text:
Category Archives: Sex
When will bigots quit bullying Margaret Court?
(Pastor Margaret Court AO, MBE, OAM: Court at the net in 1970, courtesy Wikipedia)
This article was first published in the Australian e-journal, On Line Opinion, When will bigots quit bullying Margaret Court? 27 January 2021.
It has hit the fan again in pronouncing Australian grand slam singles' tennis champion, Margaret Court, "a bigot" for her views on homosexuality and gay marriage. The yelling has come because she has received the highest civilian honour of the level of the Order of Australia, "The Companion of the Order of Australia," on Australia Day, 26 January 2021.
I'm using bigot according to the customary English definition, as referring to "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion" (dictionary.com 2021. s.v. "bigot"). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives a more detailed definition as referring to "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group" (lexico.com 2021. s.v. "bigot").
How is Margaret Court a bigot?
Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, slammed "the decision to honour Mrs Margaret Court, saying he didn't want to give her "disgraceful, bigoted views any oxygen. "I think calling out bigotry is always important," he said. He then later reiterated his disapproval of the honour on Twitter: "Grand Slam wins don't give you some right to spew hatred and create division. Nothing does," he wrote.
He spoke of the proposed granting of the Order of Australia (OAM) to Margaret Court on 26 January 2021. Why is the winner of 24 grand slam, singles, tennis championships a bigot according to Daniel Andrews? His claim is her stand on the Bible's view of homosexuality and marriage is the practice of bigotry. He wouldn't use the language of the Bible's view but the media are happy to label her a fundamentalist Christian.
Let's get it straight Premier Daniel Andrews.
Who is being the bigot? Is it Margaret Court who promotes the Bible's view on sex and the marriage relationship or is it Daniel Andrews who is so enamored with the LGBTQ agenda that he can't see the trees for the mulga? Does he need their views for votes at the next election?
Let's get something straight. From the mouth of Margaret Court: She does not discriminate against homosexuals. She 'loves' them: "She insists although the bible stands against homosexuality she 'loves' and supports gay people through her church."
The media and Premier Andrews regularly have a vendetta against Margaret, forgetting to tell the people that this was Jesus' view of the marriage relationship: "God said, 'That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. And the two people will become one'" (Matthew 19:5, citing Genesis 2:24).
Jesus did not need to say: "Homosexuals should not marry." That was contained by inference in his statement that "a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife." Wives were female in the time of Jesus. Jesus did not support the view that "a man will leave his father and mother and be joined (in sex) with another male."
Was Jesus also being a bigot against homosexuals like Margaret Court is being accused of? Surely the media and Daniel Andrews would place Jesus also in the category of a bigot!
Bigotry is a serious Australian issue.
Daniel Andrews' believes "calling out bigotry is always important. I don't seek to quarrel with people but I'm asked a question and I've answered it." This is one point on which I agree with Mr Andrews. It's important to identify bigotry. Why can't Mr Andrews see that his calling Margaret Court a bigot has caused much harm to her personally and the evangelical Christian community – those who take the Bible seriously?
The Honourable Daniel Andrews in 2018
48th Premier of Victoria
Elections: 2014, 2018 (Image courtesy Wikipedia)
Mr Andrews can't get a handle on his own bigotry of being "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." His bigotry opposes an eminent Australian sportswoman who promotes a biblical world view on marriage and sexuality. It has been endorsed by the Christian Church for two millennia. But Mr Andrews considers it's suitable for him to label Margaret Court the bigot and not call himself out as a bigoted, left-wing Labor Premier.
Mr Premier, it's time for you to own up to your own opposition to Margaret Court's world view and call your opposition for what it is – bigotry.
I'm a bigot when it comes to going to the doctor when blood is seeping through my urine. I discriminate at elections. I vote for the party whose values most consistently harmonise with my Christian world view. I will not support a party that murders unborn children and calls it a mother's choice and does not make this a criminal offense.
In Australia, it is now illegal to kill, trap, poison or interfere with wedge-tailed eagles in any way. "In Queensland waters all whales, dolphins, dugong, seals, sea lions, marine turtles and threatened sharks are protected under the provisions of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) and relevant subordinate legislation."
Aren't these bigoted, discriminatory actions against this wildlife? Of course it is in order to protect these animals. However, it's not a criminal offence to slaughter unborn children in the womb. When will Australian governments grapple with the legalised murder they endorse?
Since a bigot is one who "is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion," by definition that makes Dan Andrews a bigot towards someone who is an outspoken supporter of the Bible's view. For 2,000 years this has been taught by the Christian church but when Margaret Court dares to be faithful to her God-given commission, she is called out as a bigot by Daniel Andrews.
When will Dan Andrews also get a handle on how discriminatory his words are towards Margaret Court that should be considered persecution or bullying of Mrs Court? 7Sport (23 Jan 2021) had the headline, "Margaret Court says she's being 'bullied' and it's time for critics to stop."
"Bullying" refers to a "person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable" (OED 2021. s.v. "bully"). The OED gives synonyms of bully as persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, browbeater, intimidator, coercer, and subjugator. Margaret Court considers she is being bullied and persecuted. By these definitions, that's the truth. The media, some tennis players, and a Premier such as Daniel Andrews have bullied, persecuted and browbeaten Margaret Court. It is time for these people to own up to their bullying and persecution tactics and quit doing them immediately.
Let's black mail Margaret Court!
Two factors need to be noted before I comment on this example. "She" is a transgender person and "she" is an activist who could not tolerate a person who supported a biblical Christian's view of sexuality and marriage. "She" did not use the language of anything to do with a Christian world view.
How would you react to the title of this article? "Canberra doctor hands back OAM in protest against Margaret Court's Australia Day honour" (SBS News, 24 January 2021)?
The essence of the story relates to Dr Clara Tuck Meng Soo AO, who was recognised in 2016 for her work as a medical practitioner with LGBTIQ+ and HIV positive communities. The issue that is causing the furore in 2021 is that Dr Soo is handing back her AO because the decision to award Australia's highest honour to Margaret Court is made to a person who has made comments that are "disparaging of same-sex relationships and transgender people" and that has been "very distressing." For a photograph of Dr Soo, see: https://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-open/doctor-hands-back-oam-amid-margaret-court-controversy/news-story/17b1183ec9e0f3ce4cf698b13bdf61f6
Dr Soo continued:
If the honour awards people like Margaret Court, it is sending a message to the community that is okay to make hateful, derogatory comments about disadvantaged segments of the community…. And I felt that if I actually retained my award, I would be condoning that system.
It must be noted that Dr Soo is discriminatory towards Margaret Court's Christian world view. Dr Soo let us peer into her agenda. She told SBS News, "I may also add that I have spent most of my adult life as a gay man before my gender transition to a woman in 2018. Therefore, have both professional experience as well as lived experience of the communities that Mrs Margaret Court makes these derogatory and hurtful remarks about."
Leading ABC commentator, Kerry O'Brien, has done the same thing. He has refused to accept the AO medal on Australia Day 2021.
Mr O'Brien had earlier agreed to accept his appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) in Tuesday's official honours [26 Jan 2021]. But on Saturday, he wrote to reverse his decision in protest against Mrs Court's elevation in an awards system that had already recognised her achievements as the winner of 24 Grand Slam singles tennis titles, and her charity work, with an Order of Australia in 2007 (The Sydney Morning Herald, Kerry O'Brien refuses Order of Australia after Margaret Court honour, 25 January 2021).
Getting honest definitions
There are some queer statements made by those who are anti- the homosexual agenda and those who are pro- the Christian perspective. I'm using "queer" in the sense of strange or odd (OED 2021. s.v. "queer").
This queer definition places homosexuality outside the purview of being able to criticise it and present a different view. That makes the pro-homosexual position one of bigotry or discriminatory.
This queer definition makes Christianity's biblical views of homosexuality into bigotry when compared with the politically correct perspectives promoting gays as a viable lifestyle supported by the general populace.
ABC News (21 Jan 2021) reported Margaret Court's views of her statements about homosexuality and marriage:
I am a minister of the Gospel, I have been a pastor for 30 years," she said.
I teach the bible, what God says in the Bible and I think that is my right and my privilege to be able to bring that forth.
I'm not going to change my opinions and views, and I think it's very important for freedom of speech that we can say our beliefs….
I think it's very sad people hold on to that and still want to bully, and I think it's time to move on.
Pastor Margaret Court said she was "honoured" to learn of her new award for tennis on the court and her work off the court.
I still represent my nation, I pray for my nation, I pray for the LGBT, I pray for the premiers in this nation and the Prime Minister," she said.
When asked about the hurt her views on homosexuality may cause to LGBT people, Ms Court said she never turned people away.
"I have them come in here, I have them into community services from every different background, I never turn them away," she said.
"And I was never really pointing the finger at them as an individual. I love all people, I have nothing against people, but I'm just saying what the bible says."
The 78-year-old said she was disappointed about how her views had been portrayed in the media and feels she was singled out due to her "high profile" (ABC News, 23 January 2021).
The facts are:
(1) The Christian world view and its view on sex, including homosexuality, will always be a country mile from the secular (godless) view. It will be labelled as bigotry or discrimination, without bothering to check that the secular, pro-LGBTIQ view is just as bigoted and discriminatory.
(2) Those who call Margaret Court's Christian view on marriage to be bigoted and discriminatory are blind to the fact that their opposition to Court's view presents another – but different – bigoted approach to reality.
(3) Margaret Court promotes Jesus' vies that marriage is between a man and his female wife in first century culture, customs and biblical Christianity.
How can this be resolved?
Get journalists, Premiers, doctors and other people in the media to be more careful with their words. I can't see that happening.
Examine the presuppositions underlying a person's statements. The likelihood of Daniel Andrews agreeing with Margaret Court's world view is zero. He needs to admit that up front: "I have an agenda and it is not Christian. In fact, it is anti-Christian and I won't change my mind."
Margaret Court has already admitted, "I should always be able to say my views biblically, being a pastor and helping people with marriages and family. And I'll never change those views."
Remember the safety against religious bigotry in the Australian Constitution:
The starting point in any discussion about religious freedom in Australia is section 116 of the Australian Constitution:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
There are four prohibitions on the Commonwealth in this section:
establishing any religion
imposing any religious observation
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion
requiring a religious test as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Therefore, for Daniel Andrews to prevent Margaret Court from the free exercise of the teachings on Christianity, he violates one of the prohibitions, "the free exercise of any religion," guaranteed by the Australian Constitution.
Copyright © 2021 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 27 January 2021.
This entry was posted in Cultural Apologetics, Freedom of Religion, Homosexuality, Mass media and tagged bigotry, Daniel Andrews, discrimination, Grand Slam tennis, Homosexuality, Margaret Court on 27 January 2021 by spencer.
Pornography: "One day you'll beat it"
Watching pornography rewires the brain to a more juvenile state
Conquering porn addiction
(Image Moraine Lake Panorama, Canadian Rockies)
Those of you who are observant and have read articles on my home page, Truth Challenge, should notice there is a contradiction between the content of these two articles:
Pornography: "One day you'll beat it" and
I was conned by Christian counselling [1]
In the first article I was counselling with a person who would not understand biblical counselling. Most of my professional life as a counsellor was working with secular clients who did not operate from a Christian world view, so I had to use secular models – that were effective.
In the second article, I'm critiquing the way secular therapies have crept into Christian counsellor training, all in the name of "Christian counselling." I entered such a program for my MA and thought it was going to be Christian counselling. It wasn't. It was an integration of secular psychology/counselling. I voluntarily allowed myself to be conned.
Sadly, the title of this article is a typical response from those who have not been therapists and had to deal with tough cases, especially when helping those with a desire for more and more porn. Many Christians take this approach. My experience is that these people who love the Lord don't know practical ways to help the person battling pornographic addiction.
My experience as a long-term therapist is that most people are out of their depths in offering practical help to those battling addiction, including pornography.
So, they brush it aside with unhelpful slogans like the title to this article. This is an unsupportive response as it prevents the person from travelling down the road to recovery. In counselling, I've heard people tell me that their friends say: 'Hang in there mate. You'll get over it one day. You'll grow up and become a man who doesn't need that kind of sexual junk'.
None of these clichés is a caring response like: 'I've never had that problem, but I'll seek some ways to find you help. It might mean going to a counsellor'.
1. Fundamental principles
With any of the emotional disorders such as anxiety, depression, addiction, anger, worry, procrastination, and smoking, people tend to think that something causes the emotion: e.g.
'I'm anxious about swimming in the ocean when large sharks have been seen in the water'.
'My wife has left me and got into bed with a close friend', so that has made me deeply depressed.
'Watching that porn on my Tablet has caused me to go back and back to watch porn and become addicted. I don't know how to get this out of my mind'.
'I smoke because it relaxes me after a hard day at work'.
2. A basic approach
With all of the emotional disorders, I use Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT). It's a form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT). Some of its core principles include:
· 'For as people calculate in their souls, so are they' (plural from footnote in Prov 23:7 ESV). 'What he thinks is what he really is' (GNT).[1]
(Image courtesy Pinterest)
Albert Ellis, founder of REBT, often quoted the Greek philosopher, Epictetus who taught the same kind of thing: 'Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them' (The Enchiridion §5).
(Image courtesy Inspirational Quotes)
Both statements from the Bible and Epictetus agree with the fundamental of short-term REBT. Large sharks in the ocean cannot make anyone anxious. A wife committing adultery is not the cause of deep depression by the husband. Watching porn on a Tablet cannot cause anxiety about its danger and possible addiction.
How come? Things do not cause emotional disturbance. It's our view of things (thoughts or beliefs about them) that bring on emotional issues.
You might find it hard to believe that this works. Research has confirmed the effectiveness of REBT with children and youth.
2.1 Practical ways to deal with pornography
Block every porn site on your PC, phone, Tablet and any other electronic device you access. If you don't know how to do this, check it out with an IT geek.
If you try to get around this by using tricky ways to find other sites, you are not being honest with your thoughts for seeking help. Why are you doing this when you know pornography is harmful to you and your relationships?
That's only the first step to deal with what your mind is doing. Here is a biblical and cognitive-behavioural way to overcome the problem. It will mean discipline by you and accountability to one other person who is serious about helping you. He or she can ask you nearly every day how your thoughts are changing. You have to be 100% honest with him or her.
Guidelines for the accountability person are in 'Job description for accountability partner' in the agreement below: 'COMMITMENT TO CONTROL MY USE OF PORNOGRAPHY (contract)'.
Unless you conquer your porn addiction, you will take it into your marriage and your spouse will never be able to perform according to the porn actresses or actors.
2.2 The ABCDEF model to conquer porn addiction
This is the ABCD model[2] of dealing with your emotions and pornography involves your emotions.
A Activating event for your anxiety (watching porn online or wherever);
B Beliefs about addiction and why you need to watch porn.
Remember, it is not the porn itself that causes you to go back again and again and to repeat it in your thought world. Porn has no power to make you an addict.
Something else does have that power. These are your thoughts about porn. You'll need to fill these in, but many addicts believe …
I MUST view porn to bring satisfaction in masturbation.
I MUST use porn techniques in the sexual relationship; otherwise it will lack satisfaction;
My mates will think I am weak if I'm not into exciting pornography. They get sexual excitement that way and I need their approval.
I'm depriving myself if I flunk the porn test with friends.
What are your beliefs or thoughts about why you need to go back to porn, over and over?
