CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

The Religious War Against Marriage

May 6, 2008

That there are plenty of secularists who are happy to push the homosexual agenda is not so surprising. What is surprising, and sad, is when Christians get on the bandwagon. When they totally ignore or reject their own biblical absolutes and instead embrace the latest trendy fads and crusades, then things are going downhill fast.

There has been a growing chorus of religious folk singing the praises of the homosexual agenda, even pushing for same-sex marriage. The most recent example was in today’s Australian when Anglican writer and feminist Muriel Porter had a piece entitled, “Highest Praise for Nuptials” in which she blasted other Christians for daring to stand up for Biblical morality on this issue.

The whole article was one tired exercise in homosexual apologetics. It could have been written by any secularist or atheist. It trotted out all the tired clichés and red herrings. A secularist writing nonsense about what the Bible says concerning sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular might be excused for being out of his or her depth. But when someone who claims to be a believer writes such patent nonsense, then the deed is all the more dastardly.

For example, Mrs Porter makes this quite ludicrous claim: “Yes, there are a few (contested) Bible texts that condemn certain homosexual practices. But there are far more uncontested texts that denounce divorce.”

Sorry Muriel, but there happens to be at least nine quite clear passages on homosexuality – every one of which condemns the behaviour. And they must be read in the light of the entire biblical teaching on human sexuality, which always insists on heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable context for sexual relationships – end of story.

As to divorce, there are around the same number of passages on the subject, and some in fact are highly debatable. The grounds for divorce, if any, and the place for remarriage are topics that some believers can and do strongly differ on.

But given that theology and biblical studies are obviously not her strong point, Mrs Porter spends most of her article appealing to pity and emotion. For example, she goes on about how practicing homosexuals do not feel all that welcome in some churches. She does her best to portray them as pitiable victims, who are being rejected by hard-hearted Christians.

But she is both confusing the issue and distorting the picture here. All sinners are welcome in the Christian churches, but always with a view that they be willing to listen to and receive the Christian gospel. Sinners as seekers are always – or should be always – welcome in church.

But that is an altogether different matter from those who have embraced the gospel, and are now seeking to walk in obedience to Christ and biblical teachings. When people claim to be followers of Jesus, they renounce claims to being the boss, and now submit to the Lordship of Christ, and the Word of God.

In that sense, anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus but at the same time insists on being a practicing homosexual is simply kidding himself. In the same way, anyone who persists in adultery, or fornication, or any other sin, must seriously ask whether they in fact are real followers of Jesus.

Paul makes this quite clear in 1 Cor. 6:9-11: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

A homosexual, like any other sinner, who seeks to learn about Christ, is welcome to come to church and find out about him. But someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus yet insists on living in known sin is not only a contradiction in terms, but is to be subject to church discipline. Obviously under those circumstances anyone who wants to insist on engaging in clearly unbiblical behaviour may not feel all that welcome in a church setting.

Two final howlers can be mentioned here. Incredibly Muriel Porter wails and gnashes her teeth over the fact that people like her who support same-sex marriage have been “effectively silenced” and have become “increasingly low profile”. That’s odd. Here she is with an entire op ed piece in the Australian, and yet she complains about censorship and not being heard.

The real truth is, when was the last time one recalls seeing a major op ed piece resisting the homosexual lobby in these or similar pages? The grip of political correctness is so strong that the last taboo is actually to take a stand publically for heterosexual marriage and family.

Mrs Porter can play the victim all she likes, but she is well aware that the relentless march of the homosexual lobby is near to its final goal, while those who look on in concern are the real victims and the real silenced voices.

The last amazing statement to appear in this circus of words is this: “It may be one thing for the church to have its own rules in this area [of sexuality], but to use its influence to stop outside arrangements is outrageous.” Hmmm. Just try substituting a few words here, and see how sensible and intelligent this remark sounds:

“It may be one thing for the church to have its own rules in this area [of racism], but to use its influence to stop outside racism is outrageous.”

Or again, “It may be one thing for the church to have its own rules in this area [of saving the environment], but to use its influence to stop outside pollution is outrageous.”

