we don't take action, we will be swept away in the storm! Don't just "think about it" - what will you DO about it?
To keep our websites free,
please Support Agape Restoration Society: click on the "DONATE" button there.
Also, please Share Our Vision with your family and friends.
And shop at our Amazon.com Store too!
No comments:
Post a Comment