2.3 Three MUSTs in your thinking
In this form of therapy, there generally are 3 basic MUSTs in your thinking. Applied to pornography, they are:
I must do well and win others' approval (especially with the person who introduced me to porn) by continuing this addiction, otherwise I'm no good.
Others must treat me fairly and kindly and in the same way I want them to treat me – even though I'm battling pornography. If they do not treat me this way, they are not good people and deserve to be punished.
I must always get what I want, when I want it. I must beat porn addiction NOW. Also, I must never get what I don't want. If I don't get what I want (instant stopping of porn), I'm miserable. It's awful when I can't conquer the urge to watch and think about porn images.
If you don't obtain MUST #1 you'll probably feel anxious, depressed and perhaps guilty.
If you don't achieve MUST #2, you are most likely to feel angry and act aggressively.
If MUST #3 is not fulfilled, you may procrastinate and feel self-pity.
Therefore, the key to dealing with porn is to change the thought patterns in the 3 MUSTs. Remember, things such as porn do not cause addiction. Your thoughts about porn DO.
C Consequences: emotions and behaviours associated with porn addiction.
Effects of thinking include emotions, behaviours and other thoughts. The behaviours for the person with problems with porn are the regular desire to pursue thoughts about current porn or porn seen in the past.
D Debate the beliefs at B.
How rational is it that you MUST bring porn into your mind when you masturbate? (Can I presume you masturbate? Most males do.)
How will you expect your spouse to perform in sex to compete with the sex actresses? What about you in comparison with the male actors?
Here are some helpful questions to help you dispute/debate the irrational beliefs at B:
"Where is holding on to this belief getting me?
"Is the belief helpful, or is it self-defeating?
"What do I get out of while holding on to this belief?
"Where is the evidence to support my belief?
Is my belief consistent with actuality?
"Is my belief rigid or flexible?
"What's another way I could look at this?
"What other helpful belief can I use to replace this unhelpful belief?"[3]
E Effective new thoughts replace old beliefs at B.
For the Christian, Philippians 4:8 (ERV) is a key in beating all kinds of anxiety, depression or addiction: 'Brothers and sisters, continue to think about what is good and worthy of praise. Think about what is true and honorable and right and pure and beautiful and respected'.
You will be successful in getting porn out of your thinking if you change (by your choice) your thinking to what is good, worthy of praise, true, honourable, right and pure, beautiful and respected.
Who will hold you accountable for putting off the old beliefs and putting on the new?
F New Feelings
I will make sensible decisions about pornography. I will not beat myself and have anxiety if I relapse for a time or two. I accept that battling temptation is a normal part of the Christian life.
So give yourselves to God. Stand against the devil, and he will run away from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. You are sinners, so clean sin out of your lives. You are trying to follow God and the world at the same time. Make your thinking pure (James 4:7-8 ERV).
The difference between Christians and non-Christians who battle with pornography is that Christians know they battle on two fronts: (1) Against their irrational and ungodly thoughts, and (2) Against the devil, whom they must name and resist him. He will not give up easily in dragging you down.
To better understand the REBT model of cognitive-behavioural therapy for various counselling issues, I recommend Dr. Michael R Edelstein and Dr. David Ramsay Steele, Three Minute Therapy (lulu.com 2019).
3. How to be an effective accountability person
See the contract below for details:
COMMITMENT TO CONTROL MY USE OF PORNOGRAPHY (contract)
Because I care for myself, my family and others, I (write name), …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………
commit myself to do the following things to control my use of pornography:
1. Block every pornographic site on whichever device I use to access the Internet or magazines.
2. Accountability to one person with whom I'll be 100% honest about my use and images of porn.
3. To pursue the biblical therapy of, 'For as people calculate in their souls, so are they' (Prov 23:7 ESV). This is fleshed out in a REBT model of therapy (Rational-Emotive Behaviour Therapy), i.e. your actions will be determined by what you think about an issue.
4. Effective new feelings will come when you practise biblical thinking, 'Brothers and sisters, continue to think about what is good and worthy of praise. Think about what is true and honorable and right and pure and beautiful and respected (Phil 4:8 ERV).
I agree to the following person to hold me accountable to check on the above actions once per week:
(1) Name: …………….……………………………………………………………………………………………
Address: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Phone & email contact: ………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Job description for accountability partner
(a) Ask the porn user what his/her thoughts have been since you last saw him/her.
(b) How much porn has he/she watched?
(c) What anxiety has he/she experienced from porn use?
(d) What did he/she do about the anxiety?
(e) Make sure you understand that what people think they become (Proverbs 23:7).
(f) Therefore, how is the porn user practising the ABCDEF model of therapy? You need to be clued up on this approach to cognitive-behavioural therapy. It's a short-term method of therapy.
(g) Make sure to ask the user what he/she is finding the toughest area in which to change. Help the person in this area by using the ABCDEF model.
Often people have problems with identification of Beliefs. Some say to themselves: 'I must never have a single relapse. Since I had a relapse that proves I'm powerless to beat this. Or, I must get these images out of my mind immediately or by the end of the month, otherwise I'm a failure'.
At D you will debate these statements with the user: Why must I not have a relapse? Where is the evidence for that? What evidence is written in God's laws of the universe as to how long it will take for you to gain self-control of your porn? We know that one of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control and that means as you grow in your Christian faith, the Holy Spirit will help you gain control (Gal. 5:22-23).
What Effective new thinking is needed? As long as you are a person, you will battle with your sinful nature (Gal. 6:1-5; 1 John 1:8-9). The Scriptures have given plenty of techniques on how to deal with sin.
In putting Philippians 4:8 (ERV) into practice, what has been your thinking in these areas?
'Continue to think about what is good and worthy of praise. Think about what is true and honorable and right and pure and beautiful and respected'.
To change your thinking, these questions need to be answered in regard to things that have no relationship to thinking on porn:
What good thoughts have replaced the porn thoughts?
What are you praising God for, instead of thinking on porn images?
What are truthful and honourable things in your circumstances? What have you said to yourself about these?
What thoughts have you had about what is right?
What beauty surrounds you? What have you thought about this?
Remember to pray with the person being healed from porn involvement: 'Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective' (James 5:16 NIV).
3. Porn user's commitment
I will be absolutely honest, co-operative and share to the best of my ability with my accountability persons I will do this for the benefit of:
1 .……………………………………………………………………..…….……………………..……..…………………..
I understand that my behaviour has not happened suddenly and that the turn-around may take some time to correct. I commit myself to attend a minimum of 6 counselling sessions. I will not participate in anything dangerous or illegal.
Name of client: …………………………….……………………………….……………………………..
Signature of client: ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Date: …………………..…………..…….…
Name of accountability person: ………………………………………………….……………………………………………………….……….
Signature of accountability person: ………………………………………….……..
Date: …………………………….………
[1] Good News Translation.
[2] It was originally developed by psychologist, Albert Ellis (Wikipedia 2020. s.v. Albert Ellis).
[3] These questions are from The Liberation Place n.d. Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: Disputing Irrational Beliefs (online). Available at: http://www.theliberationplace.com/images/PDF/Session-2.pdf (Accessed 11 June 2020).
Copyright © 2020 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 20 June 2020.
This entry was posted in Counselling, Pornography, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy and tagged Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, Three Minute Therapy Edelstein & Steele on 21 June 2020 by spencer.
Have politics changed ScoMo's Christianity?
'I'm not running for Pope'
The Honourable Scott Morrison MP
This article was first published by On Line Opinion, 6 November 2019.
What is Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, telling us about his Christianity with these statements?
Before becoming PM, he did not support same-sex marriage. What about now?
When interviewed by Leigh Sales, he had an opportunity to tell those watching what his views were on the existence and nature of God. He pushed that one aside with a 'love' view.
He's a Christian who doesn't mix religion and politics.
Which God is he serving? He and his family attend Horizon Church, Sutherland Shire, NSW, Australia. This is a Pentecostal congregation associated with the Australian Christian Churches, affiliated with the Assemblies of God worldwide.
He allowed the mass media into the worship service to see him with his wife at Easter Sunday service 2019. ScoMo was praising God with hand raised. This is a common practice in Pentecostal and other evangelical church worship, supported by Bible passages such as Psalm 63:4.
This article will examine how Morrison's Christianity integrates in public with his politics.
1. Prime Minister's moral views
When he was treasurer in 2016, he did not support change from traditional to same-sex marriage. This is in agreement with Jesus' endorsement of heterosexual relationships:
'''Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one flesh' (Matthew 19:4-6).
What about abortion?
The context of the recent abortion debate in NSW was when the PM acknowledged it was a State issue where the MPs and MLCs were granted a conscience vote. He would not make it a Commonwealth issue but acknowledged
"I have what I would describe as conservative views on this issue as people know I have on other issues. That's really all I think I need to say".
That statement was made after he became PM.
2. When new moral views become law
Now that homosexual marriage has been legalised in Australia, what is Morrison's view? Notice how he dodges the journalist's questions:
Mr Morrison abstained from voting for marriage equality when it passed the House of Representatives in 2018, and he voted "no" in the national survey.
When asked if he is still personally opposed to same-sex marriage, the prime minister replied: "It's law. And I'm glad that the change has now been made and people can get on with their lives. That's what I'm happy about."
When pressed on whether his opinions have changed, he told reporters in Perth: "I always support the law of the country".
So, he supports Australian law but won't own up to his current personal beliefs about homosexuality. I wonder, as a Pentecostal Christian, whether he accepts the Bible's view on the topic.
OUTinPerth, an LGBTIQ+ news source, observed ScoMo's views on homosexuality when a journalist interviewed him in Perth. Now he was supportive of same-sex couples being allowed to 'get on with their lives' because he 'always supports the law of the country'.
ScoMo would not be drawn into a discussion on whether he believed 'gay people would be sent to hell' – referring to the Israel Folau controversy.
3. His views on God
Leigh Sales of ABC's 7.30 grilled him on this topic: 'I'm not running for Pope,' Mr Morrison shot back. "I'm running for Prime Minister. And the theological questions are not ones that are actually, I think, germane to the political debate in this country'.
Then he defined faith as loving others, 'which is what I've always believed'. His parents taught by example, serving in local youth organisations, boys and girls brigade for the youth in their community. 'They taught me a life of faith and service and that's what my faith means to me. It means service and caring for others'.
He had an ideal public opportunity to declare his belief in the Lord God Almighty and Jesus the Saviour who offers salvation to the world. He turned to the 'loving others' definition of who God is. In my view he dodged the issues regarding attributes of God for a Christian PM.
When will ScoMo have the courage to lead the country in repentance and prayer for rain? He stated when it rained in Albury: 'I do pray for that rain. And I'd encourage others who believe in the power of prayer to pray for that rain and to pray for our farmers. Please do that'.
We heard former PM, Malcolm Turnbull, state, 'We can't make it rain'. Step up to the mark ScoMo. You know the One who sends and withholds rain: God the Father 'lets the sun rise for all people, whether they are good or bad. He sends rain to those who do right and to those who do wrong'.
I'm waiting on Morrison's call to the nation to flood into churches, public halls and local parks to pray earnestly for rain. We can't force God to send the rain but he has told us to 'never stop praying' and wait for his sovereign action in sending the liquid gold to the parched regions of the nation.
It is time for this Christian PM to tell us who sends the rain. This view espoused by many that 'we can't make it rain' is true but it avoids announcing who sends rain and how we should respond to the drought.
4. Religion does not mix with politics
Morrison told a journalist, 'he doesn't "mix [his] religion with politics"'.
Regarding homosexuals and hell, he clarified his view before the 2019 election: 'No, I do not believe that', he told SBS News.
However, only a year prior he supported Israel Folau's 'strength of character in standing up for what he believes in and I think that's what this country is all about'. Folau believes sinners go to hell. Does he support Folau's 'strength of character' without affirming Folau's moral and theological beliefs?
Does he believe all sinners go to hell? I have not found his making a clear public statement about this.
However, The Horizon Church where he and his family attend, stated in its Doctrinal Basis (for Australian Christian Churches), 'We believe in the everlasting punishment of the wicked (in the sense of eternal torment) who wilfully reject and despise the love of God manifested in the great sacrifice of his only Son on the cross for their salvation' (Bible references provided).
If ScoMo is a member of that Church he would have to accept this teaching.
5. Which Bible does ScoMo read?
Twelve months ago when he was treasurer, Morrison's views on morality and a Christian world view do not match his philosophy with biblical teaching today. From what I've written above, alarm bells should be ringing of conflicts between his beliefs and actions.
The first alarm concerns how a person's world view affects life in the real world, including politics. All of us have a world view, a lens through which we look and interpret all of life.
The global warming world view uses a certain set of lenses. Left wing and right wing agitators also use different lenses. The Christian and atheistic world views see life through the theistic God's existence (Christian) and the lack of evidence for God (atheism).
For ScoMo to state he doesn't 'mix religion with politics', he violates a Christian fundamental belief: 'And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him' (Colossians 3:17).
So, ScoMo, as a biblical Christian, should live by the teaching: 'I must mix my Christianity with political thinking and actions. By this I give thanks to God the Father through Jesus'.
A second alarm deals with ScoMo's acceptance of moral issues after they become law, e.g. homosexual marriage and abortion. The biblical view is that promoted by Peter and the apostles when confronted with the Jewish high council (the Sanhedrin).
The high priest stated: 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood on us! But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than people" (Acts 5:28-29).
Should that be ScoMo's approach to legislation that clashes with Scripture?
6. Bible, homosexuality and abortion
First Corinthians 6:9-11 is clear. Wrong doers or the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. These include those who indulge in sexual sin, worship idols, commit adultery, are male prostitutes, practise homosexuality, are thieves, greedy, drunkards, abusive, or cheat people.
If they don't inherit the kingdom of God, where do they go at death? Jesus said regarding the last judgment: 'They [the unrighteous] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life' (Matthew 25:46).
Therefore, Izzy scored the try across the biblical line while ScoMo fumbled the biblical material and presented a view that is foreign to the text.
(aborted 22 weeks, Campaign Life Coalition)
As for God's view on abortion, is it more than ScoMo's 'conservative' view? Is the unborn a living human being (from God's perspective) whose right to live should be preserved? Or is the unborn child a lump of cells of no more value than a chicken fillet?
Scripture teaches that human life exists in the womb: 'You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb' (Psalm 139:13).
In the New Testament (NT), when Mary and Elizabeth met, both being pregnant, Elizabeth's baby (John the Baptist) 'leaped in her womb' in salutation of Mary's baby, Jesus. Of special significance in Luke's account is that he used the same word brephos (NT Greek) for an unborn child (1:41, 44), the new-born baby (2:12, 16) and the little ones brought to Jesus to bless (18:15).
Medical science agrees. Every human life begins at conception. The approximately 65,000 murdered in Australian abortions every year are pre-born children – human beings.
In 1970, in the midst of the United States' abortion debate (it was legalised in 1973), the editors of the journal California Medicine (the official journal of the California Medical Association), noticed 'a curious avoidance of thescientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra or extrauterine until death'.
Therefore, to kill an unborn infant is to murder a human being.
ScoMo's world view is not driven by biblical Christianity's, 'We must obey God rather than human beings'. When he reneges on what the Bible says about the destiny of all evil doers, including homosexuals, he has made a trade off to weaken what the Bible states.
To affirm that he is not running for Pope and serves a God of love avoids fuller explanation of who God is: All-powerful, one who knows all things, has wrath as well as love; he offers salvation to all who believe; we can know him truly, and he is eternal.
