W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New


NEWS 126
The Advertiser, p. 37, September 13, 2000

The Tedious Aggrandisement of the Rebellion

 A Sorting Problem which is Ill Assorted with the Grace of God
Read on and find the gen!

We might as well be frank. It is human self-aggrandisement. The glory of humanity... All that! You get it to some extent in the games, at times. You do it like this:

'We are great, our morals are great, our minds are great, our bodies are great and we shall rule and overcome and be whatever we want to be, and you had better believe it! Moreover, if you try to stop us, we will stop you: further, we will defame you while we defile ourselves if that is how you want to see it, we will make mulch of your gardens if we happen to like mulch, and we will destroy your standards in favour of ours, and we will REBEL. Right we will call wrong: not merely another nothing. Oh no! OUR morals are not nothing! Yours are. Also there are no morals.'

So the self-contradictory confusion, riddled with irrationalism, cradled in cant, proceeds. It is WRONG to have morals. It is WRONG to look at the way we are made. It is WRONG to have ordinary families based on physiological facts, in vogue. They may be permitted but they are NOT permitted to be right, merely tolerable. We are of course talking of the latest corruption in morals (since it is WRONG to criticise, there are implicitly acknowledged to BE morals!). The country taking leadership in this matter, will also appear shortly.

But wait a minute, you say! Before you unleash on your topic, let us be clear. YOU cannot say their morals are wrong, merely that they are wilfully pretending there ARE  no morals when they call for their particular line of action as right, and criticism as wrong. They ARE confused. They DO show that morals are being activated by THEMSELVES, they DO show that they have very special ones of their own, and that they INSIST on having them RULE to the point that they CANNOT, MUST not be criticised. Yes, this is so, you may say; but you cannot just simply say, these morals of theirs, blatantly real as they are in suppressed claim, are wrong! THAT  is going too far.

Not at all. They are wrong for the following reasons: they are product of naturalism, the mysterious process by which nature makes itself from nothing in depth, and then in dimension; which is as often shown on this site (as in Barbs, Arrows and Balms 29, That Magnificent Rock 1 7 8) ludicrous and a form of intellectual suicide. Whatever is, is, it says, and so whatever wants something other is wrong, it proceeds. Not so. You CANNOT have a prescription from a description. What IS, does not because it CANNOT, if it be merely 'nature', MAKE what is right. If it happens, then it is merely a matter of whatever it is that is happening, going on and doing it. NOTHING could then be wrong. It COULD NOT be wrong to criticise this or that happening; for that too would be a happening, and if it is going to happen, and happening is god, a weak and vacillatory god without power or appearance, evidence or even rationality, then there is a result.

And that ? It CANNOT be wrong to criticise those who want this or that. It is on that irrational basis, but for the sake of consistency let us note it, NOT wrong to criticise ANYTHING as wrong. There IS not standard. The empirical is its own master. If it wants to criticise those who criticise, or to criticise those who act, one and all, it is able. There is no difference. It is a madhouse and in madhouses, without doctors, nurses or standards, anything goes.

Hence it is just a matter of voting warfare. It is not a question of being wrong or censurable if you criticise those who want to adopt children for a same sex partnership, or even them in vitrio as has been a movement here, so that something of the unnatural (this is a fact) parentage at least might become actualised. If people want to murder, that too is just a happening. That is the nature of this approach.
As you may notice, we are not commending it, but we are expressing it for survey!

Ah now, you may say, this is not so. It is inconvenient to be murdered, and people in general do not really like it. It is abortive of plans and so forth, and can hurt. Why should people hurt one another! No good! no good at all.

You may SAY this; but on the naturalistic basis, its inherent irrationalism comes out on all sides. If it hurts, that is a happening, and there is no naturalistic reason why it should not. But you may say, we can FORCE it not to happen. Since when, however, has force been a measure of morals ? We are talking of right and wrong, not of force, which merely directs by effort and victory. Might is right! you may say.
But no! Might is victory if it also has whatever else it takes; but it is not because it cannot be right. Right implies a standard. Very well, you may say, the STANDARD is FORCE.

Yes, the standard, as with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, of ACTION may in some circumstances appear so (before they die or are murdered or commit suicide or whatever, and within limits which they cannot alter, but which in the end alter them, irremediably); however the EFFECTING of something does not have anything to do with the quite different question, SHOULD it have happened, or be happening. THAT it can be made to happen is one thing; whether or not this is good, or right, or meets certain standards of judgment will of course depend on JUST WHAT those standards are.

Standards. They are inescapable if anything is to be judged as right or wrong. You may surreptitiously*1 want to make the vote of the majority the STANDARD; and this too is wrong, for it is merely the statistics, a sort of numerical display of force. It is not a standard. You may want what ALL men in a TOTAL world vote want, and show, to be the standard. It would be a legal standard, if you made a law to say so, but it COULD not be because it IS NOT, a moral standard. There is no possibility of making such a vote a moral standard UNLESS you FIRST state that the REAL MORALS are these: that whatever most people want, especially in the whole world, MUST be right. Why ?

There is and can be no reason, at the risk of mental nausea let us repeat it, why description (they voted thus) can become prescription (and how right they are in doing so!). The ONLY way you can do that is to DEFINE right to MEAN what most people vote for. That however IMPLIES MORALS, namely, that rightness in its very essence and meaning is just what most want. If most in Germany wanted death to Jews, then that was right; and if most did not, then if most in government in Germany wanted it, then that is right. And if in the world most people on the whole, ever want anything, death to this or that group, that too is right. That then is your commandment.

This, you are saying is the first and the great commandment: Thou SHALT call right whatever most people actually WANT. WANTING, if widespread enough, is RIGHT. You OUGHT to do it.
Not so. All you are showing is this, that you are making PEOPLE WISHES the standard. That is a moral decision. You are inventing MORALS. They have no ground. History shows that this can be lethal to groups and countries, when passions rule. No matter, this is to be it. Then we ask, IF what is wanted by most is to BE the right, we must, to be rational at all, have some way of showing that this is so. Thus it could be because people are gods, with inherent powers of discernment, so that although some may go astray, if MOST want it, their very nature and construction warrants the view that this COULD not be wrong. They are too well made to be mad enough all to be wrong, or to have most wrong at one time.

Does history show this to be so ? It must therefore be RIGHT to cut off the hands of thieves in some countries, and NOT RIGHT in others. Then if those countries be internationalised, and the total then votes not to cut them off, then that is right. Thus right CANNOT depend on the construction of man, since it would vary, whereas the construction does not.

Even if it did, however, you still have the implicit god of naturalism. It is ASSUMED that man is so made that this result occurs (since morals CANNOT arise from mere action, this being a contradiction in terms: happenings happen, and do not construct their own evaluation). IF man is so made, then the question must arise, what was the source of this happening, when it is so great that it even mandates by the wiring, the electronic and physiological marvels, the code work in his cells and the design specifications in his mind, the right and correct way! WHAT MADE MAN ? then becomes the anterior question, to this sort of morality (humanism is its name).

IF nothing made man, then there is nothing in it. That is the end of humanism.

If God made man, then it is GOD, not man, who is the criterion. If you say, GOD cannot be known
(how do you know? if you knew this, you would know absolute truth*2, unavailable without God, and a mere self-contradiction for naturalism, and so would know God, which you have however just denied to ANY),  then you cannot know the criterion. Then you must not say, It is right! If God is excised (in theory, since it cannot happen in fact as He is there - SMR Chs. 1-3,10), then nothing is the standard, and nothing is not a standard. If you simply want to say, however, Very well, there ARE no standards, so when you TRY to impose YOURS, we will resist and condemn you, you err.

If there ARE no standards, then you CANNOT use what, on this model, is not there in order to condemn as WRONG the criticism or standards some use. If you CANNOT be wrong, then neither on that self-same basis, can they.

It is merely ... inconvenient to your religion. There are ALWAYS standards. IF there is to be neutralism (one of the things in addition to humanism, and naturalism, implicit), then it simply is not neutral to condemn a view. Hence when neutralism condemns what condemns something, it is itself condemning and a particular basis, and hence not neutral*3. It is just one more moral, but in disguise. If humanism condemns what is not following human voting patterns, then it is not humanism, for those who follow other patterns are still human, and humanism cannot raise up some aspect, such as voting arithmetic, in order to CONSTRUCT what is right, without implicitly assuming that the CONSTRUCTION of man in general is sound, and to be imposed on any group or individual. However that assumes that the MAKER is the standard, but if that is so, it is NOT humanism, and it is imperative to find His mind.


