Tag Archives: homosexuality

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)

Posted on by
Reply

Claiming to be civilised, the modern Secularist has laid down his sword and gun. However, this has left him in somewhat of a predicament. The Secularist is in need of an effective instrument with which to bludgeon into submission those who oppose.

Enter the abuse of language and the courting of hypocrisy!

The simple reality is that the Secularist does not play fair. When it suits him, he steals from the Christian worldview (e.g., justice, love, society, law). When it suits him, he attacks the Christian worldview (e.g., morality and jurisprudence). When he needs, he destroys language and meaning. When he needs, he places new meaning and non-meaning into words (e.g., what is equality, homophobia or Political Correctness). When it suits him, he claims absolute truth (e.g., right, wrong, and even truth itself). When he seeks to beguile, he lies as though truth was an unknown concept.

If we are to successfully engage the Secularist, we must be aware of his tactics, his false claims, and his bullying. Thus far, we have made a number of claims. Let us now look at how these things work in practice.

1. Worldview: A worldview is your perspective of and on the world. It is a set of ideas with which you interpret the world around you and by which you attempt to make sense of the data you see. Everybody has one. So do not be fooled into thinking that you don’t, they don’t or that such a thing is unnecessary.

This worldview is essentially based on faith – an assumed presupposition that cannot be proven. For the Christian that presupposition is, God exists. For the unbeliever, born in sin and antagonistic to God, it is, God is dead.[1]

A worldview in action looks like this:

The Christian, presupposing that God exists and that God has revealed   Himself,  On this basis, sees a rainbow and thanks God for His covenant   to never again destroy the world by flood.

The Secularist, presupposing that God is dead, looks at the rainbow and contemplates a meteorological phenomenon in which light reflects off water droplets causing a colourful display. It means nothing. It has no purpose. It just is.

2. Religious Battle: The second furphy gladly peddled by the Secularist is that he is free from the burden of religion. He happily, if not smugly, highlights the Crusades as evidence of his statement that “religion has been the cause of most wars.” Then he pontificates about the grandeur of Man and Man’s ability to reason his way to a better state and higher plane of peace and respect with no need for a religion of any type.

In reality, the Secularist is simply in the midst of making a religion after his own image and likeness. He creates a worldview, which means that he has adopted fundamental principles that govern his outlook on life. One of those principles is that God is dead. A consequent principle is that Man is the exalted measure of all things. This is precisely why he attacks Christianity. The Secularist is in a religious war. He wants his god (Man) to dominate the old God; he wants his new worldview (Humanism) to displace and expel the old worldview (Theism). Here, we see the veil slip for the first time. (More later)

Thus, the Secularist is religious; he has a religion. He is formulating principles by which Man should live. The only difference is that he chooses to make Man his god. Therefore, in opposition to Christianity, the Secularist establishes Man’s god rather than contentedly being God’s man.

3. Destruction and Reconstruction: Central to the Secularist’s takeover is the destruction of any and all forms that give voice to the moral principles that were enshrined in law and culture via the old worldview. In our case, God’s Law-Word (the Bible) was the basis for law and morality in our culture. This same God is the basis of the Christian worldview. As such, the Secularist must find a way to deconstruct these ideas or, at the very least, empty them of any moral implications so that the empty shell can be stuffed with the new dogma. In this manner, the Secularist begins to construct and re-construct the culture according to the new worldview.

Consequently, as we note in Part 1, Secularism unleashes its Bastard child, Political Correctness, to begin the process of demoralising and sanitising language. Dropped from the language are all words that have a moral connotation and the implication of judicial penalty: fornication, adultery, sodomy, blasphemy.[2]

4. Tolerance: As Secularism professes to be the new enlightened way, having shed this dictatorial God of the Bible, it adopts as a major tenet the concept of tolerance. It invites all to partake in this new and freer society, regardless of particular beliefs. All are welcome.

The trouble is that Secularism’s invitation is like the free ride to Toyland – all play and no work, then you awake one morning as donkey! It is all too good to be true.

Think about it logically. Are all things equal? Are all people equal? Are all pursuits as noble and worthwhile as each other? Are the diligent and the malingerer actually of the same substance and worth? Are the murder and the philanthropist the same?

Secularism’s claim to tolerance is one more hollow shell.[3]

5. Hypocrisy: It is here that we meet the other key requisite necessary to be a Secularist – you must be a hypocrite! The simple reality is that Secularism does not and, indeed, cannot meet any of the goals it so proudly pursues. It betrays itself at nearly every major tenet that it professes to espouse and to which it tirelessly works.

6. Examples: With this introduction complete, let us illustrate these things with real examples.[4]

Secularism pretends that it is not a religion. It claims, rather, to be merely a movement aimed at aiding the autonomy of Man. If this be true, why then has Secularism declared war on Christianity and the Christian’s God? If Secularism is inert, why then does our current Prime Minister speak of a Secular State that holds absolute sway over all other institutions? Why, in that context, must the faith of all others capitulate to the will of the State?[5], [6]

Naturally, we must ask, if Secularism is so accommodating, Why can it not leave us Christians alone? Why must it change and break a system that has served this nation well? Why must the Secularists force Christians to change their beliefs? After all, what is there to fear? Every culture that has had a genuine Christian (Reformational) influence has prospered.[7]

Again, we must ask, “If tolerance is a key tenet of Secularism, why are Christians not tolerated?” A better question for the hypocrites is this, “If tolerance is a key tenet of your religion, why do you not abide by your own stated beliefs and tolerate Christianity?”

It is in answering that question that the veil falls completely. It is at this point that the Secularist must vent his spleen and admit that Christianity is opposed to everything for which he stands. Consequently, it must be eradicated. As long as there is a Christian, there will be opposition to the plans and ideas of the Secularist. It is in these statements that his rebellious nature comes to the fore. It is here that we see his innate hatred of God and His law. It is at this point that his utter hypocrisy is shown!

All the talk concerning tolerance, fairness, and equality are shown to be absolutely hollow. The duplicitous nature of their scheming is unveiled.

How so you ask? Consider the following:

A. Today’s news included an article in regard to the Liberals backing out of a “preference deal” with the Christian Democratic Party because of comments concerning “gays”. The eye catching headline, “Gay Crisis in Sex-Appeal Seat” leads one to a story with the more moderate title, “Libs in preference crisis in Lindsay over gay comments.”[8]

What was the obviously disgusting, degrading, derogatory and inhuman comment that Andrew Green, the DCP candidate, uttered? Well, hold on to your hats, cover the children’s ears, he referred to ‘gay men as having a “lower life span” than heterosexual males.’ Pilloried for stating, what to my understanding is, truth. Harangued, because when asked for a source, all he could say was that “he read it along the way somewhere.”

What this shows is that tolerance is not a part of the Secularist’s agenda, persecution is! Why is Mr. Green not entitled to express his view on this subject? Why is the Liberal Party so sensitive? Hypocrisy! It wants to be seen to be abiding by the “equality” mantra. Yet, by taking the action it did the Liberal Party shows that it believes in neither tolerance nor equality.[9]

Contrast this to a situation I witnessed. (Prepare to harangue as I cannot give the source.[10]) It was a news article describing the lesbian lifestyle. This particular, lesbian was at a café or some such watching women pass by. She saw a relatively attractive lady. Something about this lady came to the fore, perhaps a wedding ring, causing the lesbian’s scathing comment of disappointment, ‘She’s a breeder!’[11]

Hang on! Wait for the outcry. Her it comes. ‘Shut down that café!’ Clear the street.’ ‘Send in the Storm troopers!’ (Deafening silence) Hello? Anything? Maybe just a token whimper? Possibly a little downturn to the sides of the mouth to show a little disapproval? No! What’s that? Oh, a ‘double standard’ you say. Oh, I see, she can belittle because she is a homosexual. Got it!

B. We are constantly told that the sanitising language of PC is aimed at equality and not allowing anyone to be stigmatised. Our story above shows that such a claim is hollow. However, the problem is not a lone lesbian at a street-side café. The problem goes to the very top and to the deliberate murder of language and the open display of hypocrisy by our leaders.

Just last week, Kevin Rudd publicly stated that there was no room in Australia for “Racism, Sexism or Homophobia.” Wonderful! Maybe? Well, no. Given the way the Secularists murder language, we must enquire as to what Mr. Rudd means by these terms.

Earlier this year, we had the situation involving Adam Goodes and a 13 year old girl. The confrontation went national as a case of Racism. Really? Not even close. Racism is the KKK hanging someone from a tree simply because of skin colour. Racism is what motivated Hitler to destroy the Jews. Racism is the Serbs and Croats duking it out in front of the Tennis Centre for no other reason than that they (or more likely their fathers) were born on different sides of a line.

Racism is not making a statement of truth in regard to someone of a different ethnicity. Racism is not found in asking that migrants support and uphold the standards of this nation. Racism is not found in asking that there be one law and one rule for all.[12]

Moving on to Sexism. Was Tony Abbott’s “sex appeal” comment sexist? Not at all. It was a compliment in support of a candidate. Those who were offended by the comment only proved that they were ignorant of Australian colloquialisms. The terms “sexy” or “sex appeal” do not always refer to a sexual act or to derogation based in sexuality. Used in certain contexts, like that of Mr. Abbott, it simply means someone has vitality, persona, and therefore, a general appeal.

Now we move to that hybrid term homophobia. The use of this term is offensive. Mr. Rudd, I am offended. By taking to the microphone and using this term, Mr. Rudd, with the authority of the Prime Minister’s office, actually stigmatised every person in this country who is opposed to homosexuality.

Again, the veil falls. Tolerance and equality go out the window faster than Casanova when a husband returns early! In order to give homosexuals equality, Mr. Rudd is prepared to concretely malign and stigmatise a large proportion of the population who oppose this practice, no matter what their reason.

This is a repugnance that simply cannot be tolerated. Allow me to explain. Firstly, I hate the term homophobia. It is a conjugated hybrid that has no place in language. It has been recruited by that disorderly Bastard to batter and stigmatise those who oppose homosexuality.

Secondly, I hate this term because it is a gross distortion of the truth. Let’s get this straight (pun!), just for the record. Homophobia suggests that I have a clinically diagnosed, irrational fear of homosexuals.[13] This is not even close. I do not fear homosexuals. I detest them. I, for moral reasons, find their sexual choices to be abhorrent.

Thirdly, the term homophobia is not, to my knowledge, a recognised clinical psychiatric disorder. Wikipedia makes this comment, “Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense.”[14]  Consider this statement:

“Homophobia is not an actual phobia, according to three University of Arkansas psychologists. In a recent study, these researchers showed that homophobia originates not out of fear or anxiety – as true phobias do – but from feelings of disgust. The UA researchers also found close associations between homophobic tendencies and concerns about contamination as well as conservative views about sexuality in general. Their findings suggest a social, attitudinal basis for homophobia rather than a psychopathological one, as the term itself implies.”[15]

This being the case, we have the Prime Minister of Australia using labelling language to discriminate against a whole bunch of decent and upright citizens in this country. He has stigmatised these people with an official pronouncement. He has effectively told these people to “pack their bags” for they are not wanted in this country.

Incredulously, Mr. Rudd has chosen to bully and stigmatise these people with a non-word, a word that has been conjured. He has called for disgrace and shame to fall upon these people by describing them as suffers of a mythological, non-existent, pathological disorder.

The real kicker, of course, is that Mr Rudd, until very recently, was one of the condemned who suffered from homophobia because he opposed homosexual union. Having now changed his mind on that topic, and having stated that he will not take a national lead on the issue, he now stands before the media as Prime Minister to point fingers, bully, stigmatise, and forcefully subjugate those who have had the integrity to maintain their opposition.

This is the War of Meaningless and contrived words; invented for two purposes: First, to obfuscate. Second, to shame people into capitulating. However, as we have seen, the Secularists cannot be consistent with their own worldview.

Hollow words from hollow men! Meaningless words used in a religious war.

(Part 3 for the Application)


[1] Paul makes it abundantly clear that the ungodly willingly suppress the knowledge of God because God is evident in everything that they see. Romans 1:18-20.

[2] Some terms, such as “theft” and “murder” are retained, but not without much modification. What is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder? Are these categories consistent with Biblical revelation? No, they are not. So what do they mean? Essentially, they are Man’s invention. They are a way to find excuses for murder or to take away Man’s responsibility to punish the murderer.

[3] Remember JJ Rousseau’s magnificent world in which all would be tolerated except the intolerant. Any who were intolerant would be punished with death. Conundrum! How do you identify the “intolerant one” without first becoming intolerant yourself?

[4] We will try and illustrate these concepts with current content. That is to say, with reference to homosexuality and the current political landscape.

[5]  “I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.” The problem with this, as we have highlighted, is the question of, ‘What happens outside the physical institution?’ When I go to Church on Sunday, I can decry, presumably, the debauchery that is homosexuality. I can also refuse to marry Adam and Steve. On Monday, I go to work. In response to a question, I outline my position on homosexuality – in exactly the same words as the day before. Now, I am charged with a treasonous act. I have betrayed a major tenet of the State’s religious belief system. Then, I receive a demand from my employer to attend a ‘human rights’ seminar conducted by Adam and Steve. I do not wish to go, but it is mandatory. How then do I divide myself? The answer of Secularism is this: “Easy. Become a hypocrite like us! Believe what you believe. Simply feign acceptance and compliance.”

[6] The Secularists know that their system is a failure. For proof of this, look to the French Revolution. Yet, they will not give up their fight against Christ and His Church.

[7] America was built on this foundation. She was, to a large extent, a light on a hill. She has now shifted ground. The Secularists have taken control and have sanitised law, education, justice, and the like. They have removed God. They have banned prayer. Creation cannot be taught.

Is America a better nation today? No. She has become reliant upon her might and her technology. She has forsaken God with dire consequences. She is weak and feeble. She is in catastrophic debt. She is hypocritical. She goes to war against tyrants on foreign soil, but does not bring justice to the tyrants on her own soil. Why do we think that a Secularised Australia will be any different?

 [8] http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/exclusive-libs-in-preference-crisis-in-lindsay-over-gay-comments/story-fnho52ip-1226700883582?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[9] Did the Liberal Party ever stop to ask, “Is there truth in this statement?” If there is, why shy away from it? Again, hypocrisy! They are not interested in truth, but in winning an election. Thus, they walk the eggshell road of veiled answers, non-commitment, and seeming conformity to the demands of the noisy minorities. Here is one article reporting on the shortened life expectancy of homosexuals. It can be dismissed because it is a Christian site: http://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one. This one though, is from the homosexual community. Whilst not dealing explicitly with homosexual lifespan, it does deals with homosexual suicide (which significantly impacts lifespan) and notes that research shows higher suicide rates: http://theconversation.com/preventing-suicide-among-gender-and-sexual-minorities-11637. So, the conclusion of the matter is this: The Liberal Party does not have researchers or they are not interested in truth?

[10] I am trying to recollect this as accurately as I can. Details may be sketchy, but the point is not.

[11] My story may not be documented, so try this one: “Okay, I was at an LGBT conference last month and I was talking with an open lesbian. She asked me what I identified myself as and I said, “A heterosexual Ally.” She kinda snapped back at me with, “we don’t need sympathy from breeders.” I wasn’t even sure what the term meant but I knew it was offensive and related to my being straight. I reply to her, “What? Why don’t you want the support of heterosexuals? Seems kind of counterproductive doesn’t it?” She muttered something and walked away. I was really confused. I talked to other Allies at the conference and they experienced similar things as well. I went home and then looked up the definition of a “breeder” and this is what I found:  “Breeder is a slang term (either joking or derogatory) used to describe heterosexuals, primarily by homosexuals. It is drawn from the fact that while homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry.”” At: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt160289.html. Accessed 21/08/13. Bold added.

[12] In point of fact, on this last point, it is indeed Racism to divide the nation by applying different rules to different ethnic groups.

[13] Homophobia is “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” Oxford Dictionaries Online. At: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia. Accessed 22/08/13.

[15]At: http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0602/blhomo602.htm. Accessed 22/08/13. Italics added. In fairness, one of those interviewed states that homophobia is more in line with racism. He suggests that the answer is attitudinal reform. Thus, the implication is that those suffering from homophobia are bigoted rather than mentally ill. I, for one can, live with this.

A KRuddy Doomsday!

Posted on by
Reply

In 1987 R.E.M. released a song with the refrain, “It’s the end of the world as we know it.”

In Al Gore’s world of “Inconvenient truths”, Global Warming, evaporating ice caps, and diminishing polar bears, cataclysmic statements and apocalyptic prophecies are nothing new. Add to this the prophetic intrigue of the Middle East and the “Second Coming at any moment” brigade and, I admit, it becomes difficult to come up with an attention grabbing headline.

Not being easily deterred, I thought we would have a dip anyway. So, here goes:

World to End – 100 days after Rudd’s re-election!

Gee, I wonder if we will now go viral.

Anyway, back to the now. Like all sensational headlines, there is a snippet of truth involved. The embellishment helps to capture attention. With that attention grabbed, the true essence of the story unfolds.

So, let us cut to the chase. No, the world will not end if Kevin Rudd and Labor are re-elected. This is the embellishment. The essence of truth is that, Australia well might! Kevin Rudd has now publicly proclaimed that, should Labor be re-elected, he will introduce legislation to legalise homosexual union in this nation within 100 days! Ready. Everybody sing together– It’s the end of Australia as we know it!

As we have noted elsewhere, homosexuality and homosexual practice are, by God’s standards, the epitome both of Man’s rebellion against God and God’s subsequent judgement upon Man. Over the last decades, we have been forced to accept homosexuality more and more. With this acceptance, we have seen a correlative downturn in the moral standards of our nation. So, a very legitimate question is, “What is our destiny, should homosexuals be given complete equality?”

The moral decline has reached the point where people over the age of 60 are often seen to be shaking their heads. They wonder what has happened to their country. They struggle to make sense of the happenings around them. It is equally true that people of all ages are bewildered at some of the goings-on within this nation. We are hearing, more and more, the aphorism, “That is un-Australian!” People realise we, as a nation, have a serious problem. They know this because they confront the reality of it every time they step out their front door or turn on their televisions.

The problem with our nation is that we have been turning further and further from God’s revealed righteousness in Jesus Christ. God and Jesus are no longer, in the minds of most Australians, revered members of the Holy Trinity. Rather, They have become its; the Personal has become impersonal; the Absolute minimised; the Real mythologised; and that which should be reverenced by the lips of men is little more than adjectival descriptor of the worst order – “OMG!” and the like.

What we have truly failed to grasp as a nation is that ideas have consequences. When our forefathers embraced Christianity, they did not simply embrace a couple of vague principles regarding Sunday. In embracing Christianity, our forefathers embraced a system of thought that made sense of the world. Christianity made the world interpretable. It spoke of right and wrong. It gave a moral directive. It gave hope. It spoke of a future.

Not content with this view any longer, primarily because of God’s strictures, the modern secular wisdom dictated that we jettison the notion of God. That seemed like a good idea to many. It meant freedom for the individual. No more of those stuffy rules that were supposedly designed to “keep the man down.”

However, by abandoning God as our organising principle and Absolute we have also turned our back on His wisdom and on those rules and morals that ensured much of our safety and prosperity. When God ruled, we knew evil. We knew what it looked like and we punished it. Now, we are not so sure. We have no guidance and therefore, by necessary consequence, all is “up for grabs”.

Having installed the new wisdom as ‘the god’, we are now beginning to see the fruit of this poisoned tree. Every man is encouraged to do what is right in his own eyes. Rebellious Man celebrates this new found freedom. Yes, it is wondrous, right up until another free-man uses his freedom to take your life, rape your daughter, steal your goods, demand the government give your wealth to another, plunders your nations economy, burdens you with foreign debt, cripples your prosperity, destroys your culture, revokes your freedom, destroys your peace, robs you of your security, turns princes to paupers, and extols the virtues of worthless men.[1]  

If you think things are bad now, then you need to have a serious rethink. Should Mr Rudd be re-elected, the destruction of this nation will, in principle, be complete when he pursues his doomsday clock of homosexual union. If this comes to fruition, our nation will only plunge deeper into depravity – we will live out the ugliest scenes from all those apocalyptic films.

Why is this chord struck? It is struck, for a number of reasons, chief of which is that this is God’s revealed position. In Romans one, Paul speaks of three acts of judgement by God against Man’s rebellion. First, Paul addresses the fact that man rebelled in regard to God’s worship. Second, emphasis falls on Man’s rebellion against God’s design for sexuality in Family. Third, Paul looks at Man’s rebellion against God’s order for society.

The flow of Paul’s argument is very clear. There is an implicit downward spiral. Man’s willing dysfunction in regard to God and His worship, leads to dysfunction in the Family and Society. Obvious, also, is the fact that when Paul addresses the area of Family, homosexuality is decried as the acme of rebellion against God’s design and purpose.

Paul then moves on to look at the general tenor of society when gross rebellion takes hold and is fostered. He does so in these words:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.

Did Paul miss anything?

Wickedness √

Greed √

Evil √

Envy √

Murder √

Deceit √

Malice √

Gossips, you bet! √

Slanderers √

God haters √√√√√√√

Insolent √

Arrogant √

Boastful √

Inventors of Evil √√√

Disobedient to Parents √

If you are honest, Christian or not, you must admit that Paul has “nailed it!” Every one of these things is prevalent in our society to a degree that we have never known before. People shake their heads in bewilderment precisely because these experiences are relatively new.[2]

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Everything! As we have noted, Paul is unequivocal in his stating that homosexuality is the acme of rebellion in the “familial” sphere. Therefore, if we see this nth degree rebellion of homosexuality embraced through Government legislation, we have every reason to believe that nth degree Societal rebellion will not lag far behind.

We have already witnessed the correlation between moral declination and the rise in the (political) acceptance of homosexuality. We have witnessed this in Paul’s Scriptural analysis and we have witnessed it first hand in our nation’s history.  Why then would we refuse to believe that the total acceptance of homosexuality would result in anything less than a total moral collapse within society?

Kevin Rudd, with a rabid hunger for power or in a trite and inane attempt to win votes, has promised to bring this nation to the brink and then plunge it into the abyss – all under the guise of Political Correctness and noble mindedness, of course. Kevin Rudd, masquerading as a Christian, has set this country on a collision course with the very God he claims to serve or to Whom he professes to pay heed.[3] From this gross hypocrisy and blatant blasphemy there will be no turning back. God will not be mocked.[4] No nation can continually ‘thumb their nose’ at God and survive.

To be fair, the other side are not offering a genuine solution either. In the most real sense, both major parties and most minor parties are bereft of any authentic answer, specifically because they all refuse to acknowledge God as the only secure foundation for this nation.

Our nation does not need more empty political policy announcements. It does not need any more ‘chest beating’ by inept leaders. Enough of the “We will fix the economy!” nonsense. Away with all the hollow, hackneyed rhetoric on “health and education.” We do not need any more voices of rebellion. What we need to do is to heed and obey The One solitary voice: “Repent!”

The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…![5]


[1] Proverbs 3:31-32: “Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways. For the crooked man is an abomination to the Lord.”

[2] Our land was never pristine, morally speaking. Thus, we are not so naïve as to suggest that some things have not been seen before. However, it is also apparent that we have witnessed very new revelations of evil and on a scale not witnessed before.

[3] It is little wonder that Mr Rudd describes himself thusly: “And like myself, this bloke is a bit of a god-botherer (aka Christian). Although a little unlike myself, he is more of a capital G God-Botherer”. If this is truly how Mr Rudd views himself, then why not drop the epithet “Christian” altogether?

[4] Galatians 6:7.

[5] Psalm 33:10-12.

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)

Posted on by
Reply

[This article was begun some months ago when the issue of a referendum was first raised. Due to circumstances, it has been worked on in an ad hoc fashion over that time. I feared that it had become irrelevant with Kevin Rudd taking back the Prime Ministership and that it may end up in the bin. However, Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union and his statements of recent show that this issue is still very much alive. Some aspects may be dated. We now know that Tony Windsor will not be standing for re-election. However, it is hoped that the bulk of the article will still prove helpful. RM]

The issue of homosexual marriage refuses to go away.[1] Why is this? The simple answer has to do with, a) agitators who will not give up until they achieve their goal and, b) Christians who will not engage in this fight in an appropriate manner.

Those in favour of homosexual marriage managed to have a bill introduced to Parliament in 2012, which sought to rewrite the Marriage Act by changing its definition. After months of debate throughout society, the vote was taken and the democratically elected officials voted the bill down. Not only was the bill defeated; it was significantly defeated (98-42).

Did this stop the agitators? No, it did not.[2] Why did it not stop them? The answer here is twofold.

First, it must be understood, and we have made this point in previous articles, that the vote taken by the Parliament was only a vote as to the definition of marriage. It was not an in principle vote against homosexuality. In other words, the vote was not a total rejection of homosexuality as an invalid and unacceptable lifestyle. Rather, it was a vote concerning the extent of homosexual recognition.

Second, because the aforementioned vote was not a complete rejection of homosexuality, the agitators have continued to be buoyed by Government policy and world events. We have highlighted the fact that the Gillard Government has made major concessions to the homosexual movement.[3] In recent months, we have seen both the New Zealand and French Parliaments vote to accept homosexual marriage. The consequence of which was to once more fuel the issue here in Australia.

Given the inability of our elected officials to deal satisfactorily and morally with this issue, we must ask, “What now?” The most recent proposal came from the Independent MP, Tony Windsor. His suggestion is that an additional question be added to the referendum planned to be held at the upcoming election.[4] Naturally, the additional question would deal with homosexual marriage.

This is a very simple plan. It is an effective plan. It is a definite plan. It is also a plan that has well and truly placed the “cat amongst the pigeons.” Thus far, we have seen some Christians support the idea[5] and some Christians reject the idea.[6] Certain political parties embraced the idea and then distance themselves from it. Social commentators have raised concerns about what effect a referendum and the associated advertising may have. Then, amusingly, certain homosexual lobby groups have shied away from the proposal.[7]

“Referendum or no referendum?” that is the question.

As noted, I would agree with certain aspects of Mr Windsor’s proposal. A referendum should put this issue to bed once and for all. The proposal is simple. The proposal is democratic. This proposal would tell us what the Australian people are actually thinking in contradistinction to what the news polls suppose we are thinking. A referendum would put the issue beyond the reach of politicians and political speak.

The question, however, that must of necessity be asked is, “Are these aspects the right and only issues in this debate.” The answer to that is a resounding, “No!” Here, we enter the heart of this debate. Here, we must look at the issues that are being pushed aside by most, if not all, in this debate.

1. Man’s Logic v God’s Authoritative Word:

One of the constant irritations in debates of this nature is the way in which Christians seek to argue logic and trend rather than God and His word. In The War was not Won, I noted:

I know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called “logical” arguments are of little value. … We are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God’s word, then we will simply be trading “logic” for “logic” or human understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian’s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God’s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God.[8]

It is time that we Christians came to these arguments armed solely with God’s word – the sword of His armoury![9] There is a place for secondary arguments; but they are just that, secondary. Such arguments must follow as an adjunct that witness to the truth of God’s word. They can never be allowed to supplant the primacy of God’s word either as the foundation from which we speak or as the content of that speech.

Allow me to attempt to elucidate. In theology we speak of “Natural” and “Positive” penalties when speaking of judgements upon sin. Berkhof explains:

There are punishments which are the natural results of sin, and which man cannot escape, because they are the natural and necessary consequence of sin. … The slothful man comes to poverty, the drunkard brings ruin to himself and his family, the fornicator contracts a loathsome disease, and the criminal is burdened with shame and even when leaving the prison walls finds it extremely hard to make a new start. … But there are also positive punishments, and these are punishments in the more ordinary and legal sense of the word. They presuppose not merely the natural laws of life, but the positive law of the great Lawgiver with added sanctions. They are not penalties which naturally result from the nature of the transgression, but penalties which are attached to the transgression by divine enactments. They are superimposed by divine law, which is absolute authority.[10]

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. When we as Christians wade into battle, we do so to glorify God and to stop sin. We go forth in the name of Jesus Christ and cry out, “Cease. Desist. Repent. Live!” Concerned for the holiness of our God, we seek to stop every action that robs Him of His glory or besmirches His great name. The implication of this is that we are dealing with sins specifically proscribed by God as Lawgiver. Consequently, there is no logical link between the sin committed and the negative covenant penalty imposed by the sanction of God.

Lost? Let me explain. What logical link is there between neglecting the worship of Jesus Christ, poverty and famine? What logical link is there between sexual promiscuity and exile (loss of sovereignty)? What logical link is there between familial adultery and childlessness? To our modern and Humanistic way of thinking, we would reply, “Nothing!” However, if we explore God’s word, we will see clearly that in God’s Law these are the exact positive penalties attached to each of these transgressions.[11]

Whilst it is evident that there is indeed a system of cause and effect, the effect is not a logical consequence. In terms of homosexuality, we may see that the natural penalty of homosexual activity may be a divorce or the acquisition of a “loathsome” disease. What we do not see, what we refuse to see, is that the prosperity of our nation, its ability to produce, the stability of the seasons, the moral clime of the nation, the safety of our wives in their beds and our children on the street, and a myriad of things beside, are all linked to the acceptance or rejection of homosexuals and homosexual practice.

Everyone is aware of the current agitation on Climate Change.[12] Around the world there is a constant outcry about the dangers of Climate Change. I hear all sorts of reasons being advanced. Do you know what I do not hear? This admission: “For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day!”[13] We hear nothing in regard to the fact we are being punished and chastised for our rebellion against God.

Australia is toying with homosexual marriage as is Britain and America. France and New Zealand have legalised it – as have other countries. Heretics are crawling out of the woodwork—like the false prophets of old crying out “Peace! Peace! When there was no peace”—telling us that homosexuality is a “gift of God” and that people are “gay by divine right.”[14] This bemuses me. If all this is “so right” in the sight of God, why are our respective nations “so messed up”? If this is right before God then it constitutes righteousness. God says He will look to the “righteous” and that He will bless “righteous” behaviour. So, where is the obvious covenantal blessing (positive command for our good) of God upon our respective nations?

How do these false prophets explain Australia’s drought? How do they explain New Zealand’s earthquakes? How do they explain America’s ever decreasing prosperity and plunge into unpayable debt? How do they explain the downward spiral of Britain from ‘world power’ to third-world war zone?

The short answer is, “They cannot!” At least, not without denying God as sovereign Lawgiver all over again and admitting that we are products of chance; that our prosperity and the rise and fall of nations is just a “per chance” or “happenstance” on the timeline we call history. (Oops! Sorry. My bad. Of course they do this. They call it Evolution, Humanism, and Post Modern Thought, to name but a few.)

There is no human logic, research, or empiricism to be argued here. The only logic (right judgement) is to believe the revelation given by God and accept that, by God’s standard, all is not “rosy in the garden”; and this precisely because we have sinned and are therefore experiencing the application of the covenantal penalty to the covenantal transgression.

We can front our politicians with the so called “logical”. We can quote statistics. We can cite papers by PhDs. Yet none of these things says that the acceptance of homosexuality is an abhorrent deed that should not be practiced because it is an offence to Almighty God. None of these simply says, No![15]

More importantly, none of these papers speak with authority. None of these papers have the ability to command the consciences of sinful men and to tell them to stop suppressing the truth of God. None of these papers have the authority to either rebuke the conscience or liberate the conscience unto Jesus Christ. In short, none of these papers can transform. That process can only be worked by Divine authority and that authority is God’s word.

Dr. Joe Morecraft III is absolutely correct when he states that arguments of logic and empiricism are a ‘denial of the Christian faith.’ Says he, “Knowledge and morality are absolutely impossible unless we presuppose the truth of the Lordship of Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible over every area of life.”[16] Spot on! However, beware the pitfall. We cannot have a half-baked cake. We cannot give mental assent only and say that we believe in accordance with Brother Joe and then forsake that principle for research and the words of men.

It is for this reason that we must go into battle with the offensive weapon of the Lord – The Sword of the Spirit.

Brethren, the first point is a very simple one. If we are going into battle with any expectation of victory, then let us throw down our piddly pen-knives and go armed with The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.[17]

2. Morality v Equality:

Beginning with the Word of God is essential for a successful Christian defence because it helps us to cut through the extraneous material thrown up by our opponents. The lens of God’s word helps us to see through the smoke and mirrors. Armed with the Sword of the Lord, we are enabled to peel back the layers of lies and deceit and expose the true condition we face.

In the battle regarding homosexual marriage, we must be sure of the true enemy so that we can apply the full force of God’s word to that point. Taking on God’s word and wisdom will ensure that we are not distracted and led from the path chasing tangential arguments and ideas.

Of priority, we assert that the idea of homosexual marriage is an argument of morality and not equality. Hence, from here on in, reference is made to homosexual union.[18]

Homosexuality is illegitimate. Homosexuality is an abomination and a depraved activity. Homosexuality is condemned by God.[19] Homosexuality is the pinnacle of man’s rebellion against God and therefore falls under the full weight of His righteous wrath.[20] So says God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Therefore, any discussion in regard to homosexual practices or homosexual rights is first, foremost, and only a moral issue!

Yet, we do not hear this anymore – even from the Christians!! We Christians have become so focused upon the “logical” refutation of the particular point before us that we have forgotten the bigger issue. The question before us is not, “Should homosexual union be legalised or recognised?” but “Should homosexuality be recognised or accepted?”

These are very different questions. The first merely feeds the rebellious desires of the homosexual lobby. The second places the homosexuals back in the closet and then pushes the closet of a cliff!! Oh dear! How un-PC of me. Well, in the words of Sgt Major “Shut Up”, “Oh dear. So sad. Never mind!”

The longer we Christians (and our nation) refuse to acknowledge, preach, proclaim, and insist on God’s order, the longer we will suffer the plague of homosexuality with all its attendant and destructive ills.

As a moral issue, homosexuality can only be discussed under two words and from one perspective. Those two words – two very unpopular words today – are, “Right” or “Wrong”. The one perspective is God’s. If we begin at any other place, we have lost the battle before we have even begun.

My friends, please understand this. As a moral issue, the discussion is only in regard to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and nothing else. If we begin to discuss the ancillary, then we fight on the enemy’s terms.

Let me illustrate this point for you. Recently, I heard a discussion on this topic in the context of a proposed referendum. A female was interviewed as part of a panel. She began her discussion and in the space of no more than two sentences changed her language three times. She started with “homosexual marriage” moved to “marriage equality” and then ended with the passionate “Australians just want everybody to be happy”.[21]

In these two sentences there was a transitionary move from the moral / ethical, to the cultural / legal, finishing strongly with the emotional – the modern god of happiness. Note this well, please. These transitions are used all the time. They are used to disarm and confuse. They are nothing short of Psychological Warfare. These terms are used to disguise reality and to deliberately lead people away from discussing homosexuality on moral grounds.

Asking Joe Average whether he wants “everybody to be happy” is a very different thing to asking him, “Do you believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle?” Yet, this is exactly what happens in order to bluff and beguile the average person on the street.

Footnote four contains a link to the interview with Fred Nile on this issue. I would now encourage you to go and view that link. Note this same attempt on the part of the interviewer to use language that distracts from the real issues. Note how that language makes any who oppose seem to be “Draconian”, “half-witted”, or just part of the “religious lunatic fringe”. Also note, please, how Fred Nile fails to indentify the real issue and continues to talk only of homosexual union.[22]

At this point, we must also highlight the current desire to speak of “marriage” as a mere tradition. Again, by taking this route the proponents of homosexual union are trying to remove the topic from the realm of morality and place it into a cultural context. As such, marriage becomes no more than choice, culture, or habit. They attempt to move it from the realm of God’s jurisdiction to that of Man’s; from Divine commandment to cultural choice.

Brethren, the second lesson is also simple. We must come to this argument armed with “Thus says the Lord God…” because this is a moral issue. It is a case of right or wrong based in God’s revealed Law-Word.

This issue is not equality. The issue is Morality!

3. Democracy v Theocracy:

Here, we arrive at the real thought provoker. Here, we arrive at one of the greatest problems in the modern Church – Epistemological Hypocrisy. Wow! Big word. So let’s explore.

Epistemology is, in general, the “theory of knowledge”. It looks at how we know, why we know, and what we can know. It is fundamentally important that the Christian grasp and understand the significance of this. It is so because the Christian believes, or should believe, that one can know. The Christian does not believe that they are in an unintelligible world that has no reality or purpose and which is naught but a transient dream in the mind of the individual. On the contrary, the Christian believes in a world created by God. Therefore, there is knowledge of order, purpose, justice, morality, right and wrong.

In contradistinction to this is our current world – the world of the “Postmodern” era. In this world, knowledge and the ability to know are questioned or denied.  The ramification of this is that the predominate philosophy of our day, the theory that guides the people in power, is one in which there are no absolutes and, therefore, no right or wrong. In such a world, democracy and the collective choice of the individuals is hailed as supreme.[23]

This brings us to discuss the Epistemological Hypocrisy of the Church. If we went to church this Sunday and conducted a straw poll on the questions, “What is the Church’s authority?” and “Where do I find God’s instruction?” I am sure we would have high percentages tell us that it is God and the Bible. In short, Christians would affirm that their epistemology is based in God’s revelation of Himself. This has led the Church, throughout history, to affirm that the Bible is the only rule of life and faith for all.

The problem is that we have become Epistemological Hypocrites. What we affirm with our lips, we do not affirm with our actions. This was made clear two decades ago at a church I then attended. A group came to the church with a questionnaire. It had, I believe, twenty questions. Ten were asked positively. Ten were asked negatively.

When asked the positive question regarding Scripture, the answer was around 90% in the affirmative. In other words, the majority of respondents believed that the Bible was our only source of authority. However, when the practical question was asked – a question along the lines of, ‘When people ask for advice you give or seek guidance from …?” – the percentage of those who used the Bible plummeted dramatically.

This is Epistemological Hypocrisy. We Christians say that we believe God. We say that we live by God’s word. We say that we obey God’s commands. We say that we desire obedience to God’s Law. We go into our church services and pray lofty prayers asking God for guidance, for wisdom, for discernment. We are even emboldened to ask for God’s blessing upon our obedience. Yet, we walk from the building and begin to implement that which seems good to us. We enter into cultural and political debates armed with the toothpicks of human research rather than the Sword of the Spirit.

This leads to the challenge. Christian, why do you support an unbridled view of democracy? Whilst it has become an unpopular view and a word to be shunned, the simple reality is that this world and our nation must be Theocratic.[24] We must live under, by, and for the rule of God.

The best that a Christian should say is that he believes in Limited Democracy. This is a view in which man has some ability to vote into being certain rules. Yet, intrinsically, it also sets up a very high and strong fence around a range of issues and sets a banner on that fence: “God has spoken. Man may not encroach!”

In regard to the question of a referendum, I object, not because I fear the outcome, but because God has spoken. Consequently, the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union is beyond the determination of man – either as an individual or as a parliament. This is the same with Euthanasia, Abortion, Taxation, Property Ownership and a whole host of things.  God has spoken. Man’s task is to listen and obey.

Here, then, is the quandary. The Church has fallen for the modern mood of Individualism. The idea of “having a vote” and “expressing our own opinion” has become a joy to us (research v Word). We see this in the modern desire for choice. Man simply wants to be free to choose his own destiny. This sounds okay, but at heart it is once more a return to the Garden and a grab for God’s throne. It is to visit Psalm Two and see the kings and judges of the earth conspiring to throw off God’s rule, and therein, God’s Law and God’s Christ.

Sadly, the Church has become complicit in this gross sin. She has desired Her own path. As such, She has played the harlot. She has not remained faithful to Her Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ. In modern parlance, She has become a Feminist and joined the noisy chorus demanding freedom from Biblical headship.

If we are to have victory, we Christians and the Church, must confess this sin and repent. We must live our epistemology consistently. We must deny Democracy and call for Theocracy. We must remember that we are not members in a club with voting rights, but citizens and ambassadors from a Kingdom. Our job is to live out and declare the message of the Great King.[25]

When we grasp this point. When we affirm, on the basis of a Biblical conviction, that we subscribe to a limited democracy that sits below the Theocracy, then we will be more inclined to say, “Thus say the Lord God…!” and to understand issues from the point of God’s morality and God’s sovereignty.

4. Homosexuality v Heterosexuality:

God’s revelation shows that it is one man and one woman who are to be joined in a legal unification – a legal unification that we have termed as marriage. Even if we take into account the times we witness multiple wives in Scripture – something tolerated, not commanded or sanctioned – it is exactly the same pattern, man with woman / women! The number of the wives may change; their gender never does.

Here we must once more throw out the challenge by use of analogy. Your child is shown, by you, a picture of an animal. That animal is large, grey, four-footed, has a trunk, is equipped with tusks, eyes, mouth, and has very large ears.

You now ask your child to name the animal. Your child studies the picture and jubilantly exclaims, “It’s a donkey!” Bewildered, you ask, “Why do you say it is a donkey?” Contemplatively, your child replies, “Well, it has large ears. It has a mouth. It has eyes. It has a tail and it stands on four legs.” Continuing, your child confidently asserts, “It must be a donkey because a donkey has all these!”

You see, like the child, the homosexual and the homosexual lobby try to justify their perverted view of gender and sexuality on the basis of similarity. Yet such is absolute nonsense. We would not let our child call an elephant a donkey based on similarity. Rather, we demand that our child call an elephant an “elephant” based on its unique qualities that set it apart. In essence, the label “elephant” cannot be applied willy-nilly to any animal. The term brings to mind an exact representation. The label and the form go together.

So it is in terms of marriage and sexuality. Marriage is a term that applies to the covenantal union of a male and female with the implication of all that God intended for and through that covenantal union. Marriage is the label. Male and female is the form. This is the majestic, mighty elephant – powerful, strong, and robust.

In comparison, you have the donkey that is homosexuality. The similarities in form do not entitle it to appropriate to itself the label. It is that simple. Sharing big ears and having four feet does not transform a donkey into an elephant. Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is one side of the gender coin; that some travesty of sexual exchange may take place; that some type of relationship may be present, in no way qualifies this parody to appropriate the label “marriage”.

Form and label go together. Alter the form and the label does not apply. To use the label for a different form is theft. It is the path to confusion and anarchy.

5. Life v Death:

At this point we are going to be, to the modern mind, rather provocative. No excuses are made. No apologies issued. These things must be stated.

The Dominion / Cultural Mandate[26] clearly shows that Marriage is God’s design for life. God placed male and female together in covenant union – marriage – in order to be fruitful and bring God’s rule over the earth. This design fit perfectly with God’s blueprint for life. God planted seed in man. God deposited eggs within woman. He gave to the woman a womb – a secret place within her wherein God would knit life and bring forth posterity.  These create generational family. They provide nurture, care, love, and discipline. They train. They sacrifice. They live.

Homosexuality cannot copy this pattern. Homosexuality is, by definition, barren and dead. Eggs without seed and seed without eggs. Life cannot be brought forth by these relationships without intervention or further depravity. Historically, nations that have embraced homosexuality have died out. One does not need to be a genius to figure out why.

Homosexuality is death. Its form is death. Its label is death.  Heterosexuality is life precisely because God gave a form that could be and is fruitful. God placed a man and a woman together – form. That form is called marriage – label. This form and this label are life.

Now to be really provocative, but, nonetheless, truthful. Homosexual union is an impossibility. It is so because homosexuals are abominations proscribed under pain of death. The union which they seek is “until death do us part”.[27] Biblical fact – their dead!! The dead do not marry. The dead cannot marry.[28]

You will now tell me that such a statement is unpalatable. The slaves to modernism will tell me that such statements are harsh, unloving, intolerant, and not in keeping with Jesus’ philosophy, and so on ad nauseum. These are the same people who have rejected the term and concept of Theocracy in order to be comfortable in the modern world. These are those who simply reject the order God Almighty in His holiness has imposed.

Remember, the issue is not equality or happiness. It is Morality and Righteousness. It is life or death; blessing or curse. It is nothing less than the Righteousness of God revealed as Law that flows from the essential holiness of His character; the Law given to us in the totality of Scripture.

When viewed correctly, the unpalatable and intolerable is found in those who would vindicate, approve, and accept that which God rejects as abhorrent!

God’s Law-Word states:

  • Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
  • Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
  • Deuteronomy 23:17-18: “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.”
  • Romans 1:24-27 & 32: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error … and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
  • 1 Timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
  • Revelation 21:25-26: “And in the daytime … its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”[29]
  • Revelation 22:14-15: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

Whilst the moderns try to reinterpret Scripture and make God to be as a babbling fool with no coherence, the simple reality is that God speaks clearly, consistently, and unequivocally in and through Scripture. Homosexuality is death! This is God’s verdict. Homosexuality, in any form, is death. It should be punished with death here. It will certainly be punished with the “second death” in eternity.

There is nothing ‘God-like’ in homosexuality. There is nothing noble in homosexuality. There is nothing righteous in homosexuality. There is no life in homosexuality. The Bible unanimously condemns this practice as rebellion. The Bible issues forth one sentence upon homosexuality. It is a lifestyle deserving of death.

In light of such evidence, how is that Christians and society today can accept homosexuality as not only legitimate but as having more right than the Law of God? How is it that we so comfortably speak of loving a practice that God hates, which He calls an abomination, and which He proscribes with death? Indeed, there are unpalatable and intolerable things stated in regard to homosexuality. However, such things are not present when God’s truth is declared. Truly, the unpalatable and intolerable are realised when men, and particularly Christians, proceed to call “good” that which God has called both an evil and an abomination.

To continue with this type of speech in favour of that which God has soundly condemned is to invite God’s vigorous judgement upon our nation. It is to bring death to our nation and to our culture. It is to say goodbye to peace, prosperity, and fertility and to invite calamity, debt, and death.[30]

Conclusion:

Brethren, I would ask you to think upon these issues – deeply and at length. In Part 2, we will attempt to look at the issue of a referendum in regard to some of the practical aspects. However, at this point, please consider the issues raised. Are you thinking God’s thoughts after Him or are you a conduit of Humanistic philosophy? Is your political theory founded in the “whole counsel of God” or on a few texts scattered here and there with which you are comfortable or, even  worse, upon some wayward humanist’s theory?[31] Do you believe that it is God’s right to rule our nation here and now? If so, how are you seeking to implement that rule? If not, why do you deny the sovereignty of God in Jesus Christ?

These and many other questions must be asked and answered. For our part, we are only too happy to stir up the hornet’s nest of theological beliefs. Why? We are in this mess because the Church in this nation has subscribed to the many modern philosophies that have destroyed truth. Now we seek to bury any point of difference. We seek to side step any issue that may mean heated discussion or see our popularity take a ‘2 point’ dive in the weekly “popularity” contest.

If we would have an impact for Jesus Christ, a lasting impact, then we must ask and answer the hard questions. It is only in wrestling with those questions and seeking God’s answer to them that we will be in any way equipped to fight and to win. It is this wrestling that Paul commended. It is this procedure that leads to “the equipping of the saints.”

Therefore, before we can proceed to any sort of practical lesson, we must first learn the theory. We must first wrestle with God’s word of truth and seek His wisdom as to His standard and how that standard should be appropriately implemented.

Continue reading: Part 2

Footnotes:

[1] Many, including myself, pondered what motivated Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union. I am now of the belief that it was a necessary condition imposed by some for their support in his reclaiming the leadership of the Labor Party and, thereby, Lodge. In one of his first speeches he raised homosexual union alongside of “broadband” as issues dear to the young of this nation. Yes, that is it, all our problems will be solved by faster internet speeds and homosexual union. This is a man peddling an (imposed) agenda, not a man bent on fixing the things he broke in Kevin Mark 1.

[2] This is in itself interesting. The agitators made much of the idea of “democracy”, yet when the democratically elected officials voted, they were unwilling to live with the outcome of the vote that they had sought. Note this well, please. The homosexual lobby sought this vote. The homosexual agitators sought this vote. When the vote was taken, they lost. So it is very reasonable for the populace to now ask these people to “shut up” and to “go away”. They achieved the vote they so desperately wanted; yet, like children in the playground, “they took their bat and ball and went home” when the decision did not go their way. So much for democracy!

[7] This is very amusing as these same people seem to be constantly telling us that the majority of Australians support homosexual marriage. If this is true, why not embrace the referendum? After all, it is a “dead cert” if what they have claimed publically is true.

[8] Available at: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2012/11/the-war-was-not-won-the-battle-still-rages/.

[9] See Ephesians 6:10ff. It is interesting that most Christians know this passage by heart. Ask them about the sword and they will say a good many things. Yet, frisk them as they go into battle and said sword is conspicuous by its absence. It is high time we believed God’s Word and trusted to it. Not just in the comfort of our theoretical Bible studies, but in the heat of battle. Christians, if you are tired of fighting and losing, take Ephesians to heart. Put on God’s battle armour. Stand firm. Swing the sword and watch the power of God at work.

[10] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Banner of Truth Trust (1939) p 255.

[11] See: Deuteronomy 28:15-19: “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. “Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.” Deuteronomy 28:23-24: “And the heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. “The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.” Deuteronomy 28:36: “The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone.” Leviticus 20:20-21: “If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.”

[12] This is but one issue. All the countries to be mentioned have major law and order issues. They all murder their own children in genocidal acts. They are threatened by a rising tide of false religions, not least of which is Humanism. Their governments are all unable to produce a quality countermeasure to the problem. Why is that if it is simply a logical case of cause and effect?

[13] Jeremiah 3:25

[14] Please see the “High Priestess” Oprah sowing her perverted view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBnzUVFTOek.

[15] These papers and statistics may state things that are true. Yet, as they are not authoritative, the homosexual lobby will rally its statistics and its PhDs to counter these claims. Again, it becomes “logic” against “logic” and “opinion” against “opinion”.

[16] See” Refuting Abortion from the Bible. Available at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEszNTt1R3U.

[17] See: Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12.

[18] Please do not understand this as a statement in favour of “civil unions” or “registers”. It is simply a statement that we need to recapture the language. Marriage is God’s covenant term for a man and a woman. Not only should it not be used of others, it cannot be used of others. Please see: The War of Words at: http://againsttheworld.tv/?p=614.

[19] See: Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

[20] See Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26-27. It is important that we understand all these texts on homosexuality as the Bible presents them. These acts are not denounced because they show a lack of hospitality or they are abusive of younger persons (pederasty). These comments are just the “smoke and mirrors” of sinful men. Homosexuality is condemned because it is, 1. A deconstruction of the image of God in man; 2. A deconstruction of God’s order in creation – God made man male and female; 3. A deconstruction of God’s marriage covenant – one man with one woman. 4. A deconstruction of God’s creational institution – the family. 5. A deconstruction of God’s appointed order for His rule and His glory in the earth. Being these things, it is the consummate symbol of man’s rebellion against God. Being thus, it is also God’s consummate judgement against man – He gave them over! (Romans 1:24, 26, 28.) Man wanted freedom from God’s rule and law, so God gave man over to the depravity he so craved. Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of man’s rebellion against God and of the futility into which man is plunged as a result. Homosexuality is the clearest expression of the futility of life to which sin leads.

[21] It is probably worth highlighting the obvious fallacy in this statement. I for one do not want everyone in Australia to be happy. I truly desire that the murderers, rapists, and paedophiles suffer for what they have done and pay the appropriate penalty. This is called justice. If you can murder and be “happy”, then true justice is, of necessity, absent.

[22] Please understand, I support Fred. He is a true unsung hero in this nation. He is one of Christ’s true champions. However, it seems that there is a failure to grasp the crux of the matter or, as has become the case, people are afraid to state the truth lest they fall foul of the evil vilification laws that have been introduced to this country. Thus, in the attempt to choose words carefully, the content is watered down. This is a secondary issue to do with language, but one worth noting. The evil doers are able to “flower” their language to the point of lying, knowing that their opponents cannot tighten or firm their language to the point of truth without crossing a boundary enforced by the law of the land. Yet, these have the audacity to speak of equality!!

[23] Please see: Of Designer Babies and Murderous Acts for comments upon the “right of choice”.

[24] As stated, the term Theocracy has become an unpalatable word in our day. Thus, I boldly ask, “Christian, if you despise this term, what form of governance do you aspire to see?” Do you really believe in Democracy? Do you believe that 51% makes for right every time? Do you believe we should have votes by the people on topics such as homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, adultery, witchcraft, divination, and the like? Should we live our lives content to ebb and flow with the desires of our society? Are you going to allow your family to vote on whether your daughter should be allowed to move in with her boyfriend? Do you propose a democratic vote on abortion should she fall pregnant to said boyfriend? Would this perspective be in keeping with Ephesians 4:14-15 or 2 Corinthians 7:1? What do we do when we encounter texts like: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path. I have sworn, and I will confirm it, That I will keep Thy righteous ordinances” (Psalm119:105-106). “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word. With all my heart I have sought Thee; Do not let me wander from Thy commandments. Thy word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against Thee” (Psalm 119:9-11). “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Christians have come to despise the term Theocracy because they have been led captive by the nose to a false belief. The simple reality is that when you pray the Lord’s Prayer – Thy will be done of earth – you are asking for the Theocracy to be realised here and now. When you utter any of the texts cited above, and a myriad besides, you are asking for the Theocracy. When you pray for obedience, you are asking for conformity to the rule of God – Theocracy!! Friends, it is time we got over this hurdle, embrace the legitimacy of the term, and went about our Master’s task of teaching the nations to obey all that Jesus, King and All Powerful Sovereign, has commanded.

[25] The term theocracy receives a lot of bad press in our day because too many Christians have been seduced by the world’s views and have been taught that the Old Testament is outdated and obsolete. If you are one of these, then let me put before you some “New Testamenty” type texts that spell “theocracy” in a different way. Do you believe in the Great Commission? Yes! Okay, please go and re read it. Yes, read the text, please. Note that there is nothing there of the modern view of saving individual souls (Qualification needed, but that must wait for another time?) What you will see is “teach the nations to obey all that I have commanded!” Is this not Jesus stating the Theocratic principle in different language? We might also add, in this context, Jesus’ words, “all authority Has been given to Me … on earth.” 1 Timothy 6:15b-16: “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” Here, the Apostle proves the case. God is absolute King. It is His to have dominion forever! Jude 24-25: “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” Please note Jude’s timeline. Some admit to Theocracy and to God’s rule over the earth, but they make it a future thing; something that happens only after Jesus returns. Such a perspective is not shared by Jude. He ascribes dominion to God in Christ “from all the ages”, “now”, and “to all the ages”. Ephesians 1:20-23: “He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” Please note Paul’s agreeance with Jude. Jesus is given dominion over all, not only in this age, but also in the age to come. The clear implication is that Jesus is King and all other authorities must yield to His Lordship. This means that all authorities on earth, whoever they may be, are obligated to obey all of God’s commands in Christ Jesus. Theocracy, New Testament style; Old Testament style; Biblical!

[26] Please see: Marriage Is Life!

[27] Once more, in viewing these words, we see how the marriage covenant has been attacked and eroded. Marriage is life and it is for life. The moderns, even when accepting the institution of marriage, still agitate against God’s design by railing against this phrase. They prefer gooey out-clauses like, ‘as long as we both shall love.’ Thus, even these fail the test of true marriage. They want the label, but they are still subtly seeking to alter the God-ordained form.

[28] The point here is very simple. If the magistrate followed Biblical law, homosexuals, along with murderers, kidnappers, rapists, to name a few, would be put to death. It would therefore be a physical impossibility for such people to demand anything, let alone proceed to a covenantal union that was “for life” and which terminated “at death”.

[29] Scripture here affirms the deathly quality of homosexuality. These persons are banned from the Kingdom. They are outside in the darkness. This is what Jesus and other Biblical writers call the “second death” – “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (See also: Revelation 2:11, 20:14) The clear implication is that these people are dead once and proceed to the second death.

[30] Morality demands that we as a nation complete a rethink on a number of topics. Not only is it high time that we Christians reject homosexuality, full stop, but it is time that we also began to reject all heterosexual perversions that encroach upon the sanctity of marriage. For too long have we remained silent on topics such as fornication, sex before marriage, adultery, and de facto relationships. These are all baby–steps to the acceptance of the ultimate perversions of God’s order as realised in homosexuality and bestiality.

[31] You may recoil from this approach, but it is necessary. I remember only a few years ago having a conversation with a relative who attends a supposedly conservative denomination on a similar topic. This was his position: Marxism most closely approximates the Christian position! Sadly, too many Christian leaders have recoiled from Biblically critiquing such theories with the consequent result that young minds are lead captive to falsehood.