Strong language in a title I know, but it's not harsh nor over the top. How does it work & how is it going to work against us and be probably too late for many when they finally notice?
Here's the nutshell analogy, and when you consider it all perhaps spare a thought for the political party you vote for, or are a member of, or you hand out how-to-vote cards because this disease will creep in and eventually dominate political parties...if it hasn't already.
If you work for Australian Quarantine or Australian Customs you work in important government departments dealing with regulatory protection of Australia & border security enforcement. You get training & its ongoing but you also get training in the relevant Acts of Parliament. There's a reason for this, amongst the Legislation are all the rules & regulations you as an employee you adhere to and enforce. In effect, the Act not only guides you in your day to day work, it protects the employee. If you're adhering to the relevant Act & underlying regulations you have safe harbour.
The Act is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.
If on the other hand you're in an incorporated not-for-profit organisation or club and you are all debating, arguing or having an almighty & ungodly savage bunfight over what you should or shouldn't be doing as a group then first stop is the constitution. Its the "articles of association" or the rules about which you exist.
The constitution is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unsure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.
So how has that been linked to say Same Sex Marriage (SSM)?
Here's a few examples.
On twitter, Aussie actor Rhys Muldoon made a simple, short tweet in support of SSM & homosexuality which gathered a great deal of support & applause. That's his twitter feed, he choose what he says. His choice. He said...
"Here's every single word Jesus said on homosexuality: "
And that was all he wrote, meaning Christ said nothing about homosexuality at all. With Rhys's staunch public defence of SSM & homosexuality I can only assume his tweet is aimed at Christians against SSM reminding them that the Christian Lord & Saviour never condemned homosexuality and Christians should follow their leader's example. It gathered a good deal of applause and supportive comments, likes etc.
Except...that premise fails on at least 2 grounds.
1) You can easily argue that Christ didn't mention a single word about bestiality...but pretty obvious thats a horrid sin to any Christian. Yes Peter Singer's atrocious and appalling comments on ABC's Q&A come to mind but the second argument against Rhys' comments (which he's not alone in expressing) are more compelling
2) Christ said a great deal about marriage and also about homosexuality. You just have to go read the Bible because...
The Bible is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unsure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.
You actually only have to read the Gospels of Paul. He was one of the Apostle so when he was preaching, he was speaking God breathed Words, not his own but God's. Now who is "The Word"? Scripture is pretty clear, Christ is. So when Paul made comments it was Christ speaking via Paul.
So its pretty clear, Christ is not sanctioning nor allowing homosexuality, same sex marriage, adultery...none of it. He condemn homosexuality, called it sin. Did He condemn people out of hate? No, love thy neighbour all the way but loving your neighbour does not equate to ignoring any & all sin they commit. In fact the Christians are clearly required to go out and make disciples of all nations, bring people to Christ which, if you go to the go-to-manual, the reference document means they accept Christ & turn away from their sins.
So really the Christian has no room to move. Its not their position, not their rules, not their opinion its actually instruction from God so any "christian" or "church" that sanctions or support homosexuality or SSM is not Christian at all. Their job is love one another and help others find Christ & turn from sin so they're saved...not condemn or heap hate upon anyone. Simple, and either not understood or deliberately omitted.
So a "church" like the Uniting Church which is gay affirming is not Christian.
Margaret Court may well be right in opposing SSM & homosexuality but she's a female pastor. That too is against the Christian Scripture. Hers is not a Christian church either. Ironically non Christians who are fevently pro SSM use the Scripture on the qualifications of Pastor to try & nullify her SSM comments. Quite odd seeing people who are devoutly anti-Christian pluck one section of Scripture they don't believe in, that suits their cause and hide or dismiss any others that oppose them.
The Uniting Church does go further as a false church though. It has several female "pastors" which apparently must be called "priests" and never never ever to be called "priestesses" because that conjures up dangerous connections to anti Christian practices like the occult, black magic, etc.