If it is ASSUMED that this CANNOT be found, then there is no standard to be found, it is all guesswork, and guesswork is not morals. It merely acknowledges that there is no standard and that it would like to have one so it is going to ... guess. Humanism contradicts itself if it invents standards; neutralism does no less; naturalism is the same.

You CANNOT condemn what condemns this now pending

Dutch Liaison Law of Unnatural (fact) Families*4 -

giving formal 'marriages' and
rights of divorce and
wider adoption rights over children to boot,
to same sex couples -

on those bases.

 If it were wrong to condemn, it would be just as wrong to condemn what condemns. It is all a matter of condemning condemnation, so that  any nation may do precisely what it pleases. But what is the use of touting confusion ? If NO moral law is allowable, then one which declares or implies this, that it is wrong to declare what people want as wrong, is merely instituting another one, and ignoring its own sanctions. You cannot protect yourself by reasoning against reason. If you want to violate the way we are made, and achieve liaisons in families which do not produce families, and ignore the constructions and constrictions that produce - in ways of immense complexity and specifications, these family results, then defence by appeal to a pretended neutrality is not one rational option.

By the way, it is now known whether Sodom and Gomorrah reached the level of

1) having such families of two of the same gender
2) protecting them legally
3) seeking to have them adopt children (but of course they would not know HOW, presumably, to bring in some physiological resemblance from the parents to the children)
4) making it wrong to say it is wrong
5) making it right to do it.

Certainly, it would be pushing it.

There CAN be no moral tone to the condemnation of what condemns, as the Bible does in I Timothy 1:10, this sort of thing, if naturalism, humanism and neutralism are the gods going for the code of conduct to make it wrong. All you could on such a basis say is this, that it is inconvenient and a nuisance for people to condemn this conduct. You cannot look down a non-moral nose and condemn without morals what condemns it. You can appeal to precisely nothing morally.

On the other side, there is the fact that it is unnatural. If so, you may say, what of it ! Cannot people be unnatural if they want to be ? They can, if the law does not for example give them the death penalty, the Old Testament routine (Leviticus 20:13). The question is not whether they can, but whether it is right. It cannot be right when there are no morals; it can only be a happening. Those who want to condemn such conduct (for example, on the ground that it helps terminate the race, since there is less disease protection and disease here can and does spread and so on, this being not in the design), on this self-same model, cannot be wrong. It would be on that same basis, that those who commit it cannot be wrong. You cannot have it both ways. Follow this motif, and then NOTHING is wrong, but merely legal or not, convenient or not, expedient or not. Expedient ? for whom. For all people taking into account all things ? and what is this idea that this works meekly out ? Some want pleasure, self-affirmation and do not care what is the result for others.

The neutralistic, humanistic,
naturalistic, irrationalist, relativistic basis

But on this same neutralistic, humanistic, naturalistic, irrationalist, relativistic basis, there is no question of its being wrong to violate what is in the survival interests of all humanity. WHY SHOULD it survive! That is the moral question. It is not a STANDARD that it should survive. It is a desire.

Those who do not have this desire, and prefer other desires are not, on that basis, wrong.
They can only be expressed or suppressed. To the extent they constitute a danger to survival, since this sort of thing is simply a fact, for it moves towards what is physically more dangerous than normal sexual relations, then it is on this basis, merely morals smuggled in, to make it ‘wrong’. This irrelevant to such a basis. SURVIVAL itself, if to become a ‘right’ by decree, can only be legislated. But, you say, that is ridiculous. Survival is obviously moral. Why ?

Why is it ridiculous not to survive ? Christ died for sin. He could have stayed alive instead. He was raised from the dead, certainly, but this did not alter the great step of first laying down His life. Is it ridiculous if a doctor tries a drug on himself in order to facilitate research ? Why ? What standard says so ?

Survival is a desire. No more. That is its nature on this basis.

Moreover the basis is impossible, since irrationalism, basis of naturalism, must first forsake reason in order to be, and in doing so, forsakes its use for the particular piece of reasoning that it is right or wrong. Thus it is quite irrational to hold a ' neutral'  moral view and conceive it moral to survive, or wrong to condemn, for that matter, those who do not bother to survive. On that road, you have nothing but self-contradiction.

When you turn (with relief) to what meets logic, then of course you are forced to God, as shown in SMR, and then, finding it all coheres as nothing else either does or can, since you cannot be reasonable about the use of unreason: then the question is very simple. HAS HE SPOKEN ?

If so, right and wrong for the design called man will result from what He says. No, you may say, NOT SO. Why ? If God made us, some one may affirm, this is no ground for thinking He had it right! Very well, then on what grounds do you criticise God ? On grounds that it is not my desire to follow Him, you may say. But this is not relevant to what is right, only to what is desired.

How would you remove God as the standard, except in being at war with yourself, since He made you; and to be at war with yourself is certainly not feasible, since you are making war on what you are, in order to be what you want to be, but cannot be, since this is not what you are. Moreover to make God a taunting extortioner against man, taking satisfaction from his writhing is to make Him to be a psychic insufficiency, NEEDING something to complete Himself, and so would merely be a component in a containing system in which He has to live. That however is a part of a system and nothing to do with God. The goodness of God and the folly of man is the underlying issue at all times, and the fulfilment of His predictions is the overlying reality to be observed.

In history it is repetitively found, that when morals are subverted in licentious liberties of one kind or another, then dictatorial rule is an easy outcome. If you neglect the obvious, then the not-so-obvious comes welling up into the polluted, irrational midst of a decaying people, and what is it to be ? Reason being subverted, the black depths well up with this or that dark design. If pride of life surged into action in World War I, then instead of repentance you readily get racial pride, securing new squalor amidst the grim death of millions in World War II, required as a suppressant. If Rome luxuriated on mercenary soldiers for her protection, why not have indulgence indulged, and have them rebel against you*5, in order for them to luxuriate for themselves ? If this is what you are for, then it is what they are for, but this time for their own sakes. Immorality is a maw that mashes much.

France mocks God in its 1789 Revolution, with the goddess of (some kind of) reason drawn through the streets ? Then having lost her head, as a nation in its throes, it becomes the non-benevolent basis for many, even some of its leaders, losing their own heads in ways not easy to remedy! Nor was the Russian Revolution of 1917 any kinder, but far crueller, as Stalin evidently used starvation as as internal weapon, the State seizing crops,  with an additional element in its exports of human labour fragments to Siberia, on inadequate rations, to realise the immoral dream that it is the State and not the individual that matters. Hence use up their residual vitality for the State, and simply on this model, have no concern for their souls, their lives, their livelihood, justice or morality of any kind. As for the State being the main thing, the star to guide, what is this if not a moral from nowhere! So they surge like angry waves, waiving away all that hinders wandering.


Very well: you want to be a rebel against God because you prefer yourself to God. That too is not moral, but desire. It cannot be RIGHT to be a rebel against God, merely a desire. Moreover, how can you rationally prefer yourself to God, if you believe you CANNOT know God ? You do not want to be rational ? Fine, then you cannot reason about it. Case dismissed.

Since there are standards of nature invested in our physiology, when you return to the reality of God, it is simply a matter of seeing what they are, and seeing what God has said.

HAS GOD SAID! you may recall the origin of this query, being Satan as in Genesis. He is remarkably consistent in this approach, still being at it. Yes God HAS said, as reason is forced to admit as proved in SMR. This is the only consistent, rational account in the universe of thought, as there also shown.

Two things follow. This new Dutch law, or legislation, if confirmed, is making the nation a rebel against God. It is asking for action commensurable, at least, with that on Sodom and Gomorrah. Only mercy can intervene. What they then DO with their morals is one element of what is plaguing the world, both with human consequences and divine ones! True, that they are not without company in such things, but leadership involves a leading edge to responsibility. To be sure, this is merely a symptom, but it also has substantial consequences of its own.

Oh come, you may say, Sodom and Gomorrah were in the backblocks of history, this is NOW.

Is NOW a moral criterion, then ? Oh certainly, the Dutch are merely more advanced in retrogression, here; and many nations are as this very article in The Advertiser shows, dabbling in these immoral things (Biblically defined). True, and this is ONLY ONE of the MANY facets of the world's way, enshrined increasingly in international bodies, and the spirit of the Age; it is a sort of dark light which shows itself by a necrotic glower. It all is predicted and comes to its end.

You see, to understand ends you always need to know about beginnings. What it is and what it is supposed to be about relates to what becomes of it. Man is not supposed to be about man, but about God. When he PREFERS not to be so, and rebels, then you get what we have got; and we are both getting more of it, and about to get more of it, both the provocation and the consequences (as in Revelation 9:20-21). So be it.

Incidentally, in I Timothy 3:1ff., you get an account of what mankind, this product, is to be doing with itself in the days which are defined as the last days (as in Matthew 24, Luke 21), those in which Jerusalem goes back to the Jews (that is, in the chronological genre, 1948, 1967 and on). ONE of the features focussed in the inspired account of the future, given like news, is this - man is increasingly to become tainted in one respect, that he is to be "without natural affection". Ties of the NATURAL kind between family members in other words, are to be abased. What is natural, what is normal kinship, is to GOD as the norm: this is systematically to be dispensed with, swept aside.


That is what is happening. The next thing, before long, is the return of the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15, 19-20), who made it according to His own standards. HIS standards, incidentally, include that of the doctor who dies for his patients, NOT in this matter, in order to SEE if the drug works, but because that death IS the medicine of immortality as it has been called. Death in justice is called for, not revoked, as the judicial curse on sin; and only by being borne by the Judge Himself, being both infinite over all and alone able to do this in purity without His own condemnation for the sins He does not in fact have, is it to be justly dismissed. That is why it is declared in Romans 3, that Christ the redeemer laid down His life that He might be JUST and the JUSTIFIER of those who believe. Justice MUST be satisfied (we are not too happy about injustice, which mocks reality, and stifles its realisation), and MERCY ALONE is able to do it, and in meeting it, Christ Himself dies, the just for the unjust (II Peter 3:18).

Standards ? Morals ? These are the standards of God. It is called love, truth, and mercy. You may prefer hate. God does not. You may prefer to be a rebel... in that case, against the love of God, in favour of judgment. So be it.

It is a pity.

If however you are a Christian, be strong, and be valiant, and be not hogwashed with filth, as if God had NOT said in both Testaments with the UTMOST FORCE, that this thing is UNNATURAL and WRONG and worthy of condemnation. Do not believe the immoral, surreptitious and irrational 'morals' which forbid condemnation of these things. Do not be involved or inveigled in any way. In fact, in I Cor. 5:10, we read that Christians are not to keep company with those practising sexual promiscuity biblically defined, and in I Cor. 6:9-10 notes that those in the throes of perversion biblically defined, cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. To be sure, they are merely part of a list of various enormities (biblically defined), but in this case, the list is horrendously specific in spelling out the various perversions! THESE ARE EXPLICITLY CONDEMNED.

Realisation, repentance and the love of God are necessary. He has chosen the various channels for love, marriage, friendship, comradeship, concern, sacrifice, brotherliness, teamwork, and to rebel and insist on redrafting these specifics, without performing them, is merely to invent a system which is not yours, and to foist it onto one you neither did nor could make. It is called rebellion. It is not an alternative. It does not work. God did not make it that way. The way He did make it is the available option.

To use a car as a tractor is different. It is just that it is not made for it. Each, car and tractor, works fine for its appointed purpose. The ultimate love is to love God, since He IS love. We, we humans, we are not the standard. To act as if we were is not only irrational, making a particle the precept; but violates the loveliness that is available, in the mere promiscuities of rebellion. It is rather like INSISTING that a flower MUST scrub the floor. It can to a point; but ... it is a pity. It simply spoils it.


For a systematic coverage in kind, or morals, see
The Other News 19.



Incidentally, the reason why we always insist on right and wrong, even those people who are busy trying to eliminate morals, is this: that the One who made us, IS moral, and we are in His image.

We do not because we CANNOT escape, logically, psychologically or theologically.

That is simply one more verification of our source.


See SMR Ch. 3. esp. pp. 254ff..


See SMR Ch. 4, pp. 363ff., 376ff., and Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation.


The Dutch matter as in the Advertiser:

"THE HAGUE: Pending legislation will convert Holland’s ‘registered same-sex partnerships’ into marriages, complete with divorce guidelines and wider adoption rights for gays." This is the essence of the text at the commencement of the news item. An "overwhelming majority" in the Parliament is reported to favour it.



It appears  that after 395 A.D., the emperors in the Western Roman Empire became increasingly less rulers than ruled. Military leaders could become actual power sources, and in fact, in 476, one, Orestes, refused the request of Germanic mercenaries in his service for lands in Italy. Dissatisfied, the mercenaries, led by Odoacer, revolted. Deposing the Emperor, Romulus Augustus, they managed what is by some considered the fall of the Western Roman Empire.