Kevin Rudd’s Mental and Moral Meltdown
Let me state this right at the outset: I have never trusted Kevin Rudd, and I have always thought Christians who blindly support him have been easily misled. The simple truth is this: if you claim to be a Christian that means you obey Christ and the Bible. If you refuse to do so, then stop pretending to be a follower of Christ.
The former Prime Minister has just come out of the closet, telling us he as a Christian thinks homosexuality and homosexual marriage are just peachy keen. He thus has shown us his true colours. They may be the colours of the homosexual rainbow, but they are not the colours of biblical Christianity.
His 2000-word defence of his change of heart is painful to read. His mental gymnastics, moral obfuscations, and theological sleight-of-hand tricks are appalling – certainly for anyone who claims to be some sort of Christian. We expect all this idiocy from pagans and homosexual militants, but not from those who try to pass themselves off as believers.
Indeed, reading through this, one finds the exact same arguments used for decades now by the homosexual activists and their secular buddies. All the old red herrings, straw men and tired chestnuts are repeated here. All the usual clichés, bloated rhetoric, and sham jargon are found here as well: “marriage equality,” “discrimination” and so forth.
It is all straight out of the homosexuals’ playbook. And Rudd still claims to be a Christian in all this! Sorry, but you are nothing of the sort – you are just a stooge for the militants. You are doing their bidding perfectly. Everything they want you are fully and foolishly advocating for.
With so much inanity contained in such a short piece, it is hard to know where to begin. And of course I have already spent 20 years rebutting all these lame arguments – so the case why Rudd is so dead wrong can be found in my book Strained Relations. But I don’t wish to repeat myself here.
Let’s examine a few of his whoppers. Consider this lulu: “I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay.” Not abnormal? Not wrong? And you still claim to be a Christian? Sorry Kev, but you must choose here: we either agree with the Word of God, or we reject it.
And it looks like that is exactly what he has done: he has completely trampled on the biblical witness, and sided with the activists. And no choice in the matter? So you mean all those homosexuals who say there most certainly is choice in the matter are just liars? I quote many of these folks in my book of course.
He also deliberately deceives when he says “30 years of research has seen … that same sex families do not compromise children’s development.” Hogwash. There are 50 years of research showing how children are gravely disadvantaged when they are not raised by their own biological parents, cemented in marriage. My book also deals extensively with this issue.
And he seeks to make his case by saying he grew up without a dad, and suffered no ill-effects. That is about as helpful as saying he grew up without one leg but got by OK. Of course you can, but it is never ideal. Fatherlessness poses very real negative outcomes for children, as thousands of studies have documented. I just recently offered a very brief survey of this mountain of data:
Of course a large part of his piece is a very confused understanding of church-state relations. He wants the church basically to butt out here, and leave a redefined marriage as a secular state affair. And this from the same guy who claims to idolise Bonhoeffer. You remember him, the guy who felt that his faith and beliefs must directly impact on the State – and who paid for this with his life under Hitler’s regime.
But now Kev wants an altogether different approach, and he raises all the same baloney that atheists like Dawkins raise: the Bible also supports slavery, witch-hunts, etc, etc. Oh puh-leeese Kevin, your biblical knowledge and understanding is just as skewed and twisted as that of Dawkins. But at least he does not pretend to be a Christian.
The state has a very vital interest in the social institution of marriage. Strong healthy heterosexual marriages are good for children, good for societies, and good for nations. That is why the state has always had a keen interest in promoting heterosexual marriage, but not other forms of relationships. I discuss that more fully here:
He also foolishly, naively, or disingenuously informs us that churches should not be forced to restructure their beliefs when homosexual marriage comes in. Hate to break it to you Kev, but they are already being forced by the heavy hand of the law to abandon their beliefs and compromise their convictions.
I have offered heaps of examples of this on my site, and my new book will feature hundreds more. Whenever special rights for homosexuals are granted, including marriage rights, then of necessity the church suffers, freedoms are taken away, and Christian conscience is trampled upon. See here for just a sampling of this evidence:
Rudd also informs us that part of his change of heart was due to a homosexual Pentecostal staffer! Oh great, so if you have an adulterous Baptist staffer, or fornicating Catholic staffer, will you ditch the biblical position on those sins as well?
