No wonder Whoopi Goldberg said what she said. She can’t help it. She is a victim. She is a victim of the liberal propaganda she believes in. That same propaganda that is based on emptying the words of our language of any moral meaning. So when it comes to applying moral meaning to words, she is confused. “Rape-rape” or “just rape”?
“I don’t necessarily want my 13-year old to have sex with a 45-year old man.” What does that phrase mean? She probably wouldn’t be able to tell. Does she say that it is not “necessity” that tells her what to want or not? Or does she say she is not forced to want her 13-year old to have sex, she just wants it on her own accord?
Depends on what the definition of “sex” is, declared President Clinton. Again, he is acting on premises that exclude any moral meaning in language, and therefore excludes any possible absolute definitions, including his own.
President Obama is smarter: He uses a teleprompter. But the moment his eyes leave the teleprompter, he is forced to speak out of simple common sense, and says things that directly contradict all his policies and ideology.
These are all connected symptoms of the same sickness: Language emptied of moral meaning eventually turns against those who use it. The shrewd are caught in the nets of their own craftiness. The history of the US in the 20th century abounds with examples. My personal favorite is the trade unions’ accusation against the employers: “If you don’t give us more money, you are greedy!” Or the communist critique against fascism: “Fascism is an immoral dictatorial one-party rule with total control over the economy by the State and persecution of political opponents.” Or atheism’s basic tenet: “To believe in the existence of absolute moral standards is absolutely immoral.”
Language was created by God for a purpose: to convey the moral truths of God. It has first and foremost an ethical function, and then everything else. We inescapably talk morality every time we open our mouths, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we admit it or not. Created in the image of God, man is first and foremost a moral being, and his language necessarily must have moral content and meaning before everything else. Whether we talk about biology, math, entertainment, computer programs, art, or cleaning a house, we are declaring certain moral truths to the world, and we are declaring them on the basis of a worldview that has first and foremost an ethical foundation on which everything else stands. We can’t escape talking morality, and we can’t escape making moral judgments every time we open our mouths.
That’s why the liberal war against God in the 20th and 21st century is self-defeating. Based on moral relativism, it is trying to negate God by negating the very moral character of language, by emptying language of its moral meaning. Far from giving the liberals a weapon in the debate, it is in fact setting fire to their own intellectual house. Every definition now is dangerous because it turns against them, every statement becomes its logical negation—and by default, negation of the very liberal position it is designed to promote and defend. Therefore every definition needs multiple sub-definitions and sub-sub-definitions, until the very talk of the anti-Christian thinkers becomes completely meaningless even to themselves.
Cornelius Van Til informed us about the “epistemological maturing” in history of the two seeds. The epistemological maturing of the unbelievers will make them more and more irrelevant and helpless to use language as their tool and weapon against God. More and more every word they say will turn against them and will undermine their own position. No wonder there is no great philosophical thinker in the non-Christian world today; no wonder Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins pass for “thinkers” these days: the unbelieving world is becoming more and more epistemologically self-consistent with its own basic premise of meaninglessness.
The unbelieving world is in intellectual bankruptcy, and has been so for the last 60 years. It has tried to preach meaning while negating the very basis of meaning; it has been trying to moralize by negating morality; it has been trying to speak while defining its very language out of existence.
This is the time for Christians to wake up and see that the “giants” are in fact very small. There is no logical reasoning left in the world, there is no meaning, there is no purpose to live and exist. The expectation that a mythical “Antichrist” will rule the world is not Biblical, and is not realistic. Such a world ruler will have to overcome the very fruits of the anti-Christian ideology—the lack of meaning. Without meaning no one can rule themselves, let alone the whole world. No one gets excited about ultimate meaningless, and no one gets excited about an ideology that can’t even defend itself against its own inconsistencies. Meaning can be found only in Christ, and therefore Christianity is the only religion that can overcome the world in an active, aggressive sense of the word.
The supposed triumph of liberalism is non-existent. All the social, economic, legal and political “victories” of liberalism in the United States and abroad are only result of the cultural retreat of Christians. God catches His enemies in their own nets—like He does with Whoopi, Obama, Clinton and many others—and thus He gives us assurance for our victory in history. If we will only act.