Could you imagine ScoMo taking a stand on the 7.30 program like this? 'As a Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Bible, I endorse the content of Israel Folau's Instagram post. As a Christian PM, everything I say and do will be under the scrutiny of the Bible'.
I appreciate that that kind of comment would lose some votes at the next election – while gaining others – and could be used by the opposition to denigrate his beliefs in a multicultural Australia. Nevertheless, the Australian Constitution has its foundation in the five states that joined together, 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'.
All Christians are faced with the ScoMo challenge: 'Everything you say and everything you do should be done for Jesus your Lord'. Imagine the PM saying it like that to Leigh Sales!
In my view, the public life of politics has weakened ScoMo's overt Christianity.
ScoMo what will it be? Spiritual correctness or political correctness? Your future will depend on it.
This entry was posted in Attributes, Cultural Apologetics, Government, Hell and Eternal Punishment, Homosexuality, Presuppositions and tagged abortion, compromise, God sends rain, Prime Minister Scott Morrison on 2 November 2019 by spencer.
Israel Folau: When diversity means censorship
(photo Israel Folau, courtesy France 24)
A blogger stated: 'Folau is not being persecuted for his beliefs but for using his position within Rugby Union and Rugby Union owned and operated venues for propagating hate speach (sic)'.[1]
Where did he get the idea that Folau used his position in Rugby Australia's (RA) 'owned and operated venues for propagating hate speech'? Can he prove this statement? Folau made the post in his personal Instagram account and not from an RA venue?
ASICS, one of Folau's sponsors, dropped his sponsorship, stating (according to The Age): 'While Israel Folau is entitled to his personal views, some of those expressed in recent social media posts are not aligned with those of ASICS. As such, our partnership with Israel has become untenable and he will no longer represent ASICS as a brand ambassador'.[2]
Only a few days before the 2019 Australian federal election, the Folau issue and what he said led to a 'spat' between PM Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, according to the Fairfax Canberra Times:
Mr Morrison accused Mr Shorten of a "cheap shot" over the question on Tuesday and made it clear he did not believe that gay people would go to hell, one day after giving a less direct answer to the question….
"No, I do not believe that," Mr Morrison said in a statement….
The matter of personal belief arose on Monday when a journalist put the following question to Mr Morrison: "What's your belief, do gay people go to hell?"
Mr Morrison replied: "I support the law of the country and I always don't mix my religion with politics and my faith with politics"….
[Mr Shorten said], "I cannot believe that the Prime Minister has not immediately said that gay people will not go to hell.
When Mr Shorten was asked if he believed gay people would go to hell, he said: "No, I don't believe gay people, because they're gay, will go to hell. I don't need a law to tell me that. I don't believe it".[3]
1. They were religious statements
Photo: The image Folau posted on Instagram was accompanied by direct scripture quotes. (Supplied: @izzyfolau)[4]
That is an image of the Instagram statement made by champion Rugby Union player, Israel Folau, that has gotten him into the hullabaloo with RA, some rugby players, and especially the mass media.
Folau is an evangelical Christian born in Minto, NSW to Tongan parents. Minto is 38 km south-west of the Sydney CBD, in the local government area of the City of Campbelltown.
It is claimed the Wallabies fullback 'refused to delete his controversial Instagram post to save his rugby career during his code-of-conduct hearing with Rugby Australia'[5]. He recently signed a contract that was worth $4 million over four years.
The Anglican bishop of Grafton, the Rt Rev Dr Murray Harvey disagrees with Pogi: He "branded the religious statements of Australian rugby union player Israel Folau as hate speech".
1.1 Folau's quote from Scripture
What Folau said was essentially straight from the Bible:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV).
He did not state it on the rugby field but in a public post on his personal Instagram account, a public medium outside of rugby. Why have the media taken ONE sin from the list – homosexuality – and excluded all of the others mentioned in Folau's post and in the Christian Scriptures?
1.2 Where have the other sinners gone?
I haven't read of the sexually immoral or idolaters kicking a stink about what Folau wrote. The adulterers, thieves, and greedy have been strangely silent. As for the drunks and swindlers, they have zipped their lips.
(image courtesy Clipart Library)
Thieves, atheists and idolaters, from my observation, have gone hush-hush in this chain of events.
1.2.1 Verbal abusers and profane language
What about revilers? That's not a common word today. In English, synonyms include abuser, knocker [informal], rubbisher, slanderer, bad-mouth, curse and swear at.[6]
A reviler is a person who uses words to damage, control, or insult someone's character or reputation. Today we would call a reviler a verbal abuser. Reviler is a multi-purpose word that is used in the Bible to describe all manner of verbal sin, such as slander, angry outbursts, and foul language.[7]
The NIV translates 'revilers' as 'slanderers' and the NLT provides the meaning of 'abusive'.
To swear, slander, verbally abuse, have angry outbursts, and use blankety blank language is such a normal part of Aussie conversation that the folks who commit these sins laugh them off as, 'She'll be right mate. You're a fuddy-duddy old square who needs to lighten up if you object'.[8]
In the NT Greek, a 'reviler' is loidoros (singular), 'reviler, abusive person', as in 1 Cor 5:11 and 6:10.[9] First Peter 3:9 (ERV) uses a variation of this word that gets to the heart of the meaning,
'Don't do wrong to anyone to pay them back for doing wrong to you. Or don't insult[10] anyone to pay them back for insulting you.[11] But ask God to bless them. Do this because you yourselves were chosen to receive a blessing.
However, FindLaw Australia confirmed:
In a day and age where swearing has become so commonplace, that most people wouldn't even flinch when someone drops a swear word, it's remarkable to think that Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria all have laws regulating offensive language. The issue has received some prominence lately when a football player fronted court for offensive language. So if someone is about to go on a verbal blue streak in public, be careful, you may be in breach of the law….
Not only are the penalties for offensive language similar in Queensland and Victoria, but the definitions as well. Generally speaking, offensive language is considered as:
• disorderly
• offensive
• threatening
• indecent, and
• violent.[12]
While Folau has been crushed by RA, the mass and social media in raising the issue of homosexuals going to hell, why have all these other sins been overlooked and only one sin has been reefed out of the list?
1.3 Able to express offensive opinions
In his assessment of the Folau situation, Akos Balogh[13] has raised the issue of how all people ought to be able to express offensive opinions. He drew attention to some comments from the homosexual community's gay activist, Dawn Grace-Cohen, who wrote for Fairfax:
We all need to skill up to create a new world where everyone gets a fair go. When we are not demanding compliance with our own view, many Australians habitually attack a person with an alternative view, rather than countering with a reasoned argument….
We mock rather than debate. We use slut-shaming or racist, ageist and sexist slurs. We don't listen for the grain of truth in the opposition's perspective because we cannot bear the discomfort of there being no easy answer….
Then let him [Folau] keep his job, with considerable support laid on to help him explore what inclusion means.[14]
(Photograph Israel Folau, courtesy familyvoice.com.au)
It is Balogh's view that Australia needs a new conversation about real 'diversity', 'inclusion' and 'tolerance' in the workplace, especially. This call is urgent because it is not long since RA could have argued that its actions regarding Folau would have been easy to argue as RA "didn't show enough 'tolerance' or 'inclusiveness' towards Folau's 'diverse' religious viewpoint".
Instead, "'inclusivity' has now come to mean 'anyone who doesn't agree with us is excluded', and 'tolerance' means 'you must not criticise certain people or practices'. 'Diversity' refers to anything except viewpoint diversity".[15]
What type of public square[16] do Australians want? (1) The 'sacred public square' where one religion is preferred over all others; (2) The 'naked public square' which removes all religion; and (3) the 'civil public square
where people of all faiths and none, are free to enter into public life on the basis of their faith (or lack of it). The crucial qualifier in this model is that they do so within an agreed framework of what is just and fair for everybody else too. A good understanding of rights, responsibilities and respect are essential qualities for such a model to work. The Israel Folau case would test such a framework.[17]
With the Folau case, it is Balogh's observation that Australia is moving to 'the naked public square'.
2. Media promotion of homosexuality: Liberalising attitudes
Take a read of these headlines and the content of the articles:
"Gay rugby union club Sydney Convicts condemns 'offensive' Folau social media post" (ABC News, Brisbane Qld, 7 May 2019).
'NRL rule out Folau return over 'disrespectful' anti-gay posts' (SBS News, 12 April 2019).
'Israel Folau launches another anti-gay social media blitz' (ESPN, 11 April 2019).
'Australian rugby star Israel Folau shares more vile anti-LGBT social media posts' (Attitude Newsletter, 10 April 2019).
It is politically correct to promote homosexuality in the current Australian political, mass media, social media and everyday environment. To declare homosexuality a sin calls for an immediate labelling of the person as homophobic, which many times is an Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) logical fallacy.
It is erroneous reasoning because it suggests Folau's argument is biased by his predisposition that unforgiven homosexuals and other sinners go to hell. This is an invalid argument as it does not logically argue the case for homosexuality making a person homophobic.
The consequence of homophobic accusations is that there is a 'coming out' by prominent people such as Senator Penny Wong, retired Senator Bob Brown, rising Australian tennis star Casey Dellacqua, and Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce.
Phillip Ayoub and Jeremiah Garretson in their research reached the conclusion that
researchers, advocates, and policymakers, and producers should take into account how cultural contact through media can shape opinions and values, even across national borders. Television, film, radio and the Internet remain powerful socializing mechanisms through which younger generations come into contact with previously invisible minorities.[18]
This confirms the power of the mass media in promoting social change. I see it regularly when I view TV news and current affairs.
Homosexuals and gay supporters were outed when Australia voted for homosexual marriage. According to the Australian Government, Attorney-General's Department (2017), 'From 9 December 2017, sex or gender no longer affects the right to marry under Australian law and same-sex marriage became legal in Australia'.[19]
This is how the House of Representatives looked after the 'marriage equality' (homosexual marriage) vote:
Photo: Nationals MPs David Littleproud and Keith Pitt (left) were among just four MPs to vote no on the same-sex marriage bill. (ABC News: Marco Catalano)[20]
It became evident this was not an issue of diversity or tolerance but of censorship. The other sins in Folau's post have been censored by the media to highlight Folau's alleged homophobia.
The 'progressive' and trendy left of politics and media have bulldozed this pro-homosexual agenda into the public square. People like this writer will be regarded – falsely – as homophobic because of my support for biblical Christianity's views on who will enter God's kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11).
2.1 Support for Folau
Eternal destinies as articulated in the Bible are not 'hate speech' but God-breathed truthfulness (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Some of Folau's teammates from Polynesia have come out in support of him. News.com.au reported on how his supporters have responded:
(Rebels and Reds players unite in prayer.Source:FOX SPORTS)
Australian Super Rugby players from the Melbourne Rebels and the Queensland Reds have huddled for a post-match prayer amid reports of anger among the game's Christians over the handling of the Israel Folau social media furore.
Wallabies fullback Folau, a fundamentalist Christian, moved a step closer to being sacked by Rugby Australia this week after he was found to have committed a "high-level" code of conduct breach for a post that said hell awaited "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers" and others.
The case has upset a number of Folau's Wallabies teammates who share his religious beliefs, with Reds prop Taniela Tupou writing that RA "might as well sack…all the other Pacific Islands rugby players around the world."[21]
2.2 Negative language about Folau's beliefs
Notice the uncomplimentary language used in the news.com.au story when it described Folau as 'a fundamentalist Christian'. A century ago, that would have been a compliment, describing those who adhered to the fundamentals of the Christian faith – its core values – like those articulated in The Nicene Creed:
Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.
In the twenty-first century, it's a negative term designed to denigrate a certain group of Evangelical Christians. Matt Thompson in writing for The Atlantic stated that 'today, "fundamentalism" is often applied as a pejorative, used almost interchangeably with words such as "extremism"'.[22]
Thompson cited Larry Eskridge, a scholar of American religion at Wheaton College: "Casually invoked to describe anyone who seems to hold some sort of vaguely-perceived traditional religious belief—be they a Bible Baptist TV preacher, a Hasidic rabbi, a Mormon housewife, or a soldier of the Islamic Jihad—the word [fundamentalism] has become so overused as to be nearly useless".[23]
2.3 Satire on Izzy and Rugby Australia
Satire is 'the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues' (Oxford Living Dictionaries 2019. s.v. satire) [OLD].
Synonyms include mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature, irony, and sarcasm (OLD).
One of the finest pieces of satire I've read in recent years is in this article by Akos Balogh, 'Dear Izzy, If Only You Had Behaved Like An Elite Athlete' (See your world through a Christian lens, 20 May 2019).
I've sent a link to this article to Rugby Australia.
2.4 Disappointment with PM Scott Morrison's pussyfooting on homosexuals and hell.
This point is worth an article in itself. How is it possible for a declared Pentecostal Christian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to say what is reported in The Guardian?[24]
Scott Morrison has claimed he now supports same-sex marriage because it has allowed people to "get on with their lives" and he "always supports the law of the country".
Morrison made the claim at a press conference in Perth, brushing off questions about whether his personal views have changed since his vocal opposition to marriage equality during the marriage law postal survey in 2017.
Morrison, a Pentecostal Christian who attends the Horizons' church, said he doesn't "mix [his] religion with politics" and evaded a question about whether gay people go to hell, an apparent reference to the controversy surrounding rugby player Israel Folau….
Asked on Monday if he still opposes same-sex marriage, Morrison replied: "It's law and I am glad that the change has now been made and we and people can get on with their lives, that's what I am happy about. I always support the law of the country."
How is it that a Christian who opposed homosexual marriage now supports it because it is law and he 'always supports the law of the country'?
That was conveyed in the AAP report in The Canberra Times:
Scott Morrison says he supports the law of the country but wouldn't say if his personal opposition to same-sex marriage has changed since it was legalised….
When pressed on whether his opinions have changed, he told reporters in Perth: "I always support the law of the country."[25]
It's not surprising that this is Bill Shorten's view: 'I don't think if you're gay you're going to go to hell. I don't know if hell exists actually. But I don't think, if it does, that being gay is what sends you there'.[26] That's in light of the ALP's policy #319 (p. 191). See also, 'Labor Party agrees to maintain conscience vote on same-sex marriage for next two terms of government' (ABC News, Brisbane, Qld, 2015).
This is Bill Shorten's and the ALP's ideology and not biblical theology speaking.
2.4.1 When laws of God conflict with laws of the nation
ScoMo, how can you support the ungodly law supporting homosexuality in Australia when God opposes such sinners (along with other unrighteous people) entering the kingdom of God (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11)? There is contradiction by you in your beliefs. You have violated the law of non-contradiction:
(image courtesy YouTube)
In your work as Prime Minister, do you ever face a situation where the laws of God clash with the laws of the country? In that circumstance, the law of non-contradiction can be violated. Something cannot be both A (a law of God) and non-A (a law of the country) at the same time and in the same sense for the people of God and not become contradictory.
Here's the clash of values you don't seem to have comprehended, Mr Morrison:
A: God's law is that those who practise homosexuality and other sins are 'abandoned' by God 'to their shameful desires' (Rom 1:24-32) and sinners, including homosexuals, 'will not inherit the Kingdom of God' (1 Cor 6:9-11).
But you now support, not A, but
Non-A: Now you agree with Australian law that conflicts with God's law when you 'now support same-sex marriage because it has allowed people to "get on with their lives" and [you] "always support the law of the country"'.