And he has the gall to tell us his change of heart and why he wrote his piece is because “it is the right thing to do”. No it is not at all the right thing to do: it is the politically correct thing to do, the men-pleasing thing to do, and the anti-biblical thing to do.
All of which is expected of atheists and homosexual militants. But when people try to cloak this deception and immorality under the guise of Christianity, then you know we simply have yet another wolf in sheep’s clothing. But given that this is always how I felt about the guy, I for one am not the least bit surprised.
53 Replies to “Kevin Rudd’s Mental and Moral Meltdown”
I have expected and looked for this article ever since I heard the news this morning.
He seems to think that we can all have different ideas about marriage, well, in that case that must go for everything. If I think this is a chair and you think it is something different then your communication is going to fall apart pretty soon. Apart from all the other damage the wrong idea about marriage is going to do to children, adults, everyone, before that happens.
Hey, I didn’t ask to be born a sinner either, but since I find myself in that position and since God has offered me a way out of that predicament, why not take it?
Why is it that people think if they just think differently about reality, reality itself will change? They really must think they are God. Someone better explain to Richard Dawkins that this is the real “God Delusion”.
I have spent much of today reading the Rudd change of heart and comments about it.
I agree with your assessment of it, Bill, and note that Kev has a previous tendency to changing his mind on important matters.
On a more positive note, it’s pleasing to see Moscow has refused to allow a gay pride march for the 8th year running.
Maybe our arch enemy of the Cold War can teach us a thing or two.
Also there are rumblings from dissatisfied members within the British Tory party over their stand on SSM, due to be voted on very soon.
As soon as I heard it on the radio I thought to myself there goes a man who wants to buy another term in office for no other reason than selfish gain.
As pathetic as Mr Rudd is, I am certain that there are loads more jellyfish politicians, just like him sitting on the Liberal front bench.
Unlike the Labor party who have declared their support for SSM, according to recent news, the Liberals will wait until after the election to revisit this issue in their party room.
That seems pretty deceitful and pathetic to me.
Mr. Rudd has always to have everything both ways – unlike his sister who left the Labor Party rather than support so called ‘gay’ marriage. I feel that Mr. Rudd is attempting (once again) to set himself up as the leader of the Labor Party when they lose the election in September. Some hope!!!
Any Marriage other than heterosexual marriage is not a marriage and cannot be paraded as such however much they may decorate them up to be. Put a tutu on a pig is it anything other than a pig? God has called any moral deviation from the normal processes that He Himself put in place to be sin and an open rebellion against His will. Kevin Rudd is no Christian in taking the stance that he now advocates, he and his weak kneed friends are as every bit in sin as those whom he has thrown his support behind in their deviations and push to shove down the throats of every decent moral person.
He needs a new slogan “Rudd the Dudd”.
Leigh D Stebbins
Read this Kev:
The best proof that homosexuality is not genetic is provided by studies of identical twins, where one is straight and the other claims to be gay.
Well said Bill. Have never trusted him either.
Rudd’s missing the spotlight I think. Needs to remind everyone he’s still there.
Of course people are lining up to congratulate him.
I hope he enjoys the 15 minutes of fame before he fades away into obscurity as an opposition back bencher after September.
Bill, what can I say? I love you. I love how you keep leading the charge when we are all feeling beleaguered by the onslaught of homosexual militancy and the general public’s utter stupidity and/or apathy. I had a faint quirky affinity with Kevin Rudd for coming back at Julia to ensure she left through the same door she entered but oh….my….there it goes….it’s gone. Go Bill, go.
Anna von Marburg
The last paragraph of Rudd’s edited blog published in the Brisbane Courier-Mail is telling and really shows his true colours –
“My core interest is to be clear-cut about the change in my position locally on this highly controversial issue before the next election, so that my constituents are fully aware of my position when they next visit the ballot box. That, I believe, is the right thing to do”.