Enter the "reverend Avril Hannah-Jones" who is the priest/priestess of a Uniting Church on Australia's east coast. She's pro SSM. She's gay affirming. She's also stood at the alter of the church at a "science fiction" service and yes, she's even stood at the pulpit dressed as a witch. You know that occult black magic thing that the Bible says avoid at all costs. Interesting.
It gets weirder. Whilst she avoids Scripture that points against SSM she's openly claimed that due to her faith she is celibate even though Uniting Church doesn't require that. She openly explains she is a "celibate bi-sexual"
Now the Church of the Bible (and the Bible) doesn't allow same sex marriage, doesn't allow homosexuality, doesn't allow un-married anyone to be a pastor and doesn't allow women to be pastors. It also doesn't allow adultery which is sex outside marriage. You cannot be bi-sexual without committing adultery because you cannot be married to both a woman & a man.
Now if Avril actually opted to adhere to Scripture how would she be?
Resign as a priest/priestess. Call homosexuality a sin & turn away from it, call adultery a sin and turn away from it and turn to Christ as her Lord & Saviour, follow the Bible's teachings and join a church that is Berean in its teachings.
It all points to the current claimed "gay theology" which is really the doctrine of the Cult of Leftist Liberal Theology.
Whatever you want to do, is ok as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Anything is fine and using reference documents, go-to-manuals is optional and usually reserved only for those times when you're defending your own chosen behaviour that conflicts with others opposing the Liberal Cult.
Having said that, Seven Day Adventism, Jehovah Witnesses are actually as un Christian as Scientology. The Berean principle is to be like the Bereans who listening to preaching then check the Scriptures daily to see if it is so. Yeah, like...
The Bible is the go-to-manual, its the reference document. Unsure? Go there, done.
Don't lie or make assumptions, go there, check and adhere.
Then after all of this, the Leftist Liberals that are dotted amongst the churches and church leaders...they avoid totally uncomfortable bits of Scripture because at some point they're going to have to work out a way to loudly demand God apologise to Sodom & Gomorrah.
So, homosexuality is not supported nor sanctioned by Scripture and we shouldn't pretend it is. Should the church attack & condemn LBGTI people? Nope, not at all, not ever. Bible is clear on what the church should do.
This entire example of the Leftist Liberal Theology Cult is also what has delivered us into several big messes around the globe, where people don't check facts, don't use facts and use what's now called "alt-facts" or alt-truth & fake news...resorting to facts only when it supports their predetermined positions & views.
Am I 100% right and totally sin free? Not even close. But I don't twist Scripture to get a point or falsely close down a view I find uncomfortable or confronting. We're entering an age where its increasingly the case that rules are there for the twisting and only to be applied when catching someone of a different view.
Some people are entirely ok with breaking the law because it suits them, it benefits them or it profits them. They may be guilty of breaking the law, but when caught more criminals don't feel guilty for their actions. They're sorry, but not all are sorry for their actions, just sorry they got caught.
This is the age we've been in for centuries but now its becoming more and more mainstream.
You can thank Post Modernism, Relative Truth and Subjective (disposable) morals.
Donald Trump isn't to blame for everything, but post modernism's alt-facts, alt-truth and optional relative morals got him into office. When standards are optional this is what you get.
Ironically the hard core Leftist Liberals oppose Trump the most, but its their Cult Doctrine that ushered him in.
If you're in a political party, a club or a Not-For-Profit organisation you're going to see optional adherence to reference documents & go-to-manuals...your constitution and/or board charters.
Edward DeBono called it Arrogance Arguing where people will hide a fact that demolishes their position. Why be right when you can win is becoming mainstream and standards are slowly being viewed as shackles against freedom.
Its in religion, politics, the workplace and everyday life. Perhaps it always has been.
Try finding a solution and installing it.
You'll be as popular as ants at a picnic.
No comments:
Post a Comment