Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Postmodernism & euthanasia

Postmodernism & euthanasia

In 2015, Judge Fabricius authorised the euthanasia of Robin Stransham-Ford, who thankfully died before this could be carried out.  The case brings into it the issue of postmodernism in both philosophy and law. 

* Firstly, Fabricius own personal philosophy from his judgement reasoning appears to be postmodernism, which he wishes to impose on the rest of South African society.  No longer are there any absolutes, but rather just relative undefined ideas of such as dignity and the autonomy of the individual.  Similar postmodern philosophical arguments dominate the university medical bioethics faculties and appear to have influenced him.

* Secondly, he bases his decision not on South African law but on one of the worlds most postmodern countries, Canada and specificially a judicial elite within that country also seeking to impose its will on the majority. 

* Thirdly, he decides as postmodernists usually do to base his interpretation of the Bill of Rights not in the stated words in the text nor in the intent of the writers of the Bill of Rights (most of whom are still alive and the discussion is on public record), but rather on his own intepretation of the definitions of the meanings of the terms which he bends and stretches to suit his own agenda to legalise euthanasia.

The above philosophy of law is similar to that used to reach the decision to legalise so called 'same-sex marriage' in both South Africa and the United States.  The dissenting judges Thomas and Scalia of the American Supreme Court condemned their 2015 decision in favour of so-called 'same-sex marriage', saying only was it incorrect but that the court had become a threat to democracy. "I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy."    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

All of this shows how postmodernism is harmful judicially and politically to the morals of society and to democracy.

More at www.EuthanasiaExposed.co.za

Friday, January 15, 2016


Today, 15 January 2014, the summit of Global Anglican primates will be formally announcing the suspension of the heretical American church over support for so-called 'Same-Sex marriage':  Their public statement released ahead of the press conference gives the reason: “the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.http://goo.gl/PjKgJz The Ugandan leader walked out in protest, arguing that both the Canadian and American Anglican church should withdraw until they repented.  The international alliance of biblical Anglicans, GAFCON said that ‘…this action must not be seen as an end, but as a beginning’ , also calling for action against the Canadian church http://goo.gl/kL6U6P
While the divide has formalised over ‘same-sex marriage’, it has been growing for decades with Western Anglican churches ordaining clergy who simply don't believe the core teachings on the Bible whenever it is controversial with culture - on a wide range of issues.  For them, the Bible must be interpreted through the lens of culture, rather than culture seen through the lens of scripture. The British leadership is already so divided on these issues, it is too weak to lead the international Communion. The best scenario will be if this action provokes an internal split in these compromised Western denominations - with the healthy parts staying with the international Anglican Communion.
The suspension is being well reported in the secular media, who hopefully will get the message that these heretics, who support so called ‘same-sex marriage’ do not speak for the Christian faith.
For around ten years, Biblical North American Episcopal congregations have been in conflict with their own hierarchy over homosexuality. The hierarchy have unjustly disciplined Biblical ministers - including J.I. Packer, possibly the most widely respected living theologian - and confiscated congregations church buildings. In a historically unprecedented move, geographic parish boundaries were broken and churches shifted allegiance to biblical African, Asian and South American bishops and sent their tithes there - in turn these international leaders have defended them against the charge of rebellion. The 'politically correct' are left with a dilemma in that, while promoting diversity to attract more people, they are pale skinned and in exponential decline - while the Biblical Anglicans have chosen to submit to leaders of other races, to stay faithful to the Bible and are growing in number.
Historically, heresy has usually only appealed to one particular culture. For example in the 4th Century, Arianism and Gnosticism appealed to Greek culture, of the Eastern part of the Roman empire, but not so much the Latin West. The International Church meeting at Councils was able to pass Church resolutions condemning these heresies which then led to them being stamped out. The Latin church gave support to Biblical Greek Christian leaders unjustly disciplined in the East. In South Africa, postmodern emerging church teaching appeals to the mostly white elite, but hardly has any support in the black population. Conversely, compromise with traditional ancestral religion is a problem in some African churches. But the multi-cultural church meeting together usually sides against these localised cultural heresies.  In 2013, the World Evangelical Alliance put a stop to the politically correct mis-translation of Bibles by certain publishers to try to edit out the term ‘Son of God’ to make it more acceptable to Moslem majority cultures.  Historically, sometimes a country has gone so deep into heresy that it is necessary to send new missionaries to re-evangelise it. That is already happening with Global South churches sending missionaries to re-evangelise Europe with Biblical Christian faith.