Genders?

 I am getting sick and tired of all this "Gender" and "Pronouns" stuff.

I am a bloke - that's what it says on the Blog.

The really funny thing for me, is that when I was growing up, we were taught that there were boys and there were girls.

That's it.

And Gender and "sex" (in this meaning) were just different terms for the same thing. 

So whether it was gender or sex, the answer was boy or girl, male or female, bloke or sheila.

When you talk about your dog, it is either a boy or a girl dog.

When you talk about your cat it is either a boy cat or a girl cat.

With cattle, there are cows or bulls.

With Goats there are either billy goats or nanny goats, and guess what - they are either boy goats or girl goats.

Even bunnies are either boy bunnies or girl bunnies.

Kangaroos are either boy kangas or girl kangas.

Now, I know that there are technical terms (Buck and does, etc) for each of these, but the point I am making is that every living thing (almost) has boy and girl variants.

A few don't, but they are unusual. I think snails don't need one of each.

But the "normal" way in this creation is that mammals have male and female. And yes I did just use the word "Normal"..... get over it - it is a good word.

Most creatures also have male and female - that is why it is "normal".

Most fish have male and female.

Most reptiles have male and female.

Most birds have male and female.

I would like to say that in EVERY case this is true, but I don't know that for certain, so I will stop just short of it. But if you look in each class of creatures, the overwhelming majority of these creatures are either male or female, if not all of them.

The thing is, when an archaeologist digs up a skeleton, they look at the structure of the bones they find, and they decide based on that whether the skeleton was male of female.

When detectives come across a murder scene, they look at the remains and they come to a conclusion: the person was a male or a female.

In years to come, there are going be cases where a person is not properly identified, because they had a change operation, and everyone knows them as a female, but the remains are clearly male. So the Police will be looking for a male victim, but nobody knows of a male missing in that situation.

This will happen, because the biology does not change. 

And this is the point - the biology is true.

The biology is science.

The "identification society" is not true, and it is not science.

Let me put it this way - If I identify as a truck, does that make me a truck?

What if someone genuinely believes they are a truck? Not just me proposing it, but someone out there genuinely believes they are a truck. Are they a truck?

You might say "Well that's stupid. Of course they are not a truck!"

Prove to me they are not a truck. How would you do that?

Would you tell them they don't have wheels like a truck?

Would you tell them they don't have a motor like a truck?

Would you tell them they don't have an 18 speed transmission like a truck?

They could answer you "No, but I feel like a truck!"

How would you answer them?

What if they went and got a set of wheels and attached them to their legs? Would you then concede that they are a truck?

What if they then went and tied a transmission to their back, and carried around a motor? Would you then concede that they are a truck?

If they stood up and yelled loudly and proclaimed that they are a truck because they feel like a truck, and they have added all these different bits to make them look like a truck, would you then concede that they are a truck?

If you did, you would be a fool, because they are not a truck no matter how much they feel like a truck, and no matter what they do to try to make themselves look like a truck.

They are not  truck. It is physically impossible for them to be a truck, no matter how much they want to be, and no matter how much they feel like they are a truck, and no matter how much they change their physical appearance to look like a truck, they are a person, not a truck.

And one day, when that person dies, if years later their remains are dug up for some reason, the archaeologists will not say "Look we have found a truck", they will say "we have found a person".

I know it is a silly example, but the facts remain: there are only two genders, and there are only two sexes.

It doesn't matter what the person feels, their biology is fixed.

They might dress a certain way, but their biology remains as it was since their conception.

They might have surgeries, or take drugs to change the way they look, but their biology remains as it was from the moment of their conception.

What you feel like does not change your biology, and bolting on wheels, a transmission, and carrying around a motor won't change your biology.

The feelings and thoughts are there, but this current societal way of dealing with those feelings and thoughts is not the solution, any more than allowing this mythical truck-man to add trucks bits on. His problem is that the feelings, whilst strong and convincing to him, will never be solved by accepting them as true and changing his appearance. He has to accept the truth that he is not a truck, and change his thoughts and feelings about it. 

Ultimately, science agrees with God: there are only two genders. Anything else is not true.

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

How do I identify?

 I am getting sick and tired of all this "Pronouns" and "Gender" stuff.

