Saturday, June 6, 2009

Psalm 2

One of my favorite Psalms is not a widely read or widely quoted passage, but it's a favorite of mine nonetheless. But then again, I'm something of an eccentric when it comes to reading God's revelation to man. I prefer reading the first several chapters of Genesis to reading the book of Acts or the book of Revelation for instance. But that may simply be a result of those books being the (almost) exclusive emphasis of my childhood church.

Here is the second Psalm in its entirety (from the KJV):

WHY DO the heathen rage, and the People imagine a vain thing?

2 The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I generally quote from the first four verses of the second Psalm, or paraphrase those verses when I see specific examples of the heathen raging and imagining vain things, demanding that the cords of the righteous be broken and cast away from among them, as if to say that the end result of the severing of those cords, once complete, is a world that any decent human being would care to live in. And all in the name of "liberty" you see, which is simply a word that means, to these people, license to practice any lasciviousness conceivable to the mind of man.

Among examples of this is the radical homosexual lobby. It seems pretty obvious to me that the homosexual lifestyle is - besides being a complete violation of nature involving unmentionably perverse and inordinate behaviorisms exercised by ungovernables - an agressive and radical lifestyle at its very roots. Let's face it, some folks are peculiarly in need of external government. They certainly exhibit little to no innate ability to govern themselves and their inordinate passions. Any society that permits such ungovernables to rule it has sealed its own fate.

But this insignificant group would simply fade into the background where it belongs had it not the backing of the radical leftist "change" agents which dominate in our society. "Breaking their bands asunder", and "casting away their cords from among us", encompasses, when you boil it all down, the whole of the radical leftist agenda. In other words, to create a world so very permeated with evil that it would literally be "hell on earth."

I once heard a certain minister of the Gospel state that there are merely two kinds of people in the world -- those who say to God "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says "thy will be done." His point was well taken. And I think we know which of the two groups dominates in American society these days. Forgive us Father, for we know not what we do.


Anonymous said...

I have to admit that I don't entirely believe in 'homosexuality'.

That is to say, I believe that sodomy occurs, but I do not believe this to be the result of a 'natural' inclination on the part of the sodomist. If you look at the behavior of homosexuals, they seem more like medieval ascetics than hedonists. Not that this kind of bizarre exploration of self-brutalization through sexual acts is limited to homosexuals, but it is certainly aligned with their culture.

I think that almost all homosexuality is actually the result of a desire to denigrate the 'father-figure' rather than of overwhelming carnal temptation. If you look at the personal history of homosexuals, moral conflict with the primary male role-model is almost universal, and predates open homosexuality. In any case, the actual behavior of homosexuals can be taken as little else than a round of efforts to disparage masculinity. This doesn't mesh with talk about the 'beauty of the male body' or whatever. Homosexuals don't love men, they despise them. Much of that despite may be born out of fear, perhaps a little out of actual contempt for 'animal' sexuality which is attracted to the domesticating (and fertile) influence of the female.

Not a small part of homosexuality is really about offending God, as is shown by the peculiar fascination which homosexuals have with Catholicism. Virtually everyone feels that homosexuality is wrong (including homosexuals, but I'll skip over that for now). So why the strange, sexually charged attacks on patriarchal religion particularly?

But some homosexuals are just against their personal male role-model, just as a few are purely against God the Father. And in the moral conflicts that set sons against fathers, the sons do sometimes have the right of it.

So while I believe that homosexuality is generally indicative of a worse sin than ordinary human depravity, it is not always proof of such sin. Which is why my policy is to assume that any given homosexual is the victim of a corrupt male role-model (often an older homosexual, ironically enough), until there exists clear evidence to the contrary (usually this is not long in coming, so there's little reason not to wait for it).