Again, “It may be one thing for the church to have its own rules in this area [of rape], but to use its influence to stop rape outside the church is outrageous.”

Obviously Mrs Porter has bought hook, line and sinker the nonsensical secularist argument that believers may have their moral views, but they damn well better keep them to themselves, and not seek to push them in the public arena.

Funny, but I bet big money that Mrs Porter wants the church to speak out publically and loudly on all sorts of moral issues, be it racism, environmentalism or sexual assault. But when it comes to her pet sin, homosexuality, then the church should just shut up and keep out of the public discussion.

Sorry Muriel, but it does not work that way. The truth is, you have just entered the public arena (in the form of an article in the national press) telling us that your version of events is the right one, and the Christian one. Yet when others who disagree with you seek to enter the debate, and in fact support the biblical position on this, you want them to butt out and just stay silent.

Well, those who love God and his Word are not about to zip the lip just so that radical activists can have a free run in the public square with their anti-biblical morality (or immorality). As long as there is still religious freedom in this nation, biblical Christians will stand up for what is right, and will speak up when those claiming to represent the church instead represent the latest secular, and unbiblical, agenda.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23650444-7583,00.html

[1265 words]

36 Responses to The Religious War Against Marriage

  • Muriel Porter unfortunately reminds me of that other apostate, Bishop Spong. I’ve given up trying to understand people who, when confronted with a point at which the Bible disagrees with the way the world does things, always choose the world and yet still want to call themselves ‘Christians.’ I’d rather spend time with a rabid atheist than someone like this.

    I can’t help but wonder how Porter would respond to a medical opinion explaining why male-to-male sexual activity is inherently unhealthy and how she reconciles that with her ridiculous claim that this kind of behaviour is consistent with “God-given humanity”.

    Jesus said by their fruit you will recognize them. Jesus spoke about hearing his words and putting them into practice. Jesus spoke about God’s design for male and female. Sorry, Muriel, no contest.

    Mark Rabich, Melbourne

  • Great article and a timely warning for us all.

    But we shouldn’t be surprised what ‘religious’ people do. Religious people killed Christ, persecuted the Apostles and tried to destroy the early church.

    The prophets of the OT warned against religion, that is the false religions of their day. Jesus said we are to judge, not by whether people are religious or not, but by their fruit, and Bill reminds us here of that truth.

    Tas Walker

  • It’s high time that Christians recognised a basic Biblical principle: that not all who call themselves by the name of the Lord are in fact His. See Matt.7:21-23; 2 Tim.2:19.
    Merely to call yourself a Christian does not mean you are one! And the Muriel Porters of this world speak with the same voice as outright humanists, and in all sorts of ways display themselves as thoroughgoing humanists. The only difference is that one wears a clerical collar; the other does not.
    A religious liberal – who does not believe the Bible, who disagrees with the Master he claims to follow, who disbelieves in miracles and the supernatural, and who denies the cardinal doctrines of the faith – is none of His and is NO Christian. And the world is full of them.
    It is time for robust preaching which sets the issue straight in this regard, and stops pussyfooting around.
    Murray Adamthwaite

  • The Church is happy to welcome all people to come, however that does not mean that we agree with their life style. Just because I am friends with people who are homosexuals does not mean I will support gay marriage. God designed marriage to be a precious union between a man and a woman stop.
    So you cannot expect the church to support a union of two people who are practicing a sin that God hates, the church cannot and will not support any type of behaviour which the Bible clearly tells us to run from.
    Joanna Lancaster

  • Can we really expect any better from Muriel Porter??? Look up “liberal” (aka apostate) in the dictionary and there is a picture of Ms Porter.

    Back when my Dad was on synod, Muriel Porter actually stood up in synod and remarked “well the masses may bleet all they like but it must be done” when discussing the cutting of funding to community ministries in order to fund the upkeep of Anglican church buildings.

    Her concern clearly is not for the gospel or for people.