(a) Let Acts 5:29 guide you
According to Acts 5:17-32, the Christian apostles were thrown into a public prison by the Jewish authorities because the apostles performed 'many miraculous signs and wonders among the people' (v. 12). During the night an angel of the Lord opened the gates of the prison and let the apostles out to go to the Temple to 'give the people this message of life' (v. 20).
Not surprisingly, the captain of the Temple guard was sent by the Jewish leaders to arrest the apostles, but non-violently (v. 26). The high priest said to the apostles:
"We gave you strict orders never again to teach in this man's [Jesus'] name!" he said. "Instead, you have filled all Jerusalem with your teaching about him, and you want to make us responsible for his death!" (v. 29)
What was the response? 'Sorry for the horrible mistakes we made. Will you please forgive us for violating your Jewish laws? We are ashamed of what we did'. That is NOT what they retorted.
'But Peter and the apostles replied,
"We must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29).
(b) My disappointment with ScoMo's compromise
I consider this is compromise by ScoMo from what he said when he was federal treasurer. Before the same-sex marriage plebiscite, he supported traditional marriage and voted 'no' in his personal approach to homosexual marriage. 'It is OK to say "no". It is OK to say "yes", but make sure you have your say' was what he said.[27]
ScoMo could have shown political and Christian leadership in maintaining consistency (even though it may cost him votes) in his world view. His views are not integrated and holistic. He did not view sexuality through God's lens.
He could have done it without reference to the Scriptures by demonstrating the consequences of homosexual behaviour. One of the most viewed articles on my homepage, 'Truth Challenge', on a daily basis is:
The dangers of anal sex and fisting, see also
A Christian discussion of homosexuality & sexuality
Queen Elizabeth II and Jesus silent on homosexuality
Tolerance, homosexuality and not inheriting the Kingdom of God
Genetic cause of homosexuality?
Please do not support same-sex marriage
Why politicians should not support 'marriage equality'
3. Other assessments
One of the finest assessment's I've heard of this Folau vs Rugby Australia saga is by Sydney talk-back host and top-rating radio king, 2GB's Alan Jones, who stated that Rugby Australia is on 'the wrong side of common sense".
The new One Nation politician (former Labor Leader), Mark Latham, supported Folau in Latham's inaugural speech to the NSW Upper House:
"I stand with Israel Folau," the NSW One National leader told parliament.
"In his own private time away from his job playing football, he's a preacher at his community church and naturally, he quotes the Bible.
"How did our state and our nation ever come to this? Those claiming outrage have fabricated their position solely for the purpose of censorship. This is not an argument about diversity."
Australians shouldn't have to fear being sacked for stating their religious beliefs, Mr Latham said.
"No Australian should be fearful of proclaiming four of the most glorious words of our civilisation: I am a Christian."[28]
Latham added that Folau 'believes, as millions of people have believed for thousands of years that sinners go to hell…. Yet for his beliefs, his Christianity, he is not allowed to play rugby, to chase the pigskin around the park'.
"How did our State and our nation ever come to this?" [29]
The Spiked website considers Folau is "the Aussie rugby player … being punished for his Christian beliefs".
ABC News, Brisbane Qld, 15 April 2019 reported Folau
'would be prepared to walk away from rugby union. "I live for God now," he told The Sydney Morning Herald. "Whatever He wants me to do, I believe His plans for me are better than whatever I can think. If that's not to continue on playing, so be it.
"In saying that, obviously I love playing footy and if it goes down that path I'll definitely miss it. But my faith in Jesus Christ is what comes first"'.
3.1 Temptation to accept peace offering
Channel 9's Wide World of Sports reported on 13 May 2019 that Folau considered the 'peace offering' from Rugby Australia (RA) 'to resurrect his playing career' as 'the work of Satan'. Folau indicated being tempted by the 'opportunity' but considered it 'the work of Satan'. He gave these details in a Sydney church talk.
Wide World of Sports joined in the chorus of labelling him 'the fundamentalist Christian' who 'committed a high-level code of conduct breach for an Instagram post that said hell was the destiny for 'drunks, homosexuals, adulterers' and others.
Folau's language about the work of Satan and the RA offer was:
"Potentially I could get terminated, which means that there's no more playing contract and therefore no more finances or money coming in," he said from the lectern.
"It would be the first time it has happened to me in my life.
"All the materialistic things I have been able to have over the last number of years are slowly being taken away from me.
It's understood Super Rugby's all-time leading try-scorer would have been allowed to resume playing again had he agreed to take down his latest controversial post.
"There have been many opportunities to potentially make the situation a little bit easier. I could go back and play the game, get everything back to the way it used to be," Folau said.
"The way Satan works is he offers you stuff that could look good to the eye and makes you feel comfortable, and if you follow that path all the worries and troubles will go away.
"[But] it is always the will of God that comes first." [30]
4. Threat to freedom of religion?
Several religious leaders have been so concerned over what happened to Folau that the ABC News reported:
Israel Folau's clash with RA 'over his fundamentalist religious social media posts' motivated 'nine prominent Christians to send letters about the protection of religious freedom to Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten'. These people included leaders from Presbyterian, Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist and Apostolic churches, as well as a number of religious school leaders.
(image courtesy YA-webdesign)
The letters were worded differently for each political leader but both letters 'flagged a range of issues, with protection of religious belief and free speech at the forefront'.
Each letter began:
"In recent years the protections to be accorded to religious freedom, and the related freedoms of conscience, speech and association, have come under increasing focus within Australia."
"We write to invite you to provide clarification on a range of key issues that are important to the preservation of these freedoms in our country".
Reverend Dr Hedley Fihaki, a Uniting Church minister and the national chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations, said he was worried the Wallaby's case could set "a dangerous precedent".
"Scripture is the book the whole church is based on, so if we are not free to teach from that, not just in the private but particularly in the public domain, it is a dangerous precedent," Dr Fihaki told the ABC.
"From the Bible, from the holy scriptures, that's the Old and New Testament".[31]
Anna Patty, in writing for The Age, pointed out some of the apprehension of religious leaders:
The letter to Mr Shorten details concerns that Labor Party policies do not go far enough to protect religious freedom and have the potential to impact on the free expression of traditional views of sexuality and marriage. It asks Labor for an assurance that religious institutions will continue to be able to hold such views and defend them in public….
The Liberal Party has committed to introducing a Commonwealth Religious Discrimination Act, but the religious leaders asked the Prime Minister to go further by protecting believers in associations including churches, mosques, charities, schools and corporations.[32]
4.1 Folau case points to destruction of Western culture?
Peter FitzSimons (Peter F), writing for The Age, challenges 'Six of the worst fallacies surrounding the Israel Folau case. One of these is: 'This is the end of Western civilisation as we know it. Uh, no. This is Western civilisation evolving, and saying that while publicly marginalising a group used to be acceptable, and even a part of the law of the land, it is no longer acceptable'.[33]
What is the truth? Is Peter F on target or is he promoting a view that minimises the sins of Australia.
Jude 1:7 (NRSV) reminds us of what awaits those who practise immorality, including 'unnatural lust':
'Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire'.
4.1.1 Morality according to secularism
Peter F is taking off on the wrong runway. He wants morality to be decided by the evolution of acceptance of a previously 'marginalised' group (of homosexuals).
This is secular thinking that is not in harmony with the Lord God's plan for the universe. Peter F's world and life view causes him to be blind to the moral degradation happening in Australia.
What is God's way of thinking regarding sinful behaviour and eternal issues? It is straight out of the Israel Folau handbook, Scripture:
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. 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 (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NET).
Not only does sinful behaviour have eternal consequences, but sinful thinking has the same destiny. See Matt 5:27-28, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (NET).
Remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Billy Graham made this pointed observation:
Some years ago, my wife, Ruth, was reading the draft of a book I was writing. When she finished a section describing the terrible downward spiral of our nation's moral standards and the idolatry of worshiping false gods such as technology and sex, she startled me by exclaiming, "If God doesn't punish America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
She was probably thinking of a passage in Ezekiel where God tells why He brought those cities to ruin. "Now this was the sin of … Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (Ezekiel 16:49–50, NIV).[34]
4.1.2 The immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah
Surely this also can be applied to Australia.
See my article: Can Australia be turned around?
What does it mean 'they were haughty and did detestable things'? Other dynamic equivalence translations help clear up the meaning:
'Sodom and her daughters became too proud and began to do terrible things in front of me. So I punished them' (ERV);
'They thought they were better than everyone else, and they did things I hate. And so I destroyed them' (CEV);
'They were very proud. They did many things that were evil in my eyes. I hated those things. So I got rid of Sodom and her daughters, just as you have seen' (NIRV);
'She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen' (NLT);
What was the detestable, terrible, evil sin committed in Sodom & Gomorrah?
Genesis 19 reveals it.
Before they [the two angels] retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"[35] [36]
6 So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. 7 "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection" (Gen 19:4-8 NLT).
Therefore, the men of Sodom, both young and old, wanted to have sexual relations with other men (the two angels). That's what the text states.
However, some scholars want to make this encounter of the men of Sodom with the male angels as an example of selfishness or being inhospitable when compared with Ezek 16:48-50 (NLT):
As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49 Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50 She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.
One scholar who takes the hospitality view is homosexual clergyman, Rev Dr Patrick S Cheng:
The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts per se. Rather, the ancient Sodomites were punished by God for far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality. And, ironically, it is often anti-gay Christians who are most guilty of this sin today….
So, who are the real Sodomites today? Who are the people who turn their backs on the strangers and the least among us? Ironically, I believe that anti-gay Christians are often the ones who are most guilty of committing the true sin of Sodom….
The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ ever condemn LGBT people. However, Jesus does expressly condemn people who turn their backs on strangers and on those who are the neediest among us [Matt 25:43].[37]
For Dr Cheng, 'the true sin of Sodom: radical inhospitality'.
Dr Cheng supports his lifestyle this way but he's not promoting a biblical view of the sin of Sodom according to Genesis 19 and other portions of Scripture:
Yale University historian, John Boswell, concluded that Sodom was destroyed because:
(1) The Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels…; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.[38]
(a) Ezekiel drew attention to Sodom's problem[39]
'She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen' (Ezek 16:50 NLT). So, she was proud, which infers she did selfish things, thus making it an inhospitable city.
However, the bigger picture is that Sodom's sin also was homosexuality. We know this from a few biblical facts:
Examine the context of Genesis 19 and we find that 19:8 reveals the perversion was sexual sin of men with men.
Since there was 'pride' or selfishness in Sodom, according to Ezek 16:50, the sin of homosexuality can be included as 'sexual sins are a form of selfishness, since they are the satisfaction of fleshly passions'.[40] Ezekiel 16 confronts Jerusalem and 'her daughters' with their detestable sins.
Sodom 'committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen' (Ezek 16:50). By calling Sodom's sins 'detestable' this is an indication it was sexual. The same Hebrew word is used in Leviticus 18:22 (NLT) where it describes homosexual sins, 'Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin'.
According to the Collins Dictionary, sodomy in English 'is anal sexual intercourse' (2019. s.v. sodomy). This is a homosexual act. Its origin is from an Old Testament 'city destroyed by God for its wickedness that, with Gomorrah, traditionally typifies depravity (Genesis 19:24)…. this city [was seen as] representing homosexuality' (Collins Dictionary 2019. s.v. Sodom).
Jude verse 7 in the NT states: 'Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example[41] by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire' (NRSV).
Jude 7 associates the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with 'sexual immorality' and pursuing 'unnatural lust'. The Greek states, apelthousai hopisw sarkos heteras (transliterated) and is translated as 'went after other flesh' (unnatural lust) which Thayer is careful to note 'is used of those who are on a search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust'.[42]
Therefore, we have every biblical reason to understand the sin of homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah led to
(b) Sodom and Gomorrah's punishment
This was God's punishment for these two cities:
Then the Lord rained down fire and burning sulfur from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah. 25 He utterly destroyed them, along with the other cities and villages of the plain, wiping out all the people and every bit of vegetation. 26 But Lot's wife looked back as she was following behind him, and she turned into a pillar of salt (Gen 19:24-26 NLT).
Why did God wipe out Sodom & Gomorrah?
'So the Lord told Abraham, "I have heard a great outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. I am going down to see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard"' (Gen 18:20-21).
'And the Lord replied, "If I find fifty righteous people in Sodom, I will spare the entire city for their sake" (Gen 18:26).
'For we (the angels) are about to destroy this city completely. The outcry against this place is so great it has reached the Lord, and he has sent us to destroy it' (Gen 19:13).
Therefore, Greg Koukl concludes:
Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.[43]
There is enough contextual information and biblical data elsewhere to indicate Sodom & Gomorrah's sins were homosexuality and other sensual sins. Further insight is gained from 2 Peter 2:6-8 (NLT):
God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people. But God also rescued Lot out of Sodom because he was a righteous man who was sick of the shameful immorality of the wicked people around him. 8 Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day.
It was not God turning these cities into ashes as punishment for occasional sin, but for wickedness 'day after day'.
I say it again, based on Ruth Graham's words: "If God doesn't punish Australia, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
5. Folau's punishment
A three-person independent panel's decision in the RA vs Folau controversy decided Folau's $4 million, 4-year contract should be terminated because of his anti-gay social media post on 10 April 2019.
Folau's response was:
"It has been a privilege and an honour to represent Australia and my home state of New South Wales, playing the game I love.
"I am deeply saddened by today's decision to terminate my employment and I am considering my options.
"As Australians, we are born with certain rights, including the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of expression. The Christian faith has always been a part of my life and I believe it is my duty as a Christian to share God's word. Upholding my religious beliefs should not prevent my ability to work or play for my club and country.
"I would like to thank my wife Maria for her love and encouragement to stay true to our beliefs. We have been humbled by the support we have received from family, friends, players, fans and the wider community.
"Thank you also to those who have spoken out in my defence, some of whom do not share my beliefs but have defended my right to express them".[44]
What are Folau's next moves? After the announcement of this punishment, Folau had 72 hours to challenge the decision, which he did not take up.
He also could take the decision to court to stop RA from terminating his contract. It could eventually be heard in the NSW Supreme Court or the Federal Court.[45]
At the time of concluding this article, Fairfax newspapers reported that Folau had had discussions with a leading Melbourne workplace relations' lawyer, Stuart Wood QC, but it was too early to say Wood had been 'engaged' as a lawyer to represent Folau in this contractual controversy.[46]
Another option for him is to appeal his case with the Fair Work Commission, for unlawful dismissal on religious grounds. He has until 10 June to commence that process.[47]
While RA has found Folau guilty of committing a "high-level" code of conduct breach for his personal Instagram post, he had his 4-year contract terminated and is deliberating over future options.
My own views are that Folau has not been included in the actual understanding of diversity and tolerance by Rugby Australia.
Diversity means:
'a range of things which are very different from each other' (Collins Dictionary 2019. s.v. diversity).
'the fact that there are many different ideas or opinions about something' (Cambridge Dictionary 2019. s.v. diversity).
Therefore, diversity means that Folau's Christian values need to be accepted among the range of different ideas, values and opinions in Australia. Instead, Folau has been censored from expressing his values (one of the diverse views) of the destiny of a whole range of sinners, from God's perspective. Any country accepting diversity will agree with Folau's right to express his Christian views.
As for tolerance, it means:
'the quality of allowing other people to say and do as they like, even if you do not agree or approve of it' (Collins Dictionary 2019. s.v. tolerance).
a 'willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them' (Cambridge Dictionary 2019. s.v. tolerance).
Based on these two definitions, Folau has not been afforded tolerance towards his Christian views. RA has failed the tolerance test.
Therefore, what has happened by the RA actions in relation to Folau? It has closed down any opportunity for RA to implement fully the values of diversity and tolerance in the Rugby Union fraternity.
So Folau has been the victim of censorship of his values and an attack on free speech which affects his freedom of religion.
(courtesy Clipart Library)
[1] On Line Opinion 2019. Fairies at the bottom of the garden : Comments (online).
Posted by Pogi, Friday, 10 May 2019 3:37:48 PM. Available at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20266&page=0 (Accessed 13 May 2019).
[2] Tom Decent 2019. Sponsor abandons Folau as Farr-Jones claims star has not breached deal. The Age (online), 8 May. Available at: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-dumped-by-sponsor-asics-20190508-p51lcy.html (Accessed 17 May 2019).
[3] David Crowe 2019. Morrison accuses Shorten of taking a 'cheap shot' over gays going to hell. The Canberra Times (online), 14 May. Available at: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6123617/morrison-accuses-shorten-of-taking-a-cheap-shot-over-gays-going-to-hell/?cs=14350 (Accessed 17 May 2017).
[4] ABC News, Brisbane, Qld 2019. Israel Folau's case prompts Australian religious leaders to pen letters to Scott Morrison, Bill Shorten (online), 11 May. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/israel-folau-religious-leaders-send-letter-to-shorten-morrison/11104094 (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[5] Ben Francis 2019. Rugby: Israel Folau refused to delete controversial Instagram post to save Wallabies career – report. Newshub (online), 10 May. Available at: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2019/05/rugby-israel-folau-refused-to-delete-controversial-instagram-post-to-save-wallabies-career-report.html (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[6] Collins Dictionary (2019 s.v. revile).
[7] Got Questions Ministries 2019. What is a reviler in the Bible? (online) Available at: https://www.gotquestions.org/reviler-in-the-Bible.html (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[8] Suggested by Urban Dictionary (1999-2019. s.v. fuddy duddy).
[9] Bauer, W; Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House), p. 480.
[10] The Greek noun in this verse is loidoria.
[11] The ESV translates 'insult' as 'reviling'; the NASB, NET and NIV as 'insult'; and the NRSV as 'abuse'.
[12] FindLaw 2019. Swearing in Public is Against the Law (Really) [online]. Available at: https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4251/swearing-in-public-is-against-the-law-really.aspx (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[13] Akos Balogh 2019. 4 Urgent Conversations Australians Need To Have After Folau. See Your World through a Christian Lens (online). Available at: http://akosbalogh.com/2019/05/15/4-urgent-conversations-australians-need-to-have-after-folau/ (Accessed 16 May 2019).
[14] Dawn Grace-Cohen 2019. Silencing Folau with queer fascism betrays our gay marriage victory. The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 4 May. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/national/silencing-folau-with-queer-fascism-betrays-our-gay-marriage-victory-20190503-p51jsk.html (Accessed 16 May 2019).
[15] Balogh 2019, with help from Simon Smart of the Centre for Public Christianity and Christian author and social commentator, Os Guinness.
[16] 'Public square' means 'the sphere of public opinion' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2019. s.v. public square).
[17] In Balogh 2019.
[18] Phillip Ayoub and Jeremiah Garretson 2018. How the Media Has Helped Change Public Views about Lesbian and Gay People. Scholars' Strategy Network (online), 24 May. Available at: https://scholars.org/brief/how-media-has-helped-change-public-views-about-lesbian-and-gay-people (Accessed 14 May 2019).
[19] Marriage equality in Australia 2017. Available at: https://www.ag.gov.au/marriageequality (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[20] David Lipson 2017. Same-sex marriage and the defining image that almost wasn't. ABC News, Brisbane Qld (online), 11 December. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-11/same-sex-marriage-the-lone-voice-of-david-littleproud/9246370 (Accessed 11 May 2019). According to this ABC News report, 'Just four MPs voted against same-sex marriage in the chamber: Mr Littleproud and Mr Pitt, along with Liberal MP Russell Broadbent and crossbencher Bob Katter'.
[21] News.com.au 2019. Super Rugby players in huge public show of support for Israel Folau (online), 11 May. Available at: https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/super-rugby-players-in-huge-public-show-of-support-for-israel-folau/news-story/f13197aa1688febc7d3d8246500869f2 (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[22] Matt Thompson 2015. The Origins of 'Fundamentalism', The Atlantic, 30 June. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/the-origins-of-fundamentalism/397238/ (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[24] Paul Karp 2019. Scott Morrison claims he now backs same-sex marriage – but dodges question on hell. The Guardian Australia (online), 13 May. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/13/scott-morrison-claims-he-now-backs-same-sex-marriage-but-dodges-question-on-hell (Accessed 18 May 2019).
[25] AAP 2019. Gay marriage is the law: PM Morrison. The Canberra Times (online), 13 May. Available at: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6122212/gay-marriage-is-the-law-pm-morrison/?cs=14231 (Accessed 18 May 2019).
[26] Paul Karp 2019.
[27] Staff writers 2017. Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison reveals he is voting 'no' in same-sex marriage plebiscite. News.com.au [from 7.30], 31 August. Available at: https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/federal-treasurer-scott-morrison-reveals-he-is-voting-no-in-samesex-marriage-plebiscite/news-story/d7be152a9ef873e777dcb653af478a20 (Accessed 18 May 2019).
[28] Tom Rabe 2019. I stand with Israel Folau: Mark Latham. Mandurah Mail (online), 8 May. Available at: https://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/6114327/i-stand-with-israel-folau-mark-latham/?cs=9397 (Accessed 11 May 2019).
[30] AAP 2019. Israel Folau reveals RA settlement rejection, saying 'temptation' is 'Satan's work', Channel 9 Wide World of Sports, 13 May. Available at: https://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/folau-stands-firm-after-ra-peace-offering/6f3f392f-ecf2-4375-a998-85ac54e5b1c8 (Accessed 13 May 2019).
[31] ABC News, Brisbane, Qld 2019. Israel Folau's case prompts Australian religious leaders to pen letters to Scott Morrison, Bill Shorten (online), 11 May. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/israel-folau-religious-leaders-send-letter-to-shorten-morrison/11104094 (Accessed 13 May 2019).
[32] Anna Patty 2019. Christian leaders challenge major parties on commitment to religious freedom. The Age (online), 11 May. Available at: https://www.theage.com.au/federal-election-2019/christian-leaders-challenge-major-parties-on-commitment-to-religious-freedom-20190508-p51lgo.html (Accessed 13 May 2019).
[33] Peter FitzSimons 2019. Six of the worst fallacies surrounding the Israel Folau case. The Age, 8 May. Available at: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/six-of-the-worst-fallacies-surrounding-the-israel-folau-case-20190508-p51let.html (Accessed 13 May 2019).
[34] Billy Graham 2012. Billy Graham: 'My Heart Aches for America', Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (online), 12 July. Available at: https://billygraham.org/story/billy-graham-my-heart-aches-for-america/ (Accessed 13 May 2019).
[35] Other translations such as the KJV, LEB (the LEB has the footnote, 'Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse', cf Gen 4:1), NKJV, NRSV, ESV and RSV translate 'have sex with them' as 'we may know them'.
[36] The NIV translates also as 'have sex with them', as does the ERV, NET, CEV, CSB, GNB, ISV, NABRE, and NASB ('may have relations with them').
[37] Rev Patrick S Cheng PhD 2011. What Was the Real Sin of Sodom? HuffPost (online), 25 May. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-was-the-real-sin-of_b_543996?guccounter=1 (Accessed 17 May 2019).
[38] John Boswell 1980. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 93, cited in Greg Koukl 2013. What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Stand to Reason (online), 8 March. Available at: https://www.str.org/articles/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah (Accessed 17 May 2019).
[39] The following points are from Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe 1992. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, p. 285.
[41] Lenski considers 'example' should be translated as 'indication or sign' (R C H Lenski 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, vol 11. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, p. 625).
[42] Joseph Henry Thayer 1886/1962. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, pp. 569-570. This is a Lexicon prepared by Carl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm, Joseph Henry Thayer, and Christian Gottlob Wilke.
[43] Koukl op cit.
[44] Georgina Robinson 2019. Folau 'saddened' by sacking, considering his options. The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 17 May. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-set-to-be-sacked-by-rugby-australia-20190514-p51n2g.html (Accessed 23 May 2019).
[46] Samantha Hutchinson, Tom Decent & Adrian Proszenko 2019. Folau turns to top silk as Rugby Australia case heads for legal stoush. The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 21 May. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-turns-to-top-silk-as-rugby-australia-case-heads-for-legal-stoush-20190521-p51psc.html (Accessed 23 May 2019).
This entry was posted in Church & apologetics, Freedom of Religion, Hell and Eternal Punishment, Homosexuality, Justice, Sin, Sin, Truth and tagged censorship, diversity, Israel Folau, RU controversy, Rugby Australia, Scott Morrison on homosexuality, tolerance on 23 May 2019 by spencer.
(Wintour photograph courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
This article was first published (without the graphics and subject headings) in On Line Opinion, 21 Febrary 2019.
During the January 2019 Australian Open Tennis Grand Slam, Anna Wintour, long time fashion editor with Vogue, spoke publicly about her disagreement with champion tennis player, Margaret Court, over homosexual marriage.
Dame Anna Wintour DBE dived into the 'intolerance' issue against homosexuals. Her target was tennis champion, Margaret Court.
(Margaret Court Arena, photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
The Age reported that Wintour 'has thrown her support behind the push to rename Margaret Court Arena over the tennis champion's opposition to same-sex marriage'.
Wintour stated, 'I find that it is inconsistent with the sport for Margaret Court's name to be on a stadium that does so much to bring all people together across their differences"', in a speech delivered at the Australian Open Inspirational Series in Melbourne on Thursday [24 January 2019] , to applause.
She continued: 'This much I think is clear to anyone who understands the spirit and the joy of the game.Intolerance has no place in tennis" emphasis added).
Wintour continued her broadside against those who support traditional family values:
"I have been alarmed by your prime minister's record on LGBTQ rights, which seems backward in all senses," she said.
"That no one can be expelled from school for their orientation, should not require clarification. A government should protect its people, not make it unclear whether they will be accepted."
Not once in that article did the journalist mention Anna Wintour's intolerance towards Margaret Court and Scott Morrison.
I find it disconcerting when a person opposes the 'intolerance' of Margaret Court on the subject of homosexuality and doesn't see her own intolerance towards Margaret Court's values.
It is a self-contradictory statement to accuse another person of intolerance while perpetrating the same oneself.
Other media joined the Wintour refrain
(image courtesy longfordpc.com)
There were a considerable number of mass media examples that promoted the Wintour homosexual chorus. Three instances were from:
ABC News Brisbane, Qld reported that 'Wintour said when Australia passed same-sex marriage in 2017, "the world sang in celebration" with it'. Wintour continued:
"Intolerance has no place in tennis. What we love [is] watching these remarkable men and women exceed themselves while being themselves in many different forms.
"Margaret Court was a champion on the court but a meeting point for players of all nations, preferences, and backgrounds should celebrate somebody who was a champion off the court as well."
Do you hear Wintour's 'off the court' intolerance towards Margaret Court's sexual values as a Christian?
This article quoted Margaret Court's views about the approach of her opponents who call for the renaming of the Margaret Court Arena at Melbourne Park. Court called this 'another example of freedom of religion under threat…. I should be able to have my say as a minister of the Gospel…. I believe I shouldn't be bullied for what I did in my past'.
Not a word was stated in this article about Wintour's intolerance towards Margaret Court's views.
Channel 9:
MSN Channel 9 explained the Wintour event with similar quotes to those by The Age and ABC News Brisbane about Primer Minister Scott Morrison and tennis champion and now Christian minister, Margaret Court.
Wintour didn't hold back about her views on the proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act:
"That no-one can be expelled from school for their orientation should not require clarification," Wintour added, referring to previous proposals for the Sex Discrimination Act to be amended in a way to allow religious schools to do so.
"A government should protect its people, not make it unclear whether they will be accepted and we are struggling with these issues in the United States as well."
This article failed to expose Wintour's own intolerance in her speech.
News.com.au provided similar details on the Wintour speech, with a sub-heading, 'Fashion legend Anna Wintour has taken a swipe at Australia's Prime Minister and one of our greatest tennis stars in a scathing speech'.
This news report and others were pleased to use Wintour's statement in her speech: 'This much I think is clear to anyone who understands the spirit and the joy of the game. Intolerance has no place in tennis'.
Again there was no effort to demonstrate Wintour's own intolerance.
In this article I point to an apparent lack of discernment by journalists into the nature of intolerance that Wintour actively perpetrated. She practised the very thing she complained about with Margaret Court and Scott Morrison.
This is one of the main issues:
Dr Jeremy Sherman exposed the nature of Wintour's intolerant intolerance with examples from other situations that can be applied specifically to Wintour's proclamation at the speech delivered at the Australian Open Inspirational Series in Melbourne on 24 January 2019.
"It's true. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance. We should nip it in the bud, set clear boundaries."
"If we tolerate intolerance it spreads: Racism, sexism, prejudices of all sorts, judgmentalism, negativity, bigotry, factions squaring off and fighting: right vs. left, this fundamentalism vs. that."
"An eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind."
"To bring about greater harmony we must all of us be tolerant. No exceptions. Loving, listening, caring for each other, respecting each other's opinions whatever they may be."
Sherman exposed our hypocrisy when we try to tolerate certain behaviours yet name others as being intolerant. He said the 'truest practical question' is 'not whether to be tolerant or intolerant but when to be which'.
So far, I have not noticed the mass media I read expose Wintour's intolerance of her own views – against Margaret Court's and Scott Morrison's views.
Sherman rightly exposed the dilemma:
'Folks who don't notice the hypocrisy don't appreciate the bind we're all in and they cut themselves unconscionable slack. They manage the bind ineptly at best, self-servingly at worst, telling people not to be judgmental when they're being criticized, and not noticing they're being judgmental when criticizing others'.
In applying this to Wintour's speech content, Wintour didn't seem to be aware that she herself was intolerant towards Margaret Court's and Scott Morrison's values. It would been startling to hear Wintour admit: 'I oppose Court's views on homosexuality, but in saying that, I'm making an admission this is an intolerant statement I'm making'.
It would have been even more remarkable to hear Wintour admit: 'We live in a free society where freedom of religion and thought are allowed. It shouldn't be surprising that a modern society like ours accepts homosexual behaviour, but I should not lambast Margaret Court's worldview as that would demonstrate my intolerance'.
Michael Mendis calls it 'the paradox of tolerance' because tolerance is a 'self-contradictory principle' as it is reflexive. The phrase is not original with him:
He stated that the principle of tolerance 'dictates that we must be tolerant of everything. We cannot pick and choose what we will tolerate and what we will not. If this is so, then tolerance requires us to tolerate even intolerance'.
Thus, if somebody is proclaiming or practising intolerance, Mendis rightly observes that 'the tolerant person cannot, in principle, speak out against what the intolerant person is doing, since speaking out against intolerance would itself be an act of intolerance".
Therefore, his assessment was that 'tolerance as a principle, then, is clearly illogical, and therefore irrational. It is much more logical and rational to espouse intolerance, for then one does not get entangled in any contradictions-self or otherwise.
Intolerance as a principle does not require us to be consistently and universally intolerant'.
Who raised this paradox?
Enter Sir Karl Popper, Austrian-British philosopher of science and political philosopher:
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them".
In my view, it shows the lack of logical precision by the Australian mass media that they don't expose the intolerant intolerance by Dame Anna Wintour's statements against Margaret Court's Christian beliefs about homosexuality and the Prime Minister's views on amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.
Intolerant tolerance of Court's & Morrison's values
(image courtesy 123RF.com)
The Collins' Dictionary (online) defines 'intolerance' as an 'unwillingness to let other people act in a different way or hold different opinions from you' (2019. s.v. intolerance).
Therefore, for Wintour to accuse Margaret Court of intolerance because she didn't support same-sex marriage is to engage in an act of intolerance towards Court's values. When will the supporters of certain values wake up to the fact that to accuse opponents of being intolerant is to engage in an act of intolerance perpetrated by themselves?
Other media join the Wintour spin
1. Sporting News, Australian Open: Anna Wintour slams Margaret Court over gay marriage stance (24 January 2019).
2. Perth Now, Wintour of discontent gets a serve from WA tennis legend Margaret Court (25 January 2019).
3. Daily Mail Australia, Fashion icon Anna Wintour slams Scott Morrison's gay rights record and calls for the Margaret Court Arena to be renamed in a fiery speech – but she's not Snow White when it comes to the #MeToo era (24 January 2019).
4. Women's Agenda, Thank you Anna Wintour for highlighting what should be key to sport: 'Intolerance has no place' (February 2019).
5. Vogue Australia, Anna Wintour on inclusivity and the power of tennis (24 January 2019).
6. Fox Sports, Australian Open 2019: Anna Wintour calls for Margaret Court Arena to be renamed (24 January 2019).
7. SBS News, Vogue editor Anna Wintour slams Scott Morrison on LGBTQ rights (24 January 2019).
8. WWD, Anna Wintour Slams Margaret Court and Australian PM Over LGBT Issues (24 January 2019).
9. 3AW News Talk, Tom Elliott takes "hypocritical" Anna Wintour to task over Margaret Court comments (24 January 2019).
10. CNN, Anna Wintour slams Margaret Court, Scott Morrison over LGBTQ rights (25 January 2019).
See: Be Intolerant Of Intolerance! At: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ambigamy/201501/be-intolerant-intolerance
Also, The Paradox of Tolerance: https://bigthink.com/the-paradox-of-tolerance
Enter Karl Popper: Paradox of tolerance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Singer, M 2019. 'Intolerance has no place in tennis': Wintour criticises Margaret Court. The Age (online), 24 January 2019. Available at: https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/intolerance-has-no-place-in-tennis-wintour-criticises-margaret-court-20190124-p50tcs.html (Accessed 8 February 2019).
(image courtesy Brotherhood News:
Facebook censors biblical posts against homosexuality)
Copyright © 2019 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 05 March 2019.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Homosexuality, Intolerance, Thoughtful Christianity and tagged Anna Wintour, Homosexuality, Intolerance, Margaret Court, tennis on 5 March 2019 by spencer.
Pedophiles: It's not their fault!!
(image courtesy ChristArt)
There are some outrageous views in the world of secular journalism. I came across an opinion piece in the Melbourne (Australia), Herald Sun newspaper online, 'Should we help paedophiles? What choice do we have?' (Shepherd 2015).[1] The sub-heading was, 'If people are born straight, or gay, is it possible that paedophiles can't help being what they are?' The article began:
Evidence shows that it might be true; paedophiles are born that way. Recent research suggests some faulty wiring in the brain. Things about children that are meant to elicit a protective response instead elicit a sexual one.
A published paper from Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health found paedophiles are far more likely to be left-handed, and have a lower IQ, which indicates there's a problem with brain development.
Which would make it not their fault.
Why don't you take a read of what I consider to be an extremist view of an alibi for sexually deviant behaviour of paedophilia in 'The Science of Pedophilia: Is It a Sexual Orientation?' This article states, 'The good news, though, is that, if researchers can figure out how the brain's wiring becomes crossed, scientists could figure out ways for mothers to minimize their chances of giving birth to pedophiles' (Brice 2012).
What an excuse for justification of wicked sexual abuse of children by adults (mostly males).
A. What is paedophilia?
Michael Seto,[2] who wants to legitimise paedophilia as a sexual orientation, provided this definition, 'Pedophilia can be defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, as indicated by persistent and recurrent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, arousal, or behavior ("or" because the diagnosis can be made on the basis of thoughts and urges alone)' (Seto 2012:231-232).
Margo Kaplan, assistant professor of law, states that paedophilia 'refers to a type of sexual interest – specifically an intense and persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children. Pedophilia need not entail any behavior; one may be a celibate pedophile, similar to how one may have sexual desires for adults while remaining celibate' (Kaplan 2015:86-87).
In common language, these two professionals define paedophilia as adults having a sexual attraction to children through thoughts, fantasies and sometimes involving sexual behaviour between an adult and a child.
B. Why is paedophilia a crime?
Here in Australia, those who are found guilty of paedophilia have committed a criminal act and these are five examples of penalties for such crimes.
1. Dennis Ferguson
(Dennis Ferguson 2009, photo courtesy Wikipedia)
One of Australia's most notorious paedophiles was Dennis Raymond Ferguson. In sentencing him to jail for his crimes, it was reported in The Daily Telegraph:
The evil man Ferguson seems intent on forgetting he ever was.
Such vile criminals don't come much worse.
As one judge put it, Ferguson is a "cunning and scheming man – not without some intelligence – a danger to children and foolish parents".
Justice Derrington said Ferguson's chances of rehabilitation were zero when sentencing him to 14 years in a Queensland jail in 1988 (Lawrence 2009).
2. Forty-one year old paedophile
The Australian newspaper reported in 2010 on the disparity between the length of sentencing for the crime of paedophilia in the USA compared to the drastic leniency in Australia. The report stated that an American pedophile was sentenced to 21 years jail for pleading guilty to photographing a 2-year-old girl and trading the child pornography on the Internet. His Australian (Canberra) cohort was jailed for a quarter of that time for doing the same actions with 4 children.
The 41-year-old [Australian] – who cannot be named – was sentenced … to seven years jail, and must serve a minimum of 4 1/2 years after pleading guilty to 13 counts of indecency against children, using a child to produce child pornography and transmitting child pornography.
Four children, including his own infant son, were captured in the images, which the ACT Supreme Court was told were regarded as "trophies" by the man.
The other children were aged five, seven and nine and included his godchild (McKenna 2010).
3. Brett Peter Cowan
(Daniel Morcombe, phogo courtesy Wikipedia)
One of the most prominent and extremely sad examples of the action of a paedophile here in Queensland was the death of Daniel Morcombe, a 13-year-old, who was abducted from the Sunshine Coast (Woombye) and killed by paedophile, Brett Peter Cowan. Cowan's paedophilia is confirmed in Olding (2014). This article states:
'A man who was raped and almost killed by Brett Peter Cowan 27 years ago, when he was seven years old, says the predator destroyed his life'.
'Cowan had a shocking record of paedophilia and a hole in his alibi but he told the inquiry he would not have taken Daniel because he liked boys that were six or seven years old, not 13'.
'A former girlfriend of Cowan's told the program about the night he abducted a six-year-old boy from a Darwin caravan park in 1993 and raped him. He left the boy for dead with horrific injuries but the child survived'.
4. Abuse by clergy or workers at Christian institutions
Then there are horrifying examples of sexual abuse of children by clergy. Here is but one example of many about which I, as a Christian, am utterly ashamed. This abuse victim wrote:
I would think seriously about donating a kidney if I am given the opportunity to stand before the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse. And after eight years of battling the Anglican Church for answers, something exciting has happened concerning the sexual and physical abuse of more than 200 children.
Yes, to hell with the kidney, it means nothing compared to the horrific and violent abuse children suffered at the hands of Anglican clergy and staff over the five decades the Church of England North Coast Children's Home was functioning.
I was raised in that Anglican home for 14 years, 10 of which were brutal. I was sexually violated and physically abused. To this day I bear the scars on my back from a flogging.
The scars in my mind are deeper (Campion 2013).
5. Fifty-six year old paedophile
As I was writing this article, there appeared a lead item on the Brisbane Times website, 'Convicted paedophile who raped stepdaughter to be watched until 2021' (Branco 2016). Here it was stated that this 56-year-old was convicted of raping his 7-year-old step daughter. 'The man was sentenced to eight years in jail in January 2008 after pleading guilty to offences including rape and grievous bodily harm. He was released on parole in September 2010 but hauled back into prison four years later when he was found living with a 15-year-old girl but had since been released again'. Although released on 17 January 2016, he has to report to authorities for another 5 years. Psychiatrists diagnosed him with paedophilia or a similar condition of paraphilia and 'classed him a low to medium risk of reoffending' (Branco 2016). These are the kinds of despicable acts in which he engaged:
He raped the girl when she was just seven years old, beating her, holding her upside down and smacking her.
When the girl was only eight, he punched her so hard she fell down the stairs.
In some cases, the offences occurred while the girl's mother was asleep in another room….
[The psychiatrists] each noted a tendency for the 56-year-old to minimise and deny his crimes, with Dr Josephine Sundin even noting he perceived himself as an "unhappy and unlucky victim" (Branco 2016).
Now scientists want to label this kind of predatory, sordid behaviour as something over which the paedophile has no control as it is wired into his physical being – the brain (see Shepherd 2015).
C. The victims
Bill Glaser wrote in 1997:
Paedophilia: The health problem of the decade – Dr Bill Glaser
Imagine a society afflicted by a scourge which struck down a quarter of its daughters and up to one in eight of its sons.
Imagine also that this plague, while not immediately fatal, lurked in the bodies and minds of these young children for decades, making them up to sixteen times more likely to experience its disastrous long-term effects.
Finally, imagine the nature of these effects: life-threatening starvation, suicide, persistent nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and a whole host of intractable psychiatric disorders requiring life-long treatment. What would the society's response be?
The scourge that we are speaking of is child sexual abuse. It has accounted for probably more misery and suffering than any of the
great plagues of history, including the bubonic plague, tuberculosis and syphilis. Its effects are certainly more devastating and widespread than those of the modern-day epidemics which currently take up so much community attention and resources: motor vehicle accidents, heart
disease and, now, AIDS. Yet the public response to child sexual abuse, even now, is fragmented, poorly coordinated and generally ill-informed.
Its victims have no National AIDS Council to advise governments on policy and research issues; They have no National Heart Foundation to promote public education as to the risks of smoking and unhealthy
lifestyles; They do not have a Transport Accident Commission to provide comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation services for them.
A massive public health problem like child sexual abuse demands a massive societal response. But firstly, we need to acknowledge and understand the problem itself, and this is, sadly enough, a task which both professionals and the community have been reluctant to undertake despite glaringly obvious evidence in front of us.
Source: Excerpt from Glaser, W. "Paedophilia: The Public Health Problem of the Decade" – Australian Institute of Criminology Conference on Paedophilia, Sydney, April 1997.[3]
As a long-term counsellor and counselling manager (now retired), I have deep compassion for helping victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse. However, as will be evident in this article, I do not support the solutions offered by a secular worldview because I'm convinced it does not get to the core of what motivates a person to violate another sexually – especially a child.
This I will admit: The need is urgent to do something substantial about finding a solution to the problem. However, I'm not convinced my secular society has the understanding for doing this. Some have the will to do something, like Bravehearts, but what is the best long-term solution?
I'll declare my colours as we examine two radically different worldviews and their impact on the paedophilia issue, using Shepherd's (2015) article as an example.
D. Worldview of a difference
What is a worldview? All of us have one. It may be defined as 'a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of our world' (Sire1988:17). James Sire explained that these are the seven rock-bottom questions that need to be answered to uncover the elements of a worldview:
(a) What is prime reality – the really real?
(b) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
(c) What is a human being?
(d) What happens to a person at death?
(e) Why is it possible to know anything at all?
(f) How do we know what is right and wrong?
(g) What is the meaning of human history? (Sire 1988:18)
What are the worldview dimensions in Tory Shepherd's article (Shepherd 2015) in her proposing that for the paedophiles, it is not their faults that they have these thoughts towards and then sexually abuse children?
Whether she wants to acknowledge it or not, she is promoting a worldview that deals with at least 3 dimensions of such a view. My analysis of her article reveals three primary dimensions of the following worldview dimensions: (a) external reality, (b) the nature of human beings, and, (c) the nature of right and wrong.
(a) The nature of external reality
This deals with 'whether we see the world as created or autonomous, as chaotic or orderly, as matter or spirit, or whether we emphasize our subjective, personal relationship to the world or its objectivity apart from us' (Sire 1988:18)
Shepherd was into the 'it feels' subjectivity when she stated that the uncovering of every dirty secret and hints of new ones 'feels unending, unendable'[4], and 'it also feels as though giving any kind of helping hand to paedophiles is an insult to survivors'. This is an example of subjective emphasis.
The personal relationship to the world of external reality is seen in Shepherd's statement that 'under the Circles of Support and Accountability program' volunteers would 'support paedophiles … emotionally and practically to reintegrate into society'. This assumes that this will help them to be autonomously functioning paedophiles. Nothing is said here about the paedophile being cured of his disorder, disease, malfunction, or – dare I mention it – sin.
(b) Teaching on the nature of human beings
Are people only physical beings, highly complex machines, without a soul and spiritual dimension?
Shepherd points to 'evidence' of the possibility that 'paedophiles are born that way'. So the nature of human beings is driven by the worldview of naturalism. Human beings are physical beings with 'some faulty wiring in the brain'. Thus, when these physical beings are supposed to have 'a protective response' to children instead of 'a sexual one', it is because of bad wiring in the brain.
This brain development, according to the Toronto research, also is driven by naturalism as paedophilia is associated with being left-handed and lower IQ, 'which indicates there's a problem with brain development'.
It needs to be noted that naturalism, in philosophy, is 'a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation' (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2016. S v naturalism).
The Virtuous Paedophile website (quoted by Shepherd) stated, 'We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away'. This affirms the physical being dimension of paedophilia. Their view is that they can't do anything about it as it is physically caused (genetic). This is further confirmed by the language, 'We did not choose it, cannot change, and [we] successfully resist' the 'temptation to abuse children sexually'.
(c) Demonstrates a perspective on what is right and wrong
Are human beings made in the image of a good God whose character is righteous, or are right and wrong 'determined by human choice alone, or the motions simply developed under an impetus toward cultural or physical survival' (Sire 1988:18).
Shepherd raises that question that, like straight and gay people, paedophiles 'can't help being what they are'. However, she does speak of 'every dirty secret' being uncovered and 'hints of new ones' cropping up and this goes on and on. But there is no discussion of how one knows it is a dirty as opposed to a clean secret. She wants to disclose some aspect of what seems wrong or 'dirty', but no criteria for identification are given.
She mentions the Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health study that found paedophiles are more likely to be left-handed and have lower IQ, thus indicating 'a problem with brain development'. Then she draws the moral conclusion that this 'would make it not their fault' because it is physically caused by the brain. She did admit that 'not all experts agree', claiming 'it's genetic' or 'learned behaviour' that could be 'triggered by trauma or abuse', but Shepherd did not get into discussion of right or wrong actions and what makes it morally one way or the other.
Then there is a push to try to differentiate 'between a paedophile and a sexual offender', which she claims is a 'seldom-made distinction'. Here definition is that 'it is possible to be deviant' (presumably referring to a sex offender) and not deviant ('attracted to children, but to never act on it'). I found it puzzling that no criteria were given to make this differentiation and then extending that to an understanding of how being attracted to children and thinking on children may lead to acting out paedophilic behaviour. This read like a relativistic attempt to explain and justify attraction to children.
In speaking of a USA based group, Virtuous Paedophiles,[5] Shepherd wrote, 'I suspect the mere idea of a paedophile calling himself or herself virtuous will have the self-appointed virtue police shuddering in their jim jams, but it's an interesting concept' (Shepherd 2015). This is Shepherd's judgmental, value-laden assessment of how those who oppose 'virtuous paedophiles' could respond. She wants to make a right vs wrong assessment against those who oppose any thought of a group of Virtuous Paedophiles. So, she is making a value judgment but her view is loaded with anti-conservative values. She judgmentally labelled those who opposed 'virtuous paedophiles' as 'self-appointed virtue police' whose behaviour is to shudder 'in their jim jams'. She is the one who has morally decided it is suitable to engage in put-downs of those whose values she rebels against. To label them as 'virtue police' is an extremist, rebellious opinion.
Shepherd's value judgments of right and wrong continued. She could not see politicians having the 'will to spend the money' to roll out a nationwide program to help paedophiles (and thus save children) as it 'will never be a vote winner'. She adds that 'only the brave and petrified' would be courageous enough 'to try to get help'. Her value judgment is that 'shame and fear would stop most of them'. From where did she gain that information to reach that verdict?
She is not identifying the criteria for her to determine what is right or wrong. Her moral challenges continued: Financial compensation for the children sexually abused in institutional care and considering 'the actual cost to society of the pervasive trauma' were raised by Shepherd. There is no discussion here of the impact on the psyche, soul or spirit, although one has to read between the lines to see some possible hint with the language of 'pervasive trauma' – but that's a remote indicator.
She wrote of 'every dirty secret uncovered' and hints of more cropping up. There was no indicator of how to know it was a 'dirty secret'. If it is 'not their fault' (her language, borrowed from 'recent research), to call it a 'dirty secret' is provocative, contradictory language in my understanding. A 'dirty secret … (that is) not their fault' is an oxymoron way of putting it.
What about this value judgment? 'What if, for less than the price of helping one survivor to heal, we can stop several from being hurt in the first place?' (Shepherd 2015). I ask: Why should one pursue that which is right when it is not the paedophile's fault and morality is not the issue? Why should a paedophile be morally blamed when it is an issue with wiring in the brain? How does one choose to save children (which I would do) and prevent paedophiles from committing acts (which I would do)? It is honourable to choose the vulnerable over the perpetrator, but what values of right and wrong are being used and how are they chosen? Shepherd does not articulate these and give a moral framework for deciding right from wrong.
What morality is contained in Shepherd's (2015) statement, 'If paedophiles get sympathy, respect and treatment, they say, there would be fewer offences. Fewer children raped. Surely that's something worth thinking about?' I find that to be another oxymoron. How can they receive 'respect and treatment' if it is 'not their fault'? Why not accept these values: If we let paedophiles do what comes naturally to them (because their paedophilia is not their fault), why should we be worrying about how they practise paedophilia? It's their natural desire being expressed and surely it would be inappropriate to inhibit something they can do nothing about? The way I've just stated it represents the values of a relativistic worldview that is expressed in this article by Shepherd. If the paedophile can say, 'I will think and do what is right for me', he/she is expressing relativism in action.
This journalist reported on phone calls to the Centres Against Sexual Assault from 'people fantasising about children' and they want help but there is little help available and 'hardly any publicly funded programs' for these paedophiles who are 'potential offenders'. So these people have to be turned away from getting help. Wait a moment! These are the paedophiles for whom it is 'not their fault' and the problem is related to a physical malfunction in the brain's wiring over which they have no control. This is another oxymoron. They can't have it both ways: (i) It's not their fault; (ii) it's caused by a brain problem, but (iii) they need help through government funded programmes.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is 'only just starting to bring home the horror' how 'institutions have forever attracted and then protected paedophiles'. What makes child sexual abuse a 'horror' when this abuser is not the fault of paedophiles? The problem is wrong wiring in the brain (Shepherd 2015).
Can't you see the anomalies of trying to obtain help for paedophiles and victims when a journalist wants to label childhood sexual abuse as a 'horror' without providing a framework of morality to determine that sexual abuse is wrong and the abuse by the paedophile is a 'horror'? I do not support child sexual abuse nor the paedophile's behaviour, but again we see the values of relativism in action as promoted by Shepherd in her article.
For a more detailed analysis of worldviews, see Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, 'Questions about worldviews' (Geisler & Bocchino 2001: 55-69).
Are values relative or absolute? This issue will be investigated now.
C. The paedophile cure
Three factors are exposed in Shepherd's article: (1) Moral relativism, (2) Humanism, and (3) Secularism. The paedophile cure involves dealing with these three threats and promoting absolute truth. Let's examine the issues.
1. Moral relativism
Moral relativists
argue that there are no objective moral values which help us to determine what is right or wrong. They claim "everything is relative." In order to defend this position, the relativist puts forth two arguments: (1) Since people and cultures dis agree about morality, there are no objective moral values; (2) Moral relativism leads to tolerance of practices we may find different or odd (Beckwith 2009).
I find it to be a deceitful tactic to raise the expectation of a paedophile's reputation to, 'It is not their fault', when not even bothering to explain how paedophilia and child sexual abuse can be regarded as wrong or 'a horror' (language cited by Shepherd). Please understand that I oppose paedophilia and child sexual abuse with vehemence, but Shepherd gave no grounds for determining what is right or wrong with these views. Moral relativism and secularism were assumed.
We live in a world that has many following the theme of Frank Sinatra's song, 'I Did It My Way'. If I'm allowed to choose my own values and do it my way, I need to allow you to do it your way. That means paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and thieves need to be allowed to pursue their own morality. The logical outcome of moral relativism is that nobody can stop anyone from doing what they want to do. That system of values will lead to chaos in society. Could we be seeing that in certain examples around the world? I'm thinking of,
The paedophile examples I've given above;
The terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015 (CNN, Dec 24, 2015);
The Syrian crisis (BBC);
September 11, 2001 in New York City (Youtube).
What is the other value system that counters this? Truth is absolute! What does that teach? More on that below.
2. Humanism
This term is a little more difficult to define as it has at least two dimensions. In one of its forms, 'humanism itself is the overall attitude that human beings are of special value; their aspirations, their thoughts, their yearnings are significant'. This is an emphasis that I support as it asserts 'the value of the individual person'. Since the time of the Renaissance there have been many thoughtful Christians and non-Christians who were pleased to call themselves humanists in a positive sense. These have included some Christians, including John Calvin (1509-1564), William Shakespeare (1564-1616), and John Milton (1608-1674) [Sire 1988:74-75].
There has been another negative view of humanism. Its tenets were drafted in Paul Kurtz & Edwin H Wilson's Humanist Manifesto II (The American Humanist Association, 1973). Secular humanists would probably find the first 6 tenets of this Manifesto to harmonise with their secular values for the practice of secular humanism. In the words of the Preface to this Manifesto, 'varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition' (The American Humanist Association, 1973).
However, what is secular?
3. Secularism
What does it mean to have a secular view of life? Albert Mohler states that 'secular refers to the absence of any binding divine authority or belief. Secularization is a sociological process whereby societies become less theistic as they become more modern' (Mohler 2015:5).
The Council of Australian Humanist Societies claims that 'Australia is and has always been a country with secular values' (Harrad 2015). We know that this is not the case because when the first fleet arrived in Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788 with convicts from Great Britain, Richard Johnson was the first chaplain on The Endeavour and he represented the Anglican Church of Great Britain.
(image courtesy Wikipedia)
Rev Richard Johnson (ca. 1756 – 1827)
If you were to go into downtown Sydney, there's a place where I would like you to stand.
It's down at the Circular Quay end of Castlereagh street – on the corner of Bligh and Hunter Streets. In a little square, there's a monument – passed by and unread by hundreds of people every day.
Imagine you are standing in that spot, but instead of looking up at the tall buildings, and hearing the noise of the cars and the buses, above you is a great tree. You are in a wilderness – and the sounds you hear are the sounds of kookaburras – and the sounds of marching feet. For it is very near that spot – at the corner of Bligh and Hunter Streets – that, on Sunday 3rd February 1788, the first Christian church service was held in the Colony of New South Wales.
Just imagine it… Out in the harbour are moored eleven ships – the ships of the First Fleet, having carried just over a thousand people from Southampton.
There's the Governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, twenty officials and their servants, 213 marines with some wives and children, more than 750 convicts – one chaplain and his wife – as well as one eternal optimist – a certain James Smith, the man who had actually stowed away on the First Fleet! (Marcus Loane, Hewn from the Rock, 1997-2016).
(photo courtesy Anglican Church League)
Marcus Loane explained the conflict between evangelical Christian values and secularism in the start of the Australian colony.
In 1792, he [Richard Johnson] wrote to the inhabitants of the Colony. It was a booklet he had published because the population of the Colony was increasing, and there was no way he could see everyone … so he wrote this booklet to set forth the gospel and to call upon men and women to repent. This is a part of what he wrote, and it gives us a good insight into what Johnson saw was his task and his message….
I have told you again and again, that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that there is no coming to God with comfort, either in this world, or in that which is to come, but by him. He has told you so himself. And the apostle assures you, that there is no other name under heaven, given unto men, whereby they can be saved. Look unto him, and you shall be saved; if not, you must be damned. This is the plain truth, the express declaration of the Bible. Life and death are set before you.
Permit me then, as your minister, your friend, and a well-wisher to your souls, to press these serious and weighty considerations home upon your consciences once more. I hope and believe that I have asserted nothing, but what can be proved by the highest authority, the word of the living God.
They certainly deserve your closest and most careful attention, since it is plain beyond a doubt. that upon your knowledge or ignorance, your acceptance or rejection of this gospel, your everlasting happiness or misery must depend.
Yes, Richard Johnson was a man of the gospel – but there are two other men of whom we should take note –
Two other Men
The clear preaching of the gospel by Johnson soon brought him into conflict with the Governor, Arthur Phillip.
Phillip had no time for such strong Evangelical stuff and asked Johnson to "begin with moral subjects".
This shows the fundamental division between these two key people in the new colony. Johnson was an evangelical, called to preach the gospel. He was concerned for the eternal welfare of the men and women of the colony. He wanted to see them turn to Christ and be saved.
Phillip, on the other hand, was called to establish the new settlement, and what he was concerned about was good order and a solid moral fibre for the community. He was happy to use what he saw as "religion" as a means to an end. It was OK to have a chaplain, as long as he didn't take things too seriously.
But, as we know, Johnson did….
Let's face it – if we preach the pure gospel of Christ today, we are not going to have civic leaders or social commentators or the media queuing up to thank us. The message we are called to proclaim is a lot more demanding than the polite morality many want to church to teach!
But there was another reaction to Richard Johnson's preaching that was less favourable.
When, due to ill health, Arthur Phillip returned to England in December 1792, Major Francis Grose assumed control as Acting Governor.
Grose hated Johnson and the gospel he preached, and he set out to make life as hard as possible for the Chaplain.
In 1793, after continued government inaction on the construction of a promised church building, Mr Johnson built a church – largely with his own hands. It was big enough to hold 500 people and it opened on 25th August 1793 (Loane 1997-2016).
Yes, there were secularists with the first fleet who wanted to promote their agendas and oppose the faithful, evangelical chaplain, Richard Johnson, who planted biblical Christianity at Australia's beginning. The result is that today the evangelicals have a large Anglican evangelical diocese in Sydney. The Bible Society reported:
In the Anglican Church, the presence of the evangelical diocese of Sydney makes things clear. Unlike other dioceses, it is the only one with better than expected attendance, according to the report's criteria based on Census data.
In Sydney, 68,000 Anglicans are in church each Sunday. In Melbourne 21,000 Anglicans are in church on Sunday. It was pointed out at General Synod … that the growing churches were evangelical such as City on a Hill in Melbourne, and the Trinity group of churches in Adelaide (Sandeman 2014).
You will note in the Shepherd (2015) article that she does not provide any worldview framework for determining that the practice of paedophilia is wrong or a 'horror' and the sexual abuse of children is wrong. God did not come into the picture in determining values, so she is promoting a secular perspective for determining values. When this happens, the morals are determined by the government in power and there is no divine standard to which one or a government can appeal for determining morality and what is legal vs illegal.
My understanding is that Shepherd, in relying on the research she quoted, has arrived at an ethical view of paedophilia that could be described as relativistic secular humanism. However, Shepherd is espousing a view that I find prevalent in the daily radio & TV news and news online. The emphases are:
The are no absolute values of right and wrong;
Progressive liberalism and free thought;
Belief about paedophilia that has no relationship with God's values;
Paedophilia related to a physical attribute – wiring in the brain.
In avoiding a Christian solution through a theistic worldview (which is expected from a secular newspaper journalist), Shepherd has avoided dealing with a core issue that could help fix the problem.
That is also the case with Kylie Miller's assessment. She is a senior analyst of the National Crime Authority in Australia, who concluded her presentation on 'Paedophilia: Police and Prevention' with this viewpoint:
Given the very low rehabilitation rate for paedophiles, their tendency towards lifelong offending, and the high number of potential victims, it is clear that the resources expended on the detection of child sexual abuse, need to be balanced against resources devoted to the prevention of child sexual abuse. Although law enforcement plays an important role in detecting and countering child sexual abuse, the criminal justice system cannot deal with this problem alone: it needs to be tackled holistically. Police, lawyers, the courts, community services, teachers, doctors, parents and the media all have a role to play in countering child sexual abuse, and a cooperative and coordinated effort is vital to successfully reduce paedophile activity (Miller n d).[6]
Miller, although her emphasis was on a law enforcement perspective, in this summary conclusion has omitted an important dimension of a holistic solution. This is now addressed.
4. A diagnosis and cure provided by a Christian worldview
Scripture is very clear that the problem of sinful humanity, with its many manifestations, has to deal with a deceitful human heart that not only affects paedophiles, writers dealing with paedophilia, and those of us reading this article on paedophiles. In addition, the problem of sexual immorality is a sin that is an unrighteous action that will prohibit people from entering God's kingdom. The language from 1 Corinthians 6:9 is very clear, 'Do not be deceived'. There is a deception being practised when one does not want to deal with the sins of sexual immorality (including paedophilia). See the context of this statement about deception in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV).
Try convincing a 5-year-old raped by a paedophile that it's not the paedophile's fault but the paedophile was born that way and he can't help it because of a brain malfunction. I find this to be straining at a gnat to justify immoral, wicked, devastating behaviour.
Scripture's perspective is:
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 (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV).
Where does the paedophile fit into this list of 'wrongdoers'? He would be among 'the sexually immoral' or 'men who have sex with men'. The 'sexually immoral' term is based on the Greek, pornos, which means 'the sexually immoral persons in this world … differentiated from an adulterer ( 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4)' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:700).
I find it to be half-baked or whacko when the world's standards can become such that they want to redefine sexually immoral behaviour into that 'which would make it not their fault' and 'if paedophiles got sympathy, respect and treatment, they say, there would be fewer offences. Fewer children raped. Surely that's something worth thinking about?' (Shepherd 2015)
Yes, it's certainly worth thinking about for one second and no more and then dumping the idea because it is right off base when compared with a biblical worldview of the cause of sexual perversion, 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?' (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)
Where is the cure? It is through a heart change, an inner change of one's being, that brings a change of view towards the nature of human beings, the human dilemma, right versus wrong, and how the Lord God is involved in the change process through Jesus Christ. Let's examine some of these emphases:
Psalm 51:10 (NIV), 'Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me'.
Proverbs 4:23 (NIV), 'Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it'.
2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV), 'Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[7] The old has gone, the new is here!'
Colossians 3:1 (NIV), 'Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God'.
What does 'heart' mean in the Old Testament Scriptures here cited? In Psalm 51:10, '"Heart" is in the Hebrew the center where thoughts and plans originate. This is to be redone, as is also the spirit of the man [human being] himself, which had wavered in uncertainty and vacillated between hope and despair' (Leupold 1959:405).
That new creation for every person, including the paedophile, requires acknowledgement of the real problem. It is not primarily a wiring in the brain issue, it is a sinful human heart. See the article by Greg Herrick, 'The Seat of Sin, the Heart' (Herrick 2004). But a relativistic secular humanist will run a mile from wanting to label the paedophile's problem sin. But that's exactly what it is. If researchers spent more time on allowing the Gospel to be proclaimed to paedophiles and then those who responded to be discipled, we should get closer to the cure. However, it still leaves us with punishment in prison for those who do not respond to Christ's salvation. For them, there is no cure and they will have to be constantly monitored whenever they are out of jail. That's the sad situation we face with paedophile back-sliders (recidivists)
The Christian worldview difference that provides a diagnosis and cure for the paedophile problem, which is the problem for any sinner, is covered in my summary article, The Content of the Gospel . . . and some discipleship.
However, don't expect a secular audience to accept this diagnosis.
5. Sin and an antagonistic, secular, Australian culture
The rejection of the Christian diagnosis is seen in what happened to a Christian street preacher on Queensland's Gold Coast in December 2015. Family Voice Australia covered the story:
A member of Operation 513 preaches in Cavill Mall on the Gold Coast (photo courtesy Family Voice Australia, 7 December 2015).
George, a Queensland street preacher with the Operation 513 group, was arrested on Friday night, despite being authorised to assemble and preach peacefully in the Surfers Paradise Cavill Mall under the state's Peaceful Assembly Act. Operation 513 had preached in Cavill Mall on several previous occasions without any complaints.
At about 10.30 pm, a police sergeant approached George and told him to "move on" after he had mentioned some sins listed in the Bible (eg 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) – such as adultery, slander, theft, greed, swindling and homosexual conduct.
George and the group organiser Ryan Hemelaar asked for clarification. The female sergeant said (in part): "You have talked about homosexuality, offending members of the public about homosexuality. You are talking about other religions – [saying] that they aren't right, aren't God's way. Now we have members of the public here who are of other religions. Your words over this speaker are causing anxiety. A member of the public has had a go at you and this man here [George] is antagonising him by quoting [from the Bible] in the opposite of what he is trying to say."
Ryan Hemelaar tried in vain to explain that the group had official authorisation, so that under section 45 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, police could not lawfully give a "move on" order.
An acting senior police sergeant and an inspector then arrived and told George to move on immediately or be arrested. George refused to move on. He was handcuffed and arrested for disobeying a police direction. He was later released and issued with a notice to appear in court later this month.
Family Voice Queensland director Geoffrey Bullock is deeply concerned by the police action.
"Since when has it been an offence to discuss Bible teaching in Queensland?" he asked. "Whatever happened to religious freedom? Are we rapidly becoming a 'police state'?" (Family Voice Australia 2016)
I don't expect that a relativistic, secular humanist perspective like that promoted in Shepherd's article will want to be open to the biblical worldview in this article because 'the heart is deceitful' for paedophiles, paedophile researchers, journalists, and me. Without changed hearts, we'll be seeking all kinds of secular alibis to explain or justify sinful behaviour.
D. What makes paedophilia immoral and unlawful?
Notice how a secular, anti-Christian expresses it crudely and blasphemously online. The topic was, 'What does the Bible say about pedophilia?'[8] This person wrote:
Bugger what the bible says or does'nt (sic) say. IT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE IS RIGHT OR NOT AND IT'S NOT. Believe it or not we live in a different century to when the bible was written and we deal with things according to the current bible which is the book of law and common ethics.[9]
That's a crude, moral relativist's way of expressing it. However, the fact remains that for paedophilia to be immoral, there has to be an absolute law of right or wrong. 'It's what we believe is right or not' is not the way to build a just society. That's the means of promoting moral relativism of all people doing what's right in their own eyes.
We had an example of such in the Old Testament: 'In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes' (Judges 17:6; 21:25 NLT). What was the result? They departed from the Lord God and made 'household gods' and ordained priests to lead worship to these false gods (Judges 17:5 NIV). There were no judges in the land of Israel to point out the wrong and how this behaviour deviated from God's law. There were no judges in the land of Israel to point out the wrong and how this behaviour deviated from God's law.
The essence is: For paedophilia to be unlawful, there needs to be laws made by the governments to convict paedophiles. Here are the laws proposed by the Australian state of New South Wales, as reported by Brittany Hughes of Triple M:
Paedophiles who prey on children younger than 10 for sexual intercourse will face life behind bars under new laws to be introduced to NSW Parliament….
Attorney General Gabrielle Upton will introduce legislation increasing the maximum penalty for the offence from 25 years to life behind bars.
The proposal is part of a series of measures taken by the government following a pre-election promise by Premier Mike Baird to get tough on child sex offenders.
If passed, Ms Upton says the laws will see paedophiles hit with lengthy jail terms and "bring sentences into line with community expectations,"
"These are the worst crimes against the most vulnerable in our community, our children, our young people and too often sentences handed down don't align with community expectation" (Hughes 2015, emphasis in original).
This NSW legislation was passed on 24 June 2015 that increased the maximum sentence for sexual intercourse with a child under age 10 from 25 years to life in prison (Mamamia News 2015)
How do the laws in my home state of Queensland (Qld) against paedophilia compare with other states. Sadly there is no uniformity of legislation across the Australia. However, this is the Qld situation when compared with Victoria and South Australia:
In Victoria the crime of sex with a child under 10 attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
In Queensland and South Australia, many serious sex offences against children already carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Mamamia News 2015).
The Queensland government has made available online a copy of its Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (effective at 19 March 2014 when this legislation was published online), that states that 'criminal activity', including criminal paedophilia, 'involves an indictable offence punishable on conviction by a term of imprisonment not less than 14 years' (Queensland: Crime and Misconduct Act 2001).
Paedophilia is illegal because the law of the country in which one lives makes it illegal, along with punishment for the perpetrator.
However, who or what informs the content of this legislation? Obviously people in government and in the community consider that it is wrong for an adult to sexually violate a child. But what makes it wrong?
That's not how Tory Shepherd (2015) reported it. Her article began with:
Evidence shows that it might be true; paedophiles are born that way. Recent research suggests some faulty wiring in the brain. Things about children that are meant to elicit a protective response instead elicit a sexual one (Shepherd 2015).
Notice the language, 'It might be true'. It did not begin with a statement such as, 'Paedophilia is wrong. The law of the land states that it is morally reprehensible behaviour that is always immoral. It is an indictable offense and that conduct should never be tolerated in a civil society. Children should be protected from such vile predators'. Could you imagine a journalist in a secular newspaper writing what I created in this paragraph?
Why could she not conclude that way? It seems that her relativistic, secular humanism worldview enables her to brush aside the absolutes of morally repulsive paedophilia because if it is a problem with 'wiring in the brain', then it 'would make it not their fault' (Shepherd 2015).
What is morally right or wrong does not appear in Shepherd's worldview, based on her article.
1. What informs government legislation?
This is where the crunch comes. Can people be good without God? Can they develop truly just legislation for all in society? Is it possible for both paedophile and victim to be treated with compassion in a secular society?
Peter Hitchens, a world renowned journalist and brother of the late Christopher Hitchens (leading British columnist and prominent atheist), attempted to address this in his article, 'Good without God? Morality's Foundations Crumble in the Absence of Christianity' (Hitchens 2014). Peter's claim was that Christopher's dismissal of absolute theistic morality and his claim that 'the order to "love thy neighbour as thyself" is too extreme and too strenuous to be obeyed'. Christopher claimed that human beings 'are not so constituted as to care for others as much as themselves'. Peter contradicted this as being 'demonstrably untrue' by examples of mothers devoted to children, doctors and nurses risking infection and death to care for others, husbands and/or wives caring for sick, incontinent and demented spouses at the ends of their lives. Peter noted that 'the absolute code has been jettisoned, and we have all become adept at making excuses for shirking such duties' and 'selflessness of this kind will become less common' with many spin-off effects in diverse disciples and situations. Part of his assessment was:
Christianity is without doubt difficult and taxing, and all of us must fail to emulate the perfection of Christ himself, but we are far better for trying than for not trying, and we know that there is forgiveness available for honest failure. My brother's suggestion that we are urged to be superhuman "on pain of death and torture" reveals a misunderstanding both of the nature of the commandments and of the extent of forgiveness. There is also some excuse-making involved (Peter Hitchins 2014).
Some of the comments online about Peter Hitchens' article included:
'The freedom to pick and choose what one feels is appropriate provides both perspective and flexability [sic] (tolerance and harmony). A fixed or 'absolute' stance leaves no room for compromise or accommodation' (GR8APE in Hitchens 2014).
'I think this article is wrestling with how do you say something is right or wrong if there is no higher authority or giver of morality?
'I don't think it is saying that unless you are a Christian you cannot do good things. Indeed, the gospel says nothing of the sort. It says we are all sinners and have fallen short. Unlike every other religion, the gospel says we are not saved by works, we are saved by the grace of God, so no one can boast. It also says we all know right from wrong, not because we have accepted Christ, but because He has written it on all our hearts' (Belinda in Hitchens 2014).
These two comments represent the divide I've been attempting to expose in this article:
If everyone has the 'freedom to pick and choose what one feels is appropriate' with tolerance and harmony and there are no 'fixed' absolutes, why should I choose 'tolerance and harmony'? That's one person's point of view (I happen to agree with the person, but my foundation is biblical Christianity). If anyone picks and chooses what is appropriate, the paedophile, murderer, thief and terrorist must be allowed to do the same thing. This is relativism in action and will lead to disaster in society.
However, the second example demonstrates the need for a higher authority than human beings to determine right and wrong of morals. God has written this on the conscience of all human beings (see Romans 2:15-16 ESV).. To be able to put this into action, a person needs a changed heart that only Christian conversion can bring. Other attempts at doing good works are sustained by human energy and have a serious potential to fail when there is no change of heart that Jesus brings to a Christian believer.
Romans 1:19-23 (NIV) is clear that all human beings know the attributes of God clearly, but they suppress the truth of this 'by their wickedness' (Rom 1:18). The consequence of this is that there is no such person as an atheist as all people know 'God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature' from creation and all people are 'without excuse' (Rom 1:20) So those who claim to be atheists are really agnostics who don't want to know what God has revealed to them because of 'their wickedness' which causes them to 'suppress the truth' of God's revelation to them (Rom 1:18).
From the beginning of time, there have been two options for moral direction in any society and they are demonstrated by those two examples: (1) Human beings choose their own values and this could involve turning to world religions (including relativistic, secular humanism), or (2) People turn to the God of Scripture for his absolutes on moral behaviour and use these values for personal and societal morals.
This leads to my concluding evaluation, an issue that has faced humanity throughout its history:
2. What is truth?
These are the words of Pontius Pilate at the time when Jesus was handed over to him. Pilate said to Jesus, '"So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." 38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"' (John 18:37-38 ESV).
The Christian answers this question with what Jesus said. He did not want his disciples taken out of the world but that they be kept from the evil one. Thus his absolute is paramount, 'Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth' (John 17:17). Jesus' further word was in what he said to Thomas, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life' (John 14:6). What the Scriptures say is true, is absolutely true. 'You shall not murder' is true for all people at all times (Ex 20:13; Matt 5:21; Rom 13:9). How is that so? The Scriptures endorse that command. There are two covenants revealed in Scripture: (a) The Old Covenant for the Israelites, contained in the Old Testament, and (b) The New Covenant revealed in the New Testament. Christians pursue the New Covenant.
But what about the other view, 'I will do what's right for me; you do what's right for you'. This is a relativistic view of truth and has these consequences according to Paul Copan:
If my belief is only true for me, then why isn't your belief only true for you? Aren't you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?
You say that no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do.
You're making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false. You can't in the same breath say, 'Nothing is universally true' and 'My view is universally true.' Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true – relativism!
You're applying your view to everyone but yourself. You expect others to believe your views (the 'self-excepting fallacy') [Copan 1998].
How then does one determine what is true?
This actually happened when I was aged 6 years. I had just begun primary school and used to walk to our one room, one teacher school, with about 6 grades in the one room, from our cane farm just up the road. One morning I woke up with horrific pains in my knees and ankles which were so swollen and painful that I could not bear to have the sheets touch them.
(Ford Prefect A493A utility – photo courtesy commons.wikimedia.com)
My parents rushed me to hospital from our cane farm near Bundaberg. It took 30 minutes in our old Ford Prefect utility to where I was admitted to St. Vincent's Hospital (now known as The Friendly Society Private Hospital – the Friendlies – Bundaberg, Qld., Australia). I was there for some weeks as the doctors sought a diagnosis. It was there that Thelma Stay, radio announcer of 'Hello the Hospitals' on 4BU Bundaberg became my friend as parents, relatives and friends sent me get well greetings through that programme and one of my favourite country music songs was sung – often by Slim Dusty with a song such as, 'When the rain tumbles down in July'.
I had contracted rheumatic fever and must remain in bed, flat on my back, not raising my head as that would cause further heart damage. When home from hospital, my Dad made a special wooden trestle to put over my body as I lay on the bed, on which to place school books to do school work.
This same kind of experience happened again with further bouts of rheumatic fever at ages 10 and 12 that left me with leaking heart valves.
These descriptions of my rheumatic fever attacks and the excruciating pain remain with me today in my mature age. I live with the truth that corresponds with reality of three rheumatic fever attacks. I can make truthful statements about what happened in those years that could be confirmed by my parents (they are at home with the Lord now). My brother and sister can confirm the events that happened. They were younger so they probably remember the bouts at ages 10 and 12 better. However, with plausible accuracy, we can remember the health issues that happened in my early years. There is evidence that could have been accumulated from doctors, hospitals and others. We live with this view of truth – that which corresponds with the facts of reality.
If objective truth were not available (through correspondence with the facts) and the absolutes of God's moral laws in Scripture were denied, society would be swimming in the sea of relativism with no absolute view of right and wrong.
For a more detailed explanation of the nature of truth, see, 'Questions about Truth' by Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino (Geisler & Bocchino 2001:31-53).
E. Conclusion
A seemingly inoffensive article appeared in the Herald Sun in April 2015 that promoted the view that 'if people are born straight, or gay, is it possible that paedophiles can't help being what they are?' (Shepherd 2015) She introduced the possibility that research into paedophilia has attempted to confirm that for paedophiles they have some faulty wiring in the brain that 'would make it not their fault'.
A closer look at Tory Shepherd's article found some other dynamics in the agenda being promoted in the article. After defining paedophilia and revealing why it is a crime, several examples of convicted paedophiles were given and this included acknowledgement of the impact on victims.
After explaining the nature of a worldview and the dimensions of such a view, it was shown that Shepherd appears to promote a worldview of relativistic secular humanism. An attempt was made to demonