There is no point debating whether God is Deist or Theist, since His very existence is disputed. What is not in dispute is that the concept of God exists. If God was a creation of Man, conjured into existence and then conscripted to serve Man's government, law and politics, then He was created for the purpose of establishing, protecting and restoring the patriarchy.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring.
Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers indifferent to the parenting of their casually conceived and casually parented illegitimate offspring.
We are more likely to obey a rule if it is legally enforceable.
We are more likely to obey a law if it is perceived to be a moral and law.
We are more likely to obey a law for longer if its both perceived to be moral and to have come from God Himself.
There will never be sufficient evidence to prove conclusively one way or another God's existence or non-existence. Therefore deciding to believe in Him will always be a political choice made by those who see the wisdom of obeying His laws. Once we decide that we want to obey God's laws for our own good, we would incline to belief knowing belief would make us more likely to obey them for longer. However, if we decide not to obey them, we would incline to disbelief because it makes no sense to believe in God, flout His laws and then be in in fear of eternal damnation.
The debate should now be whether government should govern according to God's laws as found in the Koran, however much those who have become accustomed to flouthing His laws howl and cry in protest.
Those who object would mostly be unmarriageable bachelors and spinsters with no hope or intention of becoming married parents, or those who pander to the underclass in the hope of acquiring power and influence.
Why should the decision on how best to rear the next generation and decide on the national interest be left to the morally compromised who
1) have no intention or prospect of becoming married parents
2) have already had illegitimate offspring
3) plan to have illegitimate offspring
4) expect their legitimate offspring to have illegitimate offspring
5) cannot even defend marriage as an institution because they have never defended a principle in their life, don't know how to and don't want to even try because they are too terrified of alienating their wife, their wife's friends, their daughter and their daughter's friends, their granddaughter and their granddaughter's friends
If the marriageable cannot get it together to win the argument for restoring the patriarchy against the unmarriageable who have a vested interest in the status quo that is the matriarchy, then they do not deserve to live in an advanced civilisation and very soon won't.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring.
Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers indifferent to the parenting of their casually conceived and casually parented illegitimate offspring.
We are more likely to obey a rule if it is legally enforceable.
We are more likely to obey a law if it is perceived to be a moral and law.
We are more likely to obey a law for longer if its both perceived to be moral and to have come from God Himself.
There will never be sufficient evidence to prove conclusively one way or another God's existence or non-existence. Therefore deciding to believe in Him will always be a political choice made by those who see the wisdom of obeying His laws. Once we decide that we want to obey God's laws for our own good, we would incline to belief knowing belief would make us more likely to obey them for longer. However, if we decide not to obey them, we would incline to disbelief because it makes no sense to believe in God, flout His laws and then be in in fear of eternal damnation.
The debate should now be whether government should govern according to God's laws as found in the Koran, however much those who have become accustomed to flouthing His laws howl and cry in protest.
Those who object would mostly be unmarriageable bachelors and spinsters with no hope or intention of becoming married parents, or those who pander to the underclass in the hope of acquiring power and influence.
Why should the decision on how best to rear the next generation and decide on the national interest be left to the morally compromised who
1) have no intention or prospect of becoming married parents
2) have already had illegitimate offspring
3) plan to have illegitimate offspring
4) expect their legitimate offspring to have illegitimate offspring
5) cannot even defend marriage as an institution because they have never defended a principle in their life, don't know how to and don't want to even try because they are too terrified of alienating their wife, their wife's friends, their daughter and their daughter's friends, their granddaughter and their granddaughter's friends
If the marriageable cannot get it together to win the argument for restoring the patriarchy against the unmarriageable who have a vested interest in the status quo that is the matriarchy, then they do not deserve to live in an advanced civilisation and very soon won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment