THE `GAY QUESTION’ – TAKING STOCK, PART 1
By QC
.jpg)
You are saying that any putative world government would fail, as, in order to succeed, it would need, among other things, to ignore the vagaries of human nature as well as economic realities. Moreover, it overlooks the threat posed by Islamism – an irresistible temptation to many.
Imaginary conversation between myself & a friend [in italics]
Hello! Have you prayed?
Yes! Today I want clarification; to know why we are still talking, and what your objective is.
Clarification?
This `conspiracies theory’ business. You make it sound like Russian dolls! A `Gay Conspiracy’ within a possible `CIA Conspiracy’, inside a `Bilderberg Conspiracy’! I think it’s all rubbish!
On the contrary, there have long been concerns about the Bilderberg Group, voiced by all sorts of people. Your team is supposed to be investigating them remember!
`The team’? What `team’?
Influential `Gays’ who will, I hope, read and respond to the articles on the Anglican Mainstream web-site, to which our conversations are connected.
Okay, let’s get this straight. So your theory is that the Bilderberg Group, or some other organisation, might be manipulating the CIA, or some other highly influential government agency; which, in turn, is manipulating the `Gays’.
Yes!
And, the `Gays’, want to turn everybody into being `gay’, or, at least, sympathetic to `Gay causes’. That’s what you would say?
Correct.
Remind me, why are we still talking?
Because you promised to see this business of the `Gay Question’ `through to the end’; because we both think that God is guiding us; and because it is in your interest.
You mean because I don’t want the `Gay community’ to be exploited by others for their own ends?
Exactly so.
But, how does this `conspiracies theory’ business work?
Well, I would suggest that all three groups involved want an `atomised’ society – that is to say, one where the individual’s sole responsibility is to the state.
I’m sorry, what do you mean sole responsibility to the State? Why would anyone buy into that?
In return for absolute obedience, the state gives individuals whatever `opiate’ they demand: `sex on demand’, `abortion on demand’, `whatever you want on demand’. Except, of course, any of the basic freedoms – especially, freedom of conscience, the most important freedom.
And the states, in turn, obey orders from `The Centre’- that is to say – a one world government.
One world government?
Yes! What I was talking about previously. An unknown organisation may be trying to implement a one world government so that we can all, supposedly, live in `peace and harmony’ in a universal civilisation.
But, it won’t work?
No, because it assumes that a world government can manipulate individual states `like clockwork’. Moreover, it ignores the vagaries of human nature, and economic realities. And, also – needless to say – ignores the appeal of Islamism, which would actively work against it.
The appeal of Islamism working against it? What do you mean?
To some people the supposed moral certainly of Islam is very attractive, but they also want a one world government. Their version. Or so it seems to me, anyway.
You could be wrong!
I could always be wrong!
Besides, as Jonathan Sacks has mentioned, it is hubristic when man attempts to rule in place of God. That is a theme throughout history from the Sumerian city-states, to Plato’s Republic, to empires, both ancient and modern, including that of the Soviet Union.
They are all attempts to impose a man-made unity on divinely created diversity – in other words, to create `Towers of Babel’, inviting God’s Wrath. All large-scale man-made systems are inherently fallible, for that reason.
Identify, if you would, the most striking point in our discussion.
You are saying that any putative world government would fail, as, in order to succeed, it would need, among other things, to ignore the vagaries of human nature as well as economic realities. Moreover, it overlooks the threat posed by Islamism – an irresistible temptation to many.
Yes!
And next time you’ll tell me the objective in all of this?
Agreed
(to be continued)
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