    Rebecca New

  • What really confused me was her suggestion that our God-given humanity can be honoured by celebrating homosexuality in the church. How does this honour our God-given humanity if it involves celebrating something that God did not give in the first place? I suppose we should honour divorced people by celebrating their independence too. Or we should honour the parents of aborted children for having the courage to make the difficult decision to kill their unborn baby.
    Duane Proud

  • The great expert on the cults, the late Walter Martin, gave a very important lecture called “The Cult of Liberalism”. He identified churchian liberalism as the most insidious cult of all, because it denies foundational Christian doctrine, while using the same language. And unlike other cults that are clearly outside the church, the cult of liberalism is entrenched within the church and white-anting it from within. People Muriel Porter and Bishop Spong should be thought of as cultists not misguided Christians.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Satan is very pleased with the impact of his greatest tool against the true Gospel: the church!

    It seems very queer (um, no pun intended) that those outside the church know that a given practice like homosexuality defies Christianity, while some within the church claim that it doesn’t. And then people like Mrs Porter expect homosexuals to embrace the church? Has Mrs Porter ignored the fact that true love rebukes as much as it forgives?

    The Gospel message is no respecter of bids for popularity. You are either truly repentant or you are unrepentant.

    Mathew Hamilton

  • Those of us who have said that the arguments used by the liberals to push through the ordination of women are the same arguments that will be used to promote same gender ‘marriages’ are being vidicated. Muriel Porter is a great advocate of the ordination of women and now that her ‘justice’ arguments have been imposed upon the Australian Anglican Church, the next domino is being set up to fall. Those Anglicans who think the two issues are not related are blinder than blind Freddy.
    Rt Revd Harry Entwistle

  • Thanks Bill. Keep up the excellent work. When people claim to be Christian and hold views that are anti-Christian, but present them as if they were Christian it makes the Church look divided. This gives people who oppose the Christian view ammunition to claim that the church does not have a clear cut position on an issue and thus conclude that its view can be ignored. This makes it extremely difficult for Christian politicians for example to stand up for what is right and get people to listen.

    Rt Revd Harry, thanks for your comments. They’re quite significant, especially coming from a senior member in the Anglican Church. You would naturally be in a well informed position on this issue. I guess the question that has to be asked is that if this domino falls, what will be next and where will it stop? I could quite imagine that the dominos will continue to fall causing great problems.

    Matthew Mulvaney

  • Actually, Bill, I think Muriel was right about one thing: the slippery slope between the church’s accommodation of divorce and its accommodation of gay practices.

    While there are some grey areas in the divorce issue, it’s pretty clear what God’s attitude is, both from his clear statement in Mal 2:16 (where it’s linked with violence, incidentally), and from Jesus’ appeal to God’s original plan with Adam & Eve. Indeed, it is very clear that the only possible exception that allows remarriage (without adultery being committed) is that the divorce was a response to adultery. Despite this, the church has simply caved in to no-fault divorce and remarriage. (At least in practical terms it has done so. The conservative teaching recognises divorce as undesirable, but remarriage is rarely seen as equivalent to the sin of adultery, or homosexuality, for that matter).

    When I have talked to pastors and counsellors about their position on this it always comes back to a subjective judgement call based on the strong feelings of the people involved. God’s strong ideas on the matter (which they can never find a way to deny) are simply ignored.

    When the church has compromised on sexual matters like this, you can be sure that this compromise will continue — why shouldn’t it? We have already flagrantly ignored God’s word, after all. Unfortunately, people like Muriel Porter will jump at the opportunity to take advantage of our own failure to honour God’s word.

    Malcolm Lithgow.

  • Matthew
    I am no longer a member of the Anglican Church of Australia. I used to be an Archdeacon in that Church but could see the writing on the wall, so became a member of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia, which is part of the Traditional Anglican Communion. I am also the Vice-Chairman of Forward in Faith Australia Inc, so I do know what is going on in the Anglican Church of Australia and it is not impressive.
    Rt Revd Harry Entwistle

  • This woman is a radical and rabid feminist who has stated that three things in life are inevitable death,taxes and abortion. She certainly works as a porter from inside the church opening the door to compromise with the secular humanist atheistic materialist ( SHAM ) adgenda. Her unsubstantiated anecdotal and emotive paragraph,

    “It would perhaps surprise Wallace and Jensen to know how many ordinary Anglicans in the pews quietly support the gay cause. Through the years many have spoken to me about their gay children,nephews,friends and neighbours,and how they respect their relationships. They are distressed and puzzled by what they see as the offical church vilification of these people.”

    Christians supporting the ‘gay cause’, respecting gay relationships and holding their church responsible for hate and vilification! We are supposed to believe this nonsense on the heresay evidence of Muriels’ rants and raves. She is a dangerous woman and like Sprong the wrong part of a cultish anti Christian group of heretics.

    Jennifer Parfenovics

  • Oh, I must have looked at a website that hasn’t been updated yet. Anyway the fact that you left the Anglican Church because you could see the writing on the wall is significant. It’s good to know that some people have the courage to stand up for what is right and leave the Anglican Church of Australia when it went too far down the wrong path and refuses to mend its ways.
    Matthew Mulvaney

  • Hi Bill,
    I am wondering if there is any correlation between homosexuality being ‘permitted’ by state and it’s rise in popularity.

    I mean, how many people will become homosexual because of homosexual relationships being recognized? Also does it matter if ‘sinners’ are ‘sinning more’ by being openly same-sex?

    Do you think it is worthwhile for so many Christian groups to be so proactive in fighting homosexuality while ignoring the actual mandates of the bible?

    I struggle to find any biblical words which support such massive national lobbying but am not the most biblically literate.

    Cheers, Jay Rusty

  • Well said Bill
    I had cause to write to dear Muriel about 12 years ago when even back then she expressed her support for homosexuaity in a newspaper article.
    This was in the days before email so I sent her a fax and told her what I thought. She wrote scathing letters to my pastor, to the Baptist union and to her own Archbishop. The latter promptly removed her from the position she had as his spokesperson on women’s issues.
    Unfortunately she continued to have a voice in the church and in the secular media which, of course, loved having articles from people perporting to be Christians offering their anti Christian views.
    Her husband actually phoned me and told me I would hear from their solicitor, but perhaps they actually read what the Bible says for a change, and I heard nothing more.
    Sadly, like too many in today’s impotent mainstream churches, she has been allowed to push her anti-women (she does them no favours) and pro homosexual rhetoric for far too long.
    Peter Stokes

  • Bill, you are an excellent spokesperson on behalf of family values centred on God, who created woman for man from the time of Adam. Although we stray from God’s principle the truth remains clear, and homosexual practices are still and always will be an obscene aberration. We can be compassionate with those who choose that lifestyle, but we shouldn’t betray principle and thus betray our creator. Homosexuality is certainly not a godly lifestyle – just the opposite – how else shall we put it? The person inside needs to be freed with true love. If any man has been unloved by their father, having a sexual man-partner will not replace or restore the fatherly love that they needed. And it’s the same story for any woman who wasn’t loved enough by her mother. God gives us all hope and life when we start forgiving.
    J Von Dinklage

  • Thanks Jay

    You raise some good questions here. As to the first, yes. This is known as the normative effect of the law. Whenever a government legalises something, it sends out a strong message. It says this activity is normal, acceptable and to be encouraged. So yes, whenever we legalise something, we do tend to get more of it.

    And yes, all ‘sin’ always has an impact on the rest of society. As I have sought to argue here, marriage and family are directly impacted by alternative sexualities and lifestyles, for various reasons. The more we legitimise other lifestyle choices, the less people will commit to marriage and family, which are tremendous social goods. It is harder for people in individual marriages to persist, when they see marriage breakdown all around them. And the very idea of marriage also gets weakened when governments bless other types of unions, and in effect tell us that relationships can come in any form and shape, and are all equal.

    So marriage as an institution is weakened, and individual marriages are put under greater stress. Individual moral choices are easier when reinforced by the surrounding culture and the laws of the land. When this is not the case, individual morality tends to break down as well.

    As to believers being involved in all this, we do have a biblical mandate to be salt and light (Matt. 5) for example. We are to always stand up for righteousness, and by implication resist unrighteousness, and we are to be a light in a dark world. The institutions of marriage and family were ordained by God, and we should all be concerned when those institutions come under direct attack.

    To stand up for what God has purposed for our world will mean resisting any attacks on those things. Also, you could ask the same about, say, William Wilberforce when he fought the slave trade. You could argue there are not many verses teaching us to battle slavery.

    And many people criticised Wilberforce in his day for standing up for slaves. Millions of free blacks today are very glad Wilberforce ignored his critics, and sought to promote biblical principles in the public arena to free the slaves. It was because of his Christian convictions that he got involved in such massive national lobbying efforts.

    Finally, believers are citizens of two kingdoms. We have obligations as citizens here on earth, as well as our heavenly obligations. That means being good responsible citizens here in Australia, and being part of the social, political and cultural issues of the day.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • What the homosexual lobby desperately want is the public recognition and status of their very existence. They have cleverly lured the public into believing that heterosexuals are also defined by something called heterosexuality. It is as though the argument has been about the oppression of dominant genetic, heterosexual beings over a minority of genetic homosexual beings and that, as a matter of justice and civilised behaviour, the latter should be accorded all the rights and privileges accorded to the former.

    However, in spite of their protestations that it is their being that is being attacked, what they really fear is their whole sexuality – physical, emotional, and mental – being brought into question of which they assume they have an exclusive preserve. But they do not have an exclusive preserve to “their” so called expression of sexuality. In a way they have been too successful in marketing themselves as the 21st century, metro, avant garde in all things sexual. The so called 21st century “heterosexuals“, not wanting to miss out are also experimenting with sodomy, rimming felching, scats, cottaging and all the rest of the dim sims menu. The consequence of this is that if someone criticizes a particular behaviour, they can no longer be accused of being either homophobic or heterophobic. The homosexual has lost that which identifies himself as something distinct.

    The Christian and those who still function according to Christian paradigm must not therefore be drawn onto fighting territory not of our choosing. We must not be drawn into arguing about a conflict between two mythical sexualities. What we have to keep a clear view of is a physical, emotional and mental sexual expression that contradicts and denies the family structure that produces stable, balanced, secure children and a stable, balance secure society.

    A law that was proposed by Lord Waddington and which was miraculously passed in the British House of Commons, on Wednesday 7th May was a significant victory in reinstating the status of marriage. It says: “for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

    There is not a dicky-bird said either about homosexuality or any other sexuality. It just talks about behaviour. This is a mortal thrust against the homosexual lobby and I anticipate a redoubling of their efforts to re-instate their special status.

    Perhaps it is too simple to need stating but what I am trying to say that our sexual behaviour does not define who were are; it is who we are that defines our behaviour. The behaviour of a practising sodomite denies who he realy is.

    David Skinner, UK

  • I understand the necessity of leaving an apostate church. However before one takes that step, one should consider whether where one is going isn’t also becoming corrupted. Just by leaving a Church and thus “shaking the dust from one’s feet” might not be enough to make it come to its senses. One can only change things by being in it; as Luther found out this can be a very uncomfortable thing. Better to be thrown out, rather than just leave. I don’t know how Biblical this is.

    The book of Ephesians has for may years been held up as a book about church unity but my reading of it is that it is increasingly about warfare; indeed, it ends with some vivid instructions on how to wage it. Church unity and integration are not the same as the universalist’s mantras “inclusion and diversity” which have been seized with an almost religious fervour. Not only does Jesus Christ tell us that many are called by God but that few are chosen. The letter to the Ephesians orders the church to enforce this selection and to exclude those within the church fellowship who are clearly not called, or who behave as such, until as such time as they are brought to repentance.

    Although Jesus Christ is the final judge, there is a burden of responsibility laid upon us all. The universal church does have responsibilities in making sure that there is a clear distinction between the Christian and all others. Like an invading and infiltrating army we have to be in society but not of it. Above all, like troops, in Normandy, during D-Day, engaged in fierce hand to hand fighting, often at night, we need to recognise friend from foe.

    Paul, in writing to the Ephesians clearly describes how the Christian must separate themselves from gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. He describes those outside the family of God as: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

    Further on he said; “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity…….because these are improper for God’s holy people….have nothing to do with the fruitless seeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret……Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.”

    The Church of England protests against the charge that it is leading the vanguard in moral corruption by pointing out that it upholds, personal relationship, monogamy and life-long commitment; but this is no better than the morality of some heathen cultures. The Church can tick all the moral boxes but if it is not obedient on this one issue – no matter how trivial or minor it might appear – then it strains at gnats and swallows camels.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Keep up the good words Bill. Love the sinner and hate the sin, and you are telling them very clearly they are sinning against God. The only person that we better be pleasing is God, He made us and knows what is best for us. The wickard are angry when they hear the truth, so take heart all when you are on the Lord’s side you are apposing the devil who is very organized these days, to have control of men’s lives.
    Rhonda Jaunitis

  • Hi Bill, this has little direct relevance to the above article, but I was wondering if you had heard of this ‘Evangelical Manifesto’? It is quite an interesting read, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

    www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/manifesto.php

    Cheers, Adam Dean, Vic.

  • Thanks Adam

    Yes I am aware of it and for the most part endorse it. It pretty much expresses the evangelical world as I see it, but it might be worth further comment in the form of a future article, so stay tuned.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • There seems to be a significant amount of Christians speaking up against Christians for the wrong thing. Ms. Porter has the right to her thoughts but as a representative of Christ needs to exercise wisdom is sharing them with the rest of Australia. What does the Word say? Something about not conforming of the patterns of the world? So why is it that the some people are so quick to please people for the sake of popularity and downgrade the message and meaning of the Gospel? The Gospel is not to be watered down, down played or omitted for human purposes or popularity ratings. Compromise should not be part of our existence.

    Understand that grace is a God-given gift, but grace does not give us an excuse for distortion of the Gospel.

    This reminds me of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who called upon the black American community to sing out “God Damn America” for all the wrongs of the white community. He is singing out against past racism with racism and trying to proclaim Christ while he does it. Different issue with Ms. Porter, same principle.

    I commend you, Bill for being one of those Christians who exercise their God-given authority in not just encouraging the church but also rebuking those who speak out against its core. There need to be a major increase of Christians that are not willing to compromise for society’s sake but are able to stand firm in the Word of God. Matthew 5:10 tends to be a passage that comes to mind at moments like these “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

    Roxanne D’Souza

  • Bill,

    Seems to me that the Manifesto calls for a Reformation of Evangelicalism, questions the “prosperity gospel” preached by many evangelical churches, and calls for a retreat from the dangerous culture wars that have divided America.

    … we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.

    It is also very critical of the alignment of religious belief with one side of politics or the other:
    The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer”, Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests.

    Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith; and it would be no improvement to respond to a weakening of the religious right with a rejuvenation of the religious left. Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons.

    If you endorse it, you must have given it only a cursory read. It seems to be at odds with positions you have consistently espoused.

    Steve Angelino, WA

  • When it comes to stand on the biblical truths about the modern issues – including homosexuality – strangely, people do get mix message from the biblical interpretation.

    We are called to express the truth in its most basic and simple terms – sin is sin; nothing more, nothing less. If God called homosexuality as sin, we should do too. Such a prompt for us, not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, but rather to be transformed by the renewing of our mind.

    God hates sin, but He loves the sinner, as what has been echoed by others. We choose to love the people, and yet, we are to detest the thing that God despises.

    Winy Yiska

  • It must be hard for someone like Mrs Muriel Porter who has fought tooth and nail for so many years on the subject of homosexuality and has convinced herself to a point where she no longer see the biblical truth but her own distorted view and belief system to change.

    It is so clear what Bible teaches on sexuality and the church will not compromise on same sex marriage yet the Muriel Porters of this world will continue to march on this senseless path of sin.

    The only way they can see the truth is when their spiritual blindness is unveiled by God. Then only will they know the truth and the truth will set them free.

    Betty Kee

  • Thanks Steve

    You may be wrong, but at least you are consistently wrong! As an atheist who seems to religiously scour this website, looking for yet another thing you can argue about for whatever reason, you should know that there is nothing in the Manifesto that I radically disagree with. I too have said that Christianity is ultimately above party politics, and I too have warned about overly politicising the faith. And just where on this site do I extol the health and wealth gospel?

    There are of course some areas in this Manifesto which I would have minor differences with, as would be expected. The writers of the Manifesto would also expect, and encourage, such areas of disagreement and discussion. And as I said, I will soon write up an article assessing the Manifesto.

    But it mostly summarises my views, and those of most Evangelicals. Sorry, but you will have to try harder to find major divisions to exploit, when they in fact are just not there.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I agree with your sentiments Bill, I do not think that Steve from WA has a strong argument. I do not understand why there is so much worldview pushed here. Let us get back to the facts. God is real; there is evidence to support that fact. ‘People are created in God’s image’ This is a quote from the Old testament. Therefore God sets a standard for people to live by and abide by, He created us, and expects to live a certain way. I am not pushing a viewpoint against homosexuals, their lifestyle choice is ultimately a choice. If it is not God’s standard. It should be choice outside what God wants for our lives. Should I even dare use the age old cliché saying, “God created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve”.
    Dave Reid

  • I disagree with dave reid, i dont really think that God does exist, thats just foolish thinking.
    Alyse Porter

  • Steve Angelino,
    It is painfully obvious that you commented just to have a dig against a Christian website. What is your real opinion regarding the issue here? Try speaking without trying to sound politically above it either. The fact is that the sweetest freedoms come through obedience. Only harm comes through raging against God. We have morals, values and commands not to take our fun away, but to avert us from the hurt that comes from doing something wrong. I wish those in politcal arenas understood such a simple principle.
    Adrian Marriott

  • Alyse, the world is too complex to have it just happen. Even though you dont think God exists… He does.. even if you dont believe in him…He Believes in you….
    Dave Reid

  • Alyse, if belief in God is foolish then you’ll need to count the following scientists and inventors as foolish: Lord Kelvin (chemistry). Albert Einstein (physics/mathematics), Johannes Kepler, Sir Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton (physics/mathematics/astronomy etc.), Carl Linnaeus (medicine/flora&fauna classification method), Georges Cuvier (zoology/botany) – established anatomy and palaeontology), Michael Faraday (electricity), Louis Pasteur (chemist, scientist who has saved more lives than any other), Leonhard Euler (mathematics), Gregor Mendel, Samuel Morse, Charles Babbage [mathematician], Sir Joseph Lister (father of modern surgery) Francis Bacon (modern scientific method) Herschel, Pascal, Ramsay, Stokes, Dalton, Fleming, Maxwell etc etc etc etc etc… (hundreds more great scientists, many of whom have made the greatest and most far-reaching discoveries of mankind)

    I could go on (and on) with a list of great men and women of immense intellect and creativity who all held a foundational belief in a creator. These listed are just a few of the scientists – you should see the list of great writers with formidable intellects such as C S Lewis and J R Tolkein, and the artists, statesmen, heroes, leaders etc. etc.

    As Louis Pasteur said “The more I study, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator”.
    and Sir Isaac Newton who declared “… Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

    And someone who you may know… while he may not state a belief in God, Steven Hawkings suggests “One possible answer is to say God chose the initial configuration of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand… The whole history of science has been the gradual realisation that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but they reflect a certain underlying order, which may have been divinely inspired.”

    Hawkings, like children, have enough intelligence to ask “so who made whatever was originally there in the first place?”

    Well, I guess you know best… I guess it must be a lot smarter just to swallow a lot of theories and go with what you’re fed.

    Garth Penglase

  • Garth,
    You make some good points i guess, but im still unsure about the whole god thing. He just doesn’t seem to have a big enough reputation for the name that he should carry if he indeed has done so much,
    Alyse Porter, Melbourne

  • Hi Bill, thank you so much for directing me to this article that you posted back in 2008. After reading & re-reading, I consider the topic material very relavent in our current dealings with the same sex marriage plebiscite which is currently stalled in Canberra. In the light of what is happening in Australia at the moment, “The Religeous War against Marriage” is an article worthy of an update and re-post if you have time with your current work load. Upon reflecting on the material that you’ve so kindly referred me too, I wouldn’t want to be in Mrs Porter’s shoes when she finally has to face The Judgement Seat. Again Bill, thank you for your timely response on Mrs Porter, I am more determined than ever to cry out to GOD for our country. Best wishes, Kelvin.

Leave a Reply