First up, if people can now force their preferred pronouns on other people, I want to state clearly here that, aside from my personal name, I do not want to be called anyone's "Partner" - if you are referring to my relationship status with my WIFE, I want to be called her HUSBAND. That is my preferred annotation for that instance.

If you are referring to my relationship status with my children, whether you are referring to my boys or my girls, I want to be called their FATHER.

If you are referring to my relationship status with my parents, whether that be my mother or my father, I want to be referred to as their SON.

If you are referring to my "Gender", I do not want to be known as some strange thing, I want to be known as a MAN, or a MALE, or even a BOY if the situation is appropriate.

If certain people can choose their preferred pronouns, then so can I.

This is how I want to be known: As a Husband, a Father, a Son, a Man, a Biological Male.

These are not offensive terms, they are correctly descriptive of my gender, my position, my relationships, and my biology.

When it is apparently OK to totally misrepresent someone.

I am getting pretty sick and tired of the way the Media is treating Israel Folau over this whole trumped up event.



In a story in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Tom Decent titled "$1000 a minute: Folau gets back more than $600,000", the writer included the following sentence: "Folau posted a photo on Instagram on April 10 that said homosexuals were destined for hell unless they repented their sins."


In a daily Mail article titled "'What exactly has been achieved?' The Project host Waleed Aly reveals why he thinks Israel Folau's GoFundMe page SHOULDN'T have been removed" written by Zoe Zaczek and Charlie Moore, they included the line "Folau was sacked by Rugby Australia last month for beaching his contract with an Instagram post that said gay people are sinners and will go to hell.'

(Note: it should be "breaching" but it was spelt this way in the article).


The other day the ABC radio news report included a similar claim about what Israel Folau said, and used terms very much in the same vein - that Mr Folau said that Homosexuals would burn in Hell. (Note: this is not a direct quote, but from my memory as best I can recall.)


This is simply a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

In my recent post I included the exact wording of the post that is at the heart of all this fuss, and I will do so again here.


Here are the words that Israel Folau himself wrote and posted:

Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.

Now if you read carefully, you will note that Israel Folau does not even write the word "Homosexual(s)". At all. Not even a sideways reference to homosexuals.

It is wholly and totally untrue what the media are saying that Israel Folau has posted.

Now with that single line of text that Mr Folau posted of his own words, he also posted direct and complete quotations from the Holy Bible, King James Version.
The verses he posted are as follows:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

_______________

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

_______________

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV

Any unbiased reader will note that passages quoted by Mr Folau ALSO DO NOT MENTION homosexuals.

In fact it is only the graphic that Mr Folau posted that even uses the word Homosexuals:

And even in that, the graphic does not single out homosexuals, but simply includes them amongst a list of 8 different terms.

And the thrust of the words, the verses, and the graphic is NOT that people will burn in Hell, but that in fact there is a way for people to avoid that fate.

To represent Mr Folau in the way that the Media has and continues to do is first of all deceitful, wording the accusation in such way as to force a reader into a negative mindset, but it is also misrepresenting the truth.

It would be far more accurate for the media to represent the truth, and say that Mr Folau has used Scripture to point out that any sinner is bound for Hell UNLESS they repent.

For this is truthfully what Mr Folau has done.
He has not singled out any group, and not named any group other than "Those that are living in sin".
He certainly has not singled out "Homosexuals" as it is constantly reported that he has done.

I am not normally one that claims that the media is biased, but in this case it appears to be almost universal that the Media is intent on focussing this matter on the FALSE claim that Mr Folau has singled out Homosexuals.
That is how they have reported it since the start of this mockery of a trial by media, and it is certainly the way that Rugby Australia has presented it, and it is also the way that the Qantas chairman has presented it.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth for the purpose of stifling freedom of speech.

I find it interesting that the Qantas chairman can publicly promote the opposing view and do so with his Qantas chairman's hat on, blatantly and proudly saying that he represents the Qantas organisation, and he has the apparent right to promote the gay agenda without any repercussions; the chairwoman of Rugby Australia can promote and support the gay agenda without repercussions; the media can present and represent the gay agenda without repercussions, but a man who has NOT EVEN SINGLED OUT THE GAY COMMUNITY can suffer the kind of attacks and repercussions that we see of Mr Folau for a MISREPRESENTED comment against the Gay community that HE DID NOT EVEN MAKE.

This is not tolerance of any kind - this is an unwarranted attack, based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of the matter, in order to justify NOT TOLERATING a point of view that opposes what the Media wants to promote.

And it is shameful.

Israel Folau, what did he really post?

Trying to find the original post that has started all of this fuss with Israel Folau has been difficult. I wanted to see FOR MYSELF what he actually posted that has now been deemed to be a “High level breach” by Rugby Australia.

Well, here it is:


“

Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.
_______________

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

_______________

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

_______________

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV
_______________”



Note that I am no Techno-head, so putting the actual post itself into this was beyond my skill level.

What I have done is find the image that he posted and pasted it into this, and then I have copied the text that he wrote, and the verse quotes that he included. To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what he posted, correct image and word for word.



I think it would be worthwhile examining exactly what Mr Folau DID say, rather than everyone getting up in arms about what he didn’t actually say.

So, I am sorry Mr Folau, but I am going to examine your post, and more particularly your words in greater detail than anyone really deserves, but I think it is necessary to find out the truth.

• ·       First of all the image posted.

Keep in mind that I don’t think Mr Folau made this image. I assume (and I am sorry but it is an assumption) that Mr Folau saw this image on line and reposted it, but he obviously agreed with the basics of it.

The Image states that for a variety of people listed – 8 different groups are listed overall – that Hell awaits them. The image then calls for those people included in the list to repent, and notes that only Jesus saves.

A few things to note about this image itself.

It does not single out any particular group listed over any other group.

The image is not specifically attacking homosexuals, as is the focus of the claims against My Folau. In fact, if one were to take a step back you would find that not many people are left out of that list. I don’t think I have ever met a person who has not lied at some time, and most of us have stolen something somewhere along the way – not a car, but maybe a pen or something like that.

Where is there any indication in the image itself that Mr Folau is attacking any particular group? There is no such indication. In fact the image has a list that actually includes every person ever – including Mr Folau himself (Which I am sure he would openly acknowledge).

Now then, is the image attacking anyone?

No, it is not. There is no attack. There is a statement of what Mr Folau and many others believe is a fact: that any sinner is bound for Hell.

This is not an attack. It is a statement. If I was to state “You are going to die”, it doesn’t mean that I want it to be so, or that I intend to cause it to be so. It doesn’t necessitate any feeling toward you of any sort – either hatred or love. It is information that I believe to be true.

And it is in fact true – every person will die one day. You might be offended at my pointing that out, but it will not stop you from dying. And it makes no difference whether I like you, hate you, or am ambivalent to you, the fact is that one day you will die. There is no attack, just a statement of information.

If however, I knew you were going to die of some particular disease, and I recognised it, and knew the cure, then told you about that cure, that is not attacking, nor is it hateful. In fact it is loving.

This image does nothing more than that.

The originator of the image believes that all the people listed are destined for Hell, but he (or she) does not want the people listed to end up in Hell, and so they state the cure, salvation through Jesus.

There is nothing hateful nor accusatory in the image.

• ·         What about the statement that Mr Folau makes after the image?

“Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

So, Mr Folau doesn’t single out any particular group in this statement either. He says “Those that are living in sin”. There is only one conclusion to take from the reaction to this part of the statement – those who are offended know that they are living in sin. If they didn’t know that, they would have simply considered that Mr Folau was referring to others. Their outrage actually shows that they consider themselves among “those that are living in sin”. Mr Folau didn’t designate them as such. He simply gave a warning that “those who are living in sin will end up in hell unless you repent. Again, Mr Folau is not attacking anyone. He is simply stating what he believes is the destiny of those “who are living in sin”.

And again, his purpose is to show that they have a way to avoid Hell.

It is not an accusation, but a warning. He is not accusing people of living in sin, but pointing out that those WHO ARE living in sin have a destiny that ends in Hell. Those who are fussing about this are the ones who are designating themselves as “living in sin”.

The simple conclusion to come to about this statement is that if you are not living in sin then Mr Folau doesn’t believe that you will end up in Hell. (Note that the Bible has a lot to say about this beyond this simplistic conclusion)

Far from accusing, Mr Folau points out what he believes of “Those that are living in sin”. He doesn’t designate any groups at all in his own words.

He also points out the solution for “Those that are living in sin”.

His statement only and clearly applies to “those who are living in sin”.

Apparently, the drunkards, the adulterers, the liars etc don’t consider themselves to be living in sin, because they haven’t kicked up a fuss. It is only the Homosexuals that have designated themselves to be included in the statement “those that are living in sin”, not Mr  Folau.

And even so, all Mr Folau has done is show that there is a solution to the sin and Hell problem that he points out: Salvation through Jesus Christ.

·         After this, Mr Folau quoted three Bible passages. Mr Folau cannot be held responsible for the words of the Bible, for he didn’t write it. He did of course choose which passages to quote, but as far as I can tell, it is still legal to quote the Bible in Australia. (It apparently is not allowed if you are employed by the ARU. That would seem to be discriminatory against religious persons, but the ARU is supposed to be non-discriminatory…)

o   Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 KJV

In examining this passage, we note a few things: this passage does not even mention homosexuality specifically. It would of course be encompassed under adultery, fornication, and possibly uncleanness, but it is not specifically noted. In fact what we have here is a wide ranging list of people who the Bible says will not inherit the kingdom of God. But Homosexuals are not even specified here.

______________

o  
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV

Again, there is no mention of any specific group in this list apart from “every one of you”. It speaks only of remission of sins through Jesus Christ. This verse doesn’t even talk about the consequences if someone doesn’t repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ.

_______________

o  
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:30 KJV

And again, there is no mention of any consequences for anyone, just that God calls all men everywhere to repent.

So then, having looked at the post that has caused all the fuss and trouble, I am astounded at the way that this has been handled by the LBGT etc and also by the Media.

To the LBGT etc (I am sorry but I can’t keep up with the current letters included in this group as it seems to change every couple of weeks), I have to ask why you are so offended at this post? Where did Mr Folau specify your group in particular?

In his own words he doesn’t even mention “Homosexuals” or any other designation of your group. The name is one of 8 in the original image list, and it is not even the first on the list.

Nowhere else in the entire post of Mr Folau is the LBGT etc group even referred to.


Secondly, Mr Folau nowhere states that he is sending them to Hell, nor does he state that he wants them to go to Hell, nor does he state that he is rejoicing at the thought of them going to Hell. In fact, it is implicit in his statements that Mr Folau doesn’t want them to go to Hell, because he includes statements and Bible references that show how they can avoid that destiny.


There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from the resultant media coverage: The LBGT etc have launched a totally unjustified attack, misrepresenting what Mr Folau posted for the purpose of destroying this man and attacking the current religious freedoms in Australia, and secondly, the Australian Media are either allowing themselves to be deceived by the LBGT etc or are inherently involved the attack against Mr Folau and against Australian religious freedom. If they were not involved (deliberately or naively) they would show the post in its entirety and show clearly that the Homosexual groups are not in fact targeted.


As to Rugby Australia and their panel that have now found Mr Folau guilty of a High level breach, we must ask “Where in the post that Mr Folau made is there any breach of any code of conduct? How is it in any way hateful to warn someone of what you believe to be impending danger? Indeed, Mr Folau has not even designated any particular group as sinners, but included all men – ALL MEN as sinners.



The only conclusion we can come to with regard to Rugby Australia is that they are allowing themselves to be influenced by their major sponsor, who apparently doesn’t think Australia should have free speech. At least not free speech that disagrees with the thoughts of their current boss.

I for one am disgusted at the treatment of Mr Folau by the Australian press, by Rugby Australia, and by many commentators who apparently feel that looking at the actual statements of Mr Folau are not necessary. The ARU have sold Mr Folau out for sponsorship money.


I am not in the least surprised by the LGBT etc groups who are attacking Mr Folau without mercy, not for what he has said, but for the fact that he is a Christian who is willing to quote the Bible.

Mr Folau has said nothing offensive to homosexuals in particular – in fact, nothing AT ALL to homosexuals in particular. Mr Folau addressed “Those who are living in sin” without further definition. Who is it that has designated homosexuals as sinners? Not Mr Folau. It is actually those who are accusing him who have designated themselves as sinners.



The actual roots of this whole affair are based in those who wish to silence the Bible and remove any reference to God and the Word of God from our society.

Alan Jones has said that the Australian people won’t stand for it. I hope he is right, but I fear he is wrong.

My fear is that not enough regular Australians care enough to stand with Mr Folau in his battle for the right to express his own opinion.

Today it is the right of one man to express an opinion that is being restricted. Tomorrow it may be the right of others to express their opinion that is taken away. When and where will it stop?


They call men like Mr Folau intolerant, but he is not the one who stopping others from having an opinion.

I will fight for the right of every man to be free to express his opinion, whether I agree with him or not. The way our nation is going, I am falling into a minority.

My opinion will soon be illegal if things continue the way they appear to be going.

Only opinions that “fit with the acceptable” will be allowed to be expressed. Who then decides what is acceptable? And what stops your opinion – whatever that may be – from becoming unacceptable?


No one should be able to call others to physical violence. No one should be able to promote attacks on other people. No one should be able to take away another person’s rights without just cause and due process.

But every man should be able to express an opinion.

I will fight for your right to oppose me and present an opposing opinion.

Because stopping talk doesn’t solve problems. Just because I can silence you, doesn’t mean the problem is solved. Just because you can silence me, doesn’t mean that your problems are now solved.

In context of Mr Folau’s post, you can stop it from being posted around, you can take away his career, you can silence him by deleting or covering his opinion wherever you can, but it will not change for one moment that fact that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that the Wages of sin is death, and that Hell is final destiny of everyone who has not trusted in Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Whether it is stated, read, proclaimed, or even tweeted OR NOT – it is still true.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but the question has to be asked: If you don't believe what Mr Folau has posted is true, why does it concern you? He hasn't named any particular person or even a particular group. He has not called for any group of people to be persecuted or banned. He has not in any way promoted violence against any particular group (or even general violence for that matter).
He has spoken of a destiny that he believes is as stated in the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible is true, why do you care what this man says about what you believe is fanciful?


It is not hateful to warn about that problem.

It is loving to warn someone of impending danger and then tell them of the way of avoiding that danger.


Mr Folau, I know it is easy for me to say this because it is not my wage, not my reputation, not my future that is on trial and at stake, but good on you for making your original post, and for standing your ground. On my examination (which counts for nothing) you have done nothing wrong, nothing hateful, nothing for which you need to apologise.
Rest in the Lord and trust in Him.

1Pe 4:
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Abortion in Australia

I rarely post anything about politics, preferring instead to leave the subject of politics up to the individuals.
It is not my right to tell people which way they should vote.
At the outside, I encourage people to vote according to Biblical values, but with many politicians in Australia it is almost impossible to find their views on ethical and Biblical matters.

However, in Australia recently the Labor Party has come out and said if they win the next election they will bring in fully publicly funded abortions.
In one news article about this political line there was a photo of a woman holding a placard that said "Legal abortions save lives".
LEGAL ABORTIONS DO NOT SAVE LIVES. Any abortion OF NECESSITY takes the life of the child - that is what an abortion is.
What the placard was suggesting is that illegal abortions are dangerous, and that is true, but many illegal things are dangerous, and those who do those illegal things take their chances.
EVERY ABORTION takes a life, but an illegal abortion only endangers the woman's life if she chooses to go down that path. No one is forcing her to get an illegal abortion - it is her choice.
Think about that placard in these terms: say that abortion for any reason is legal and as a result we have 100000 abortions each year. That is 100000 children whose lives are ended.
But if abortion is illegal, the number of abortions drops to 50000 (most likely it would be a far greater difference), and of those 50000 illegal abortions, half of them ended with the mother dying because of poor practices (the ratio would no doubt be far lower). This means that a total of 75000 lives are lost because of illegal abortion.
This is a net gain or 25000 - legal abortion DOES NOT save lives in any way shape or form. I don't know what the actual numbers are, and it doesn't really matter what the actual numbers are - the net difference is in favour of making abortion illegal.
In fact, the numbers that I have used here would most likely be extremely heavily swayed towards even greater lives saved by making abortion illegal.
If the total was 100000 abortions, and the practice was made illegal, the number would most likely be way less than half who would still seek abortion. A great number of women would not seek it as an illegal option.
And of those illegal abortions performed, the rate at which the mother would also be lost would be way less than 50% - how could even an illegal operator continue with anything approaching that kind of failure rate? In fact the number would most likely be a single figure percentage of failure, even as an illegal act.
So the claim that legal abortions save lives is absolutely false, and it is an emotive claim rather than a scientifically factual argument.

The murder of unborn children is a tragedy of mammoth proportions in today's world.

ANY POLITICAL PARTY that runs on a platform of financing abortions from the public purse is actually promoting government sanctioned and financed infanticide.
No one with any sort of conscience can vote for a party that not only condones, but in fact promotes the murder of unborn children.

And when people say that using terms such as  "murder of unborn children" is emotive, so also is the use of terms such as "termination of pregnancy", and referring to an unborn child as "a foetus"- they are designed to take the attention away from the truth that it is the killing of a person - it is ending the life of a person. The fact that person is at that point in its mothers womb in no way detracts from that fact - that unborn child is a person.

I still think one of the greatest comparisons ever pointed out is that if they found a single celled organism on Mars, they would proclaim that they had found life, but a small cluster of cells that has every single piece of DNA information required to continue dividing and form into a complete person by today's standards "is not life".

What a joke - double standard to the extreme.

Abortion is murder, and no government should sanction, let alone fund murder of the most innocent of people.

Australia will vote on whether or not to broaden the definition of marriage.

Australia will next month have a postal vote on whether or not we would like our government to change the definition of marriage.
Currently, in Australia, the definition of marriage is very specifically between a man and a woman.

There is a hugely vocal homosexual and alternative lifestyle grouping that has for a long time sought to  squash any sort of debate on the acceptability of their lifestyle choice in mainstream Australian culture.
I have been subjected to this myself on fora that has nothing to do with lifestyle choices.
In the general discussion section of one forum I was a member of, everyone could have an opinion but me.
And even when I did not express an opinion, I was attacked for my "bigoted views".
I will also say that often times those people misrepresented my views so that they could attack me, but in many cases I did not actually express a view at all, and still was attacked - because I am openly a Christian, and all views are acceptable in this matter EXCEPT those that come from the Bible.

I personally will be voting "No" to the postal plebiscite regarding the change in the definition of marriage. That will not surprise anyone who has read my position and statements of my faith elsewhere on this blog.

But I want to explain why, and here I can do so without being shouted down.

I have several reasons for my position.

First, those who choose these alternative lifestyles have full legal and political recognition under our civil unions legislation.
In every legal respect they already have the same rights as a married couple.
The only thing they lack is the right to call it a "Marriage".
And in fact, they can already use the name, just not in an official capacity. (Who is going to stop them calling it a marriage in everyday life?)

Some will then say "Well if there is no difference, then why bother to argue about semantics?"

But it is not semantics. And I will tell you why in a moment.

Before we get there though, I do want to point out that taking the marriage name IS semantics for those of alternative lifestyles. They think that by changing the name alone - for that is the only thing that will change - that their lifestyle choices will suddenly become legitimate in the eyes of the community.
They are wrong.
It is not the lack of the name marriage that is offputting for many mainstream Australians.
It is the lifestyle itself that the majority of Australians find unusual, even those who are accepting of it, but not part of it.
When a man talks of his husband, people's attitudes will not change regardless of them being allowed to say that they are legally married. And it won't change whether those people find it abhorrent, or just mildly unusual, or totally acceptable, or anywhere between. The change of name will not change anybody's attitude.
Do they really think that that who are vehemently opposed will all of a sudden become accepting because now the government has said they can call it marriage?
And will it change the attitudes of those who are wholly for alternative lifestyles? Will they wake up the next day and feel that their relatioships are stronger JUST because now they can call it a marriage?
The alternative lifestyle people will find that not one thing in reality has changed if they win this vote.
Not anything legally, and not any attitudes.
Neither their own attitudes, nor their opponents attitudes, nor the indifferent attitudes will have changed.

Now then, to the arguments that people put forth to oppose this vote:

There are those who have tried to argue about children being the product of marriage, but they are rightly pointed to heterosexual couples who either by choice or medical issues do not have children. Are these not legitimate marriages then?
This is a legitimate counter.
Children do not make a marriage.

When I got married to my wife, we were immediately married - we did not have to wait the five years that it took for us to finally have children - our marriage was a complete marriage immediately we said "I do".
And when our children leave home, as the oldest will shortly do, we will not cease to be married.


Another argument that is often put is that it is unnatural.
That was thought to be true in the past, but the alternative lifestyle mobs have produced "evidence" that it is entirely natural.
Whether their evidence is legitimate is still up for debate - for instance dogs "mating" with dogs is not legitimate evidence, because a dog with a mind to, will mate with anything that moves, and some things that don't. A dog "mating" with a person's leg does not denote a natural behaviour of dogs wanting to mate with men - it denotes a natural behaviour of dogs to satisfy themselves wherever they see the opportunity.

But regardless of the veracity of this evidence, just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it acceptable for people to do.
Many creatures eat their young, but I do not know of ANY MAN of any persuasion who would suggest that such a thing is acceptable simply because we see it in nature.
(And no, I am not saying that alternative lifestylers are to be compared to such animals. It is the argument from nature that I am discussing.)
And some female creatures, after mating eat the male, but I do not see anyone suggesting that because we see it in nature it should be acceptable for men.

The argument that it is natural is not the same as arguing that something is right or wrong.
In nature we see what we would consider "right" actions, and we see what we consider "wrong" actions. The "right" actions are not more right because we see them in nature, and the "wrong" actions are not more  wrong because we see them in nature.
The point is, nature is not our standard for right or wrong, for if it was our society would be very different to what it is today, and in fact our society would be full of argument about what is the right model from nature to follow.
Do we follow the lion's model, where the men do nothing but get first dibs on the meals, and lunge around, while the women do all the work of providing?
Or do we follow the be model, where there is one ruling woman, a number of male bees whose sole role is to mate with the queen and the whole place is run by the females who do all the work?

Neither of these models would be considered fair and equitable for human society.

So nature is not, and never has been our standard.
Therefore, whether or not we see these alternative lifestyles in nature is irrelevant - Nature is not the model upon which our society is built.


In fact, there is only one argument that holds any true weight in this matter:
Mark 10:6-9
(6)  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7)  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8)  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9)  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God designed marriage.

I have looked, and found no real theories on how marriage "developed" from a secular point of view.

It is simply accepted that marriage started in the lost history of time, and it is common among all cultures.

The details of it vary of course, but the basics that a man and a woman leave their families and join together to start a new family is the universal basic.

And the Bible tells us that this was God's design from the time of creation.

The fact that marriage is universal indicates a common link somewhere in the so called "lost history" of the past. It is not lost: the Bible explains it clearly.

But the important part of this, is that God designed and instituted marriage.

As the designer and maker of marriage, God therefore has the authority and right to define what he has designed.

And God said that it was between a man and a woman, a male and female, a man and his wife.

Why am I voting against the redefinition of marriage in Australia?

Because, whilst it will not gain the supporters of the change anything legally, politically, or attitudinally, it denies God's right to define His institution of Marriage.

Unfortunately, I think this is the real agenda - the removal of God from our society.

Men have removed God from our schools.

Men are trying to remove God from our courts.

Men are trying to remove God from our parliament.

Men are trying to remove God from our holidays and celebrations.

Men are trying to remove every trace of God from our society.

This is yet another step on this path.

In Australia they have the "Safe schools" program, which ironically masquerades under the banner of "Anti-bullying", but which as is becoming more obvious all the time, is really just a platform to promote alternative lifestyles.

The irony of this, is that if anyone speaks out against the alternative lifestyles agenda that is Safe Schools promotes, they are BULLIED into submission and silence.

The biggest bullies, the most intolerant group, the most violently opposing group in Australia today, are the alternative lifestyles groups.

For proof, just see the kind of reaction this post gets, if it actually gets noticed and not deleted by some sort of big brother.

I would urge anyone who reads this, to read it carefully and point out clearly where I have said anything hateful.

Fact is, that I do not hate anyone of alternative lifestyles. I do not approve of their lifestyle, but it is not my right to dictate to them how they should live. That is their choice.

I DO know what the Bible says about it, but it is still their choice, as it is every man's choice to either accept the Bible or reject it, and on that basis to accept or reject the gift of salvation that Jesus made available to all men, if they would believe on His name and confess (to God) their sins.

Romans 10:9-10
(9)  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10)  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Bible says that ....all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

All - not just murderers and thieves, but all men. And that even includes me, although I have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and so my sins have been paid for.

But back to the point - I am voting against this change because it will not do anything positive for anyone, and because God has already defined marriage in His Word.

God made it - God defined it.

I will vote "No" and I would urge every God fearing, Bible believing Christian to also vote for God's definition of marriage, which the current Australian definition agrees with.

Worship????

There is a lot of talk about right now regarding worship.
Styles of worship and importance of worship, and how we should go about worship, and how important worship is for a church and for Christians.

Well the other day in my daily reading I came across Mark chapter 5 and I noticed something in that passage that had escaped me previously.

Mark 5:1-13
(1)  And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
(2)  And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
(3)  Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
(4)  Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
(5)  And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
(6)  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
(7)  And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
(8)  For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
(9)  And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
(10)  And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
(11)  Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
(12)  And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
(13)  And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Jesus and the Disciples had just cross the sea overnight with the storm and Jesus calming that storm, and they came to Gadarea. When they got out of the ship and walked onto the land, a man came running up to them. This man was possessed with devils.

But the interesting thing I find about this passage is that it says in vs 6;

(6)  But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

When he saw Jesus he ran and worshipped him. Now I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran and worshipped the Lord, as I read it the other day I noticed  something about this account.
The "he" spoken of in vs 6 is the same "he"spoken of in vs 7 through to vs 10.

You see, I had always read it as the man who was possessed ran to Jesus for help, but it was not the man that confronted Jesus and worshipped Him, it was the devil in him.

The devil is the one talking, the devil is the one begging (I adjure thee...), the devil is the one WORSHIPPING the Lord.
Let's look at this a moment: the devil calls Jesus "...the son of the most high God..." recognising exactly who the Lord is, and ascribing that honour to the Lord.
The devil recognises also the authority of Jesus, when he "Adjures" Him, or begs Him - this devil certainly knows that Jesus has the authority and the power.

The thing about all of this is that these devils - there were many for their name was legion (A Roman legion by the way was normally 5000 men plus support staff, and they affected 2000 pigs when cast into the herd), these devils are said in vs 6 to have worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ.

In that, they ascribed to Him the proper attributes, the proper authority, the proper power, and His proper position.
They cried out loud about who He is and what He can do.
No-one standing there that day could have missed that these devils recognised Jesus as the son of the most high God, or that He was stronger in power, and of greater authority than these devils - that at least 2000 of them too.

The Bible clearly says that they "worshipped" Him.

Now back to our present day emphasis on worship and the importance of it in our churches.
It occurred to me that not only Christians can worship - if these devils can worship the Lord, then there is no inherent need for the one worshipping the Lord to actually love the Lord.
These devils did not love the Lord, but they did worship Him.

James 2:19
(19)  Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

There is no requirement of saving faith for worship to happen.

In fact there will be a load of people who think they are doing various things for the Lord who will find out one day that their service was in vain:

Matthew 7:20-24
(20)  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
(21)  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22)  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23)  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(24)  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Many will say to Him "Have we not done all these great things in your name?", but Jesus will say "I never knew you".

I wonder how many people are caught up in this current flow of "worship focussed" ministry who actually have never trusted Jesus Christ as their Saviour?

They think they are serving and honouring the Lord because they "Worship" the Lord, but these devils also worshipped the Lord.

No, worship does not make a person saved.

Romans 10:9-13
(9)  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10)  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11)  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(12)  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
(13)  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That is what makes a person saved - believing in thine heart and confessing (to God) that Jesus raised from the dead.

Those people who think they are honouring God by what is often called "good worship" (a subjective view anyway), may very possibly be wrong. You don't have to love the Lord to worship Him.

Also, recently I have been looking again at the Great Commission and strangely enough I don't find anywhere in the various statements of the Great Commission a call to worship the Lord in that work.

We are told to teach all nations, to baptise, and teach them what Jesus taught - but there is no mention of worshipping the Lord in those calls - it is SERVING HIM, in the way that He calls or commissions us to that He wants.