This statement is instructive – what he really means is he has done some quick polling in the Electorate and found there are voters with alternative sexual preferences and he will use them as political fly-paper to hold his seat.
He also mentioned in the blog he takes his lead from the great theologian Thomas Aquinas – well Kevvie – this Good moral teacher’s body must be spinning in its grave while his immortal soul petitions the Lord on your behalf to forgive you your misreading of moral theology.
Seems Kev & others who claim to be ‘Christian” have taken St. Paul to an irrational extreme. They seek “To become all things to all people so none will be offended”. Such seem much more prevalent from Politicians as elections draw near.
I must admit that I could not “stand” Mr Rudd from the moment he appeared on the national scene, but I tried to be objective and give him the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. As a conservative voter I was also happy to give him a chance to prove himself as a good leader, but he has now finally proved himself in a woeful way.
It was interesting reading and taking part in the Fairfax comment columns today. Many pro funny-marriage people were very sceptical of Kevin Rudd’s sincerity in this announcement. It seems to be a very political move and one that is especially damning because it plays havoc with decency and common sense.
I’m a Catholic and have no faith in any politicians. Whilst a Joe De Bruyn Labor person, this is a present for the secularist movement. Won’t be long before the Liberals go down the same path. Thank God for Jesus and in our case the current Pope, Francis, and the previous 2 Popes in my lifetime who are non compromising to grab a few popularist votes from either side. Admire and Adore God, be inspired by saints not politicians.
p.s and some in the Catholic Church thought it would come from the false Pope, not the ex PM!!!!
Bill, I wish you could expose Kevin’s hypocrisy some more. Kevin values political power more than the truth of God’s word. Of course I have never seen him as a Christian. He has a political ambition which must be met at all cost – if that means selling his Christian convictions for the devil’s lie. Very unfortunate.
About 6 months prior to Rudd becoming ALP leader, I read a “Christian” article written by him. All I can remember re: that article is thinking “social-gospeller-only,” rather than “salvation-through-Christ-alone” which, properly applied, leads to a more-perfect social gospel than those who reject the message of salvation could ever dream of.
Another excellent assessment, Bill.
I see three core problems with Rudd’s changed approach to homosexuality:
1. The inconsistency in his method of interpretation. Can I presume that he wants me to read the article on his homepage literally so that I understand its content? Should I read the article literally that he have written for The Australian today, ‘A matter for the state, not church’ (21 May 2013) so that I get the common, everyday meaning of what he wants to convey to me? When I pick up my local newspaper, an historical book, a geography book, a book on politics, or my Bible, should I interpret it literally, metaphorically or as a postmodern deconstructionist? The answer should be obvious. If I want to understand the plain meaning of the text, I read it literally and don’t impose any allegorical, metaphorical or postmodern deconstructionist meaning on it.
2. Kevin Rudd does not want us to take the same method of interpretation to the Bible. This is the hypocrisy of his position. It’s OK for Kevin Rudd to need a literal reading of his article on his homepage and in The Australian to understand his position, but it’s not OK to read the Bible literally.
3. He stated that he is a Christian but he doesn’t know his Bible very well. This especially relates to his statement, ‘I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay’.
The apostle Paul disagrees with him profoundly in the inspired Scriptures. Which Bible has Kevin been reading? It is not the one that includes 1 Corinthians 6:9-11,
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 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 (NIV).
The Scriptures put homosexual behaviour in the same category as other sinful actions: heterosexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling. And have a guess what? All these homosexual behaviours can be changed. The Scriptures state clearly, ‘That is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God’. And that applies to homosexuals, male or female. Jesus changes all kinds of sinners.
Only this week I have been in email contact with a redeemed lesbian whom I have known for 21 years, who has been wonderfully changed by the living Jesus and has no desire for a homosexual relationship and that has been her situation for the last 25 years. I don’t fall for Rudd’s line that people do not choose to be gay. God’s Word is clear that homosexuality is a sinful behaviour and when a person comes to Christ as Lord and Saviour for salvation, Jesus changes these people, including male and female homosexuals, from the inside out.
Thanks Bill. Funny how the current leaders of the ALP seem so prone to ‘thinking things over’ and changing their mind. Julia Gillard made a quick about-face on the carbon tax and Kevin Rudd now makes his ”I’ve thought it over and now I’ve changed my mind” stance on same sex ‘marriage’. Would it be just too cynical and a bit too simplistic to suggest that there’s a time and a place for honesty and it isn’t just before an election that you want to win.
I would like to know what kind of church he belongs to, it can’t be a Christ centred, Bible based church because if it was then I would expect the minister to be giving him a very serious talking to.
The real tragedy is that influential Christians gave such credibility to Kevin Rudd AFTER he had voted for the abortifacient drug RU486, before which ignorant journalists had trotted out his self proclaimed admiration for what they termed “a little known German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer”. Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposed abortion for the evil it is. The Catholic Bishops missed a great opportunity too by not throwing the book at Kevin Rudd when he was contesting the Prime Ministership against John Howard AFTER he had voted for RU486. The rest is history…tragic history. Naive Christians should not be so readily taken in by politicians who as Kevin Rudd did, conspicuously displayed his bible under his arm as he boarded aeroplanes when he was seeking the top job. And politicians who choose to give door stop interviews under pretty lych gates outside pretty Churches on Sunday morning! “By their fruits you will know them” is how we are all best judged. Kevin Rudd has been a bitter lesson for naive Christians.
Denise M Cameron
Pfffft I never believed his lying backside to begin with. Just like he pretended to be a fiscal conservative but turned out to be another load of bullocks.
A few years ago, I saw Kevin Rudd interviewed by a television news journalist as he was leaving a church service with his wife. Mr Rudd referred to “God” as “She”. If it was supposed to be a teflon moment, it sure has stuck for me.
Oh Mr Rudd is a Christian is he! Now let us see:
– seems to still hold a grudge against his enemies.
– petulant behaviour including foul language.
– Selfishness – all about him “look at me”
I dislike Julia especially in the manner of attaining the office of PM. If Kevin is a Christian then he should be showing the fruits of Christianity.
I agree with you about the theological, factual and logical errors in Kevin Rudd’s position, however you are determining a man’s salvation based upon his position on homosexual marriage.
That is not right. Salvation comes from Christ, regardless of how many mistakes you make in public policy.
We are saved by grace alone, not by the theological consistency of our public policy.
Speaking of consistency, loved your line about Bonhoeffer. Brilliant! I’m going to use that in future, and not just to Rudd apologists.
I of course did not make a declaration as to his salvation. Only God knows those who are truly his. But the New Testament is full of admonitions to assess where folks are at. Jesus for example said we will know them by their fruit. We are obligated to hold each other up to the standards God has set for us.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have never considered him to be Christian. So I’m not at all surprised by the rubbish coming out of his mouth.
Couldn’t stand the part where Rudd said that ”we are in the year 2013″!….Really! So what! I couldn’t care less whether it is 2013, 1013 or 3013! Absolutes are not dependent on what time it is. They reflect the being who instituted them.
I have a feeling i could end up jail within a few years…all because of my thoughts! ….when the relativism police lock up anyone that simply doesn’t accept homosexuality as okay.
What a bizarre time we are in!
Bill, you could send the Kevster an autographed copy of your book, but he could afford to buy his own. Of course, that would be casting your pearls before a swine. One needs only to read 1 Kings 22 to realise that the LORD has granted the request of at least one lying spirit, perhaps a legion of them, to come down to earth and fill the hearts and minds of an entire generation with falsehood. The outcome is not pretty, but it is certain.
Yes quite right.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I would put good money on the fact that he already has a copy – but it is just sitting there collecting dust. And I know for a fact he has an earlier debate book of mine on homosexual marriage – guess he just read the other side’s argument in that book!
But it is quite clear he is not interested in truth and evidence here. He is simply another men-pleaser and vote-chaser.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
If two gay people get married it will not change who they are or how they live. It will just give them the chance to tell the rest of us that they are the same as the majority of society. Here in lies the problem They are not the same because the vast majority of society is not like them. Many of us find what they do to be quite off putting. They do have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it is legal and does not effect anyone but that does not mean it is acceptable. We can tolerate something without having to accept it. There are many other reason why I think homosexual activities are not in the best interest of society but I will not soap box on your platform.
In regards to K Rudd…. he is a hypocrite through and through and has no credibility whatsoever.
You are right, Bill. None of this is surprising at all. Rudd is of the world, and has no moral compass to guide him but his feelings, like most people. Of course he will reject absolutes – at least the ones he recognises as interfering with his life anyway. If he allowed moral absolutes to speak to someone elses life, that might have too many uncomfortable implications for his own.
In regard to what he wrote, I really hate it when people play that either/or game of assuming that if attraction isn’t a result of choice it must be because people are ‘born that way’. Does nobody ever consider that environment plays a part in shaping people’s responses and desires in life?
It’s also astonishing how many times the assumption comes up that those who speak against homosexuality have never encountered anybody in this lifestyle. Most people I know who hold to the view that it is morally wrong, know someone, and have known someone for a long time, myself included for several people. Knowing someone battling in a moral area of their lives doesn’t change morality – what a ridiculous world it would be if that were true.
One of the biggest errors with this whole pointless debate (pointless because anyone with a shred of common sense should be able to figure it out in five seconds) is that people mix up identity, attraction and behaviour into one big category. But thousands of people who have left the homosexual lifestyle give lie to the idea that no-one can change their behaviour to correctly adhere to the sexual paradigm the human body is made for. We are born male or female – that’s it. But attractions are not necessarily what you were ‘born with’, neither do they compel you uncontrollably to only act a certain way. And attractions can often be shaped over time too. We are human beings, not animals.
If homosexuality is not abnormal, why does everybody on the planet have a mother and father? Isn’t that a smallish clue? God writes the reality of sex on your own body – everybody’s body – and that is not enough evidence for you? A 10km high neon sign that says ‘male and female – God’s design’ could not communicate the truth more clearly!
I’m surprised with that ludicrously uncontextualised mention of slavery and polygamy in the Bible, Rudd didn’t continue on and talk about shellfish, mixed fabrics and pork as well! It astonishes me that people honestly think they can claim to be Christians all the while as they effectively state Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about in Matthew 19, nor was God competent enough to make human beings a specific way for the function of sex. The irony of arguing this too is that it is admitting we are flawed (ie. our physical sexual selves don’t correlate to our actual sexual selves), yet we are supposedly still cleverer (somehow an effect is greater than its cause) than the One who made us to criticise His knowledge on the subject!
I am unaware of any human invention or creation that has ever been able to reproduce itself. No car, no washing machine, no satellite, no computer, nothing. But when new life is created by a male and a female, they are only using what God originally kick-started and holds the patents on. We have no credibility to criticise God about His creative power and knowledge. God made the most amazing process on the planet to give us life, and we treat it like we know better. We don’t.
Another odd thing in Rudd’s convoluted diatribe is where he states this:
“Furthermore, there is the reality of a growing number of Australian children being raised in same sex relationships. Either as a result of previous opposite-sex relationships…”
Mr Rudd doesn’t seem to realise that if he admits that sexual ‘orientation’ can change in terms of behaviour, his entire argument is immediately void, because by that token the only definition of sexuality left that has any real meaning is simply male and female, which marriage law already covers. Every man can already marry, and so can every woman. If people can only produce children under one kind of relationship, and not under another, their own lives testify to the truth. Marriage simply reflects that truth and is available to all Australians.
So, we already have marriage equality in Australia, Mr Rudd.
Sigh. Such a garbled mish-mash of contradictory and impractical ideas (multiple definitions of marriage simultaneously in society, exemptions to churches, etc.) from someone who used to be considered worthy of running our great country. It’s not just him and his self-deception I am sad about, but the people who would think such a man had the leadership and wherewithall to even run a chook raffle. Says a great deal about the ALP and those who vote for them.
Finally, as has been pointed out above, identical twins give lie to the underlying premise of Rudd’s argument, but then so does a testimony like this I received recently from a friend:
The fact such a testimony even exists – and there are thousands of others like it – proves Mr Rudd utterly wrong. It should be mentioned that it would be worth contacting you member in the House of Reps in the next week or so since the Greens’ Adam Bandt has a ssm bill up for vote on 6th of June that needs to be rejected. The woman who wrote the above is happy to be quoted if you want to use part or all of her testimony. I don’t think some politicians – our so called representatives – are getting the message that Australians do not want this. And the next time somebody claims a majority are for it (as Rudd seems to claim) point them to a referendum (which oddly Rudd also mentions in addition to voting in parliament – which sounds rather confused to me), something activists will always reject because they actually know they do not have the numbers.
Sorry for the length…we return you to normal programming… 😛
Spencer, I believe you are right in saying Kevin Rudd does not know the bible, but more importantly, he does not know the Lord, the knowledge of whom gives understanding (Prov 9). There are many Christians in the world who know very little of the bible, not because they don’t want to know, but because the Scriptures are not available to them and yet they know and love their Lord and their fruit proves it.
I certainly pray that His “coming out” will prevent Christians from voting for him ow, whose vote he has been obviously used to attract in the past. Bill, I had a further thought on your analogy of living with 1 leg. What the ssm people are saying is actually that it is quite okay, attractive, pleasant, comfortable, convenient and useful to live with 2 left or 2 right legs and still be able to run, walk, jump, buy clothes for oneself etc. We have all seen people with 1 leg and all know there is something missing, but surely no one would suggest that living with 2 legs the same would be normal, desirable or functional.
An excellent article Bill. While Kevin states that he managed without a father, in actual fact he had both a mother and a father at one time. Children produced for same-sex couples are literally deprived of a mother or a father on purpose.
I recently read an article on this issue and the writer stated that SSM is an affront to women and mothers. In using a surrogate to produce a child treats the mother as nothing more than a slave to their desires.
Rudd used Bonhoeffer’s story to con people into thinking he was a Christian. Even though he was once a Catholic, then changed to an Anglican he obviously forgot to read the Bible while attending these churches. With Julia against it of course he would now support it. Nothing has changed.
Thanks Bill for exposing Keven 07 more than he already has himself. Like others have expressed here, most of us have never really trusted him. He is just a good pretender, one reason he gets on so well with Obama – two of a feather. We should be thankful that he has come out with this, raising more awareness for those that are concerned.
Bill Heggers, Perth
His rubbishing of Christianity doesn’t sound dissimilar to Barack Obama who also used supposed biblical tolerance of slavery as a reason to support Gay marriage.
I would had thought slavery is a cultural phenomenon, not of God. Besides William Wilberforce used the NT to justify the abolition of slavery.
I also note Kevin makes the claim that divorce law is especially strict and a man can beat a woman to an inch of her life and still not separate. I have no idea where he get’s this idea? I guess their interpretation is connected to slavery in Exodus 21:20-21?
Before Mr Rudd became the PM. I was convinced that he stood for truth – Christian with great conviction due to his conviction concerning Dietriech Bonhoeffer’s Christian writings and conviction and his stand for justice. Catholic and Evangelical Churches from Anglican to Baptist supported him blindly and when I heard on the radio that he has compromised Christian and biblical truths of what God has said in His Word and I no longer trust him and respect him. I agree with Bill Muehlenberg that ‘The simple truth is this: if you claim to be a Christian that means you obey Christ and the Bible. If you refuse to do so, then stop pretending to be a follower of Christ.’ May God raise up men and women who have a great conviction about God and His truth at any cost to run political offices under the guidance of the Almighty God by His Holy Spirit to change history someone like great man – William Wilberforce. May God convict the sin of compromising God’s Word of political and spiritual leaders. God will judge the sins of immorality for sure like Sodom and Gomorrah. We need to repent of our sins and forsake our sinful and destructive behaviours and turn to God asking Him for forgiveness or else we will face his divine judgement on the last days.
Mr Rudd, this claim remains to be proven as yet.
I sympathise with his sister, who, in contrast has stood firm on this. She ought not be forgotten. Imagine how galled she must be!
I am surprised by how many Christians, even in these comments, that were fooled into thinking of Rudd as a Christian.
I recall ample evidence at the time, not the least his pause when confronted at the cricket and the whole strip club incident in the US, as well as clear reporting by yourself and groups like Saltshakers.
Were people ill-informed or too keen to be easily convinced?
thank you Bill
once more the chorus is loud and overbearing
the ‘desire’ to exercise a person’s “FREE” will is paramount
the choice a person makes is THEIR right
the responsibility for that exercise then FOLLOWS that person
if GOD, who gives one life lets one live for a little while it is in hope that they will hear and see and TURN FROM THEIR WICKEDNESS and be healed
otherwise the life granted will be but a breathe
AND judgement WILL follow for ALL who continue in their ways
god simply requires obedience
SACRIFICE he does NOT desire
repentance is the correct response to sin
heaven is near
If he suffered no ill effect from having grown up without a dad, that is due to the grace of God making up for where we lack. It is dishonouring to God, false to reality and a discredit to his logical thinking abilities to try and persuade people that there is a logical connection between fatherlessness and ssm.
Any chance of getting Margaret Court into the Senate?
For the record:
A traditional family unit remains the most treasured
by: TALKING POINT From: The Australian May 23, 2013 12:00AM
TO be swayed by a conversation over coffee and change your mind from what you once believed to be the correct moral and ethical position about marriage – as that covenant between a man and a woman only – to now sanction secular gay marriage unions is almost unbelievable, except that the person swayed is Kevin Rudd.
To be influenced by a member of a Pentecostal church, who would one day like to marry another bloke is an absurd rationale to alter one’s long-held, cherished beliefs.
We have a former gay man in our church who advocates that only a man and a woman should marry. Could he come to coffee with Rudd?
Marriage has not failed in our nation; those involved have failed in its ideals. One-parent families suffer regardless of what Rudd says the figures show. Our school chaplains can verify this.
We need politicians who will not compromise their beliefs for vocal gay groups who would have the general public believe they are being denied rights. They have no rights to assume marriage, for by its very definition they cannot fulfil the responsibilities to create the family unit for which marriage was established.
God created marriage to create the building blocks to a happy, healthy society. The gay lobby seems determined to destroy the basic family unit in our nation by wresting marriage away from its protective, exclusive definition. What next?
Every child has a right to have a mum and a dad and to be raised in a loving, caring family unit. If the question is posed to the public, wouldn’t we all say that is the ideal? A traditional family unit is the most desired and treasured relationship for any person.
Margaret Court, Victory Life Centre, Perth, WA
KEVIN Rudd’s conversion to a pro-gay marriage supporter highlights the ludicrous concept of a conscience vote by MPs on moral issues such as gay marriage. Whose conscience do they reflect by such a vote?
To take Rudd’s case, if a vote had been held last week his conscience would have compelled him to vote against gay marriage, but this week it would compel him to vote for the proposal. But what of the consciences of those in his electorate? Have his constituents also had a conversion? If not, where does his authority to exercise his individual conscience on behalf of his electorate come from?
A conscience vote makes a mockery of our democratic process. An issue such as gay marriage should be resolved by a referendum.
Paul Giardina, Bayview Heights, Qld
KEVIN Rudd’s backflip on same-sex marriage shows that public opinion is changing due to emotional responses rather than from a spiritually informed perspective. The word of God must be examined if an honest conclusion is to be reached on an issue affecting the wellbeing of individuals.
Sue Carlyon, Independent Pastoral Care, Kyneton, Vic
THE same-sex marriage issue, orchestrated offshore as a global movement is, at it’s core, a part of that marvellously predicted moral and spiritual revolution, an anarchy of ideas by which all standards set up over 20 centuries shall be reversed, all honoured traditions trampled underfoot and, above all, the Christian ideal finally obliterated.
We are replacing truth with expediency as our ultimate reference.
Bill Webster, Holland Park, Qld
I SEE Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same-sex marriage. But why is he making a fuss about it?
Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman who can reproduce and raise a family. To change a definition for the sake of fairness is a category confusion. If the basis of the revised definition becomes love, there is no reason to limit marriage to two. Fairness need not imply redefinition.
Chris Jolliffe, Beaumont, SA
I am not anymore concerned of the same sex marriage because I believed that this is going to happen in the world which is heading towards that direction. After New Zealand, followed by France and then being debated in UK and now in Australia, Kevin Rudd is stirring it. I believed that this is one of the signs that the world will become more evil and it is now happening, so this issue is one of them. Jesus is coming very soon becasue of this, so we just prepare ourselves of asking forgiveness so we can be a spotless bride and will not be left behind together with evil people.
Why do homosexuals needs to be married? Why don’t they just live-in as partners and have peace within?
Yes I hear you and agree in part. However, while it may be the end times, then again it may not be. The truth is we have been living in the last days for 2000 years now, and all sorts of times have been said to be the end. Jesus said we are to occupy till he comes, being busy with the work of the Kingdom. That does not mean complacency and resignation to the world’s ills, but being salt and light right up till the very end. We have a job to do, and resisting the attack on God’s institutions of marriage and family is one of them. We cannot succumb to endtimes apathy and indifference. That is not the way of Christ at all. Just imagine if Wilberforce took the same attitude – imagine if he said ‘I am not anymore concerned’ about slavery. We would still have slavery today and millions of blacks would still be in chains. So we dare not let our view of the endtimes become an excuse for complacency and doing nothing. But I speak to this more fully here:
But thanks for sharing.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I know a retired evangelical Anglican minister here in Brisbane and he told me that, to his knowledge, Kevin Rudd & his family attend St John the Baptist Anglican Church, Bulimba (Brisbane), which is in his electorate of Griffith. My friend said that the Bulimba Anglican Church, to his knowledge, was theologically liberal (as are most Anglican churches in Qld). This article in Wikipedia confirms that Mr Rudd attends the Bulimba Anglican Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd
Agreed Bill. I don’t want the status of my marriage and its sanctity reduced just so Kev and his ilk can win a few votes. Let the homosexual formal cohabitation agreement be called Sodomisation.
Marriage infers that when I say I am married I do not have to explain or apologise for the fact that I am married to a member of the opposite sex. Alternately sodomisation or sodomarriage is self explanatory and will not give rise to an inquisition.
I watched Kevin Rudd on the television when he was asked the question “Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?”. His hesitant response as he avoided eye contact was “Well, I go to church.” End of story. At that point, with the body language and answer, the world had been informed that he was most definitely not a bible-believing committed Christian. If you missed that video, you will be surprised at his apparent about-face. I, for one, was not.
I hope that his sister even stands so strongly for what the Bible says that she decides to disassociate herself from him. He is not a Christian.
I sent his Twitter account the following tweet as soon as I heard about his change of heart in the Herald Sun:
@KRuddMP U have proven once and 4 all that UR not a Christian. Christians stand for righteousness whereas u chase votes by condoning sin.
Mario Del Giudice
He has certainly proven he is not a Christian up to today, but “once and for all”? Only our Lord and saviour can close the door on salvation, for He knows all the details of every heart. So I take the liberty to still pray for Kevin’s salvation until I am aware he has died.
I wasn’t meaning that he is beyond repentance, but what I did mean was that he was showing his true colours as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Mario Del Giudice
“Hate to break it to you Kev, but they are already being forced by the heavy hand of the law to abandon their beliefs and compromise their convictions.” Where are the “heaps of examples” of this on your site?
Hey I’m not going to do your work for you! Of nearly 500 articles on this topic, at least 100 deal with these very issues, so start reading: https://billmuehlenberg.com/category/ethics/homosexuality/
As but one example, check out this one article which offers 36 examples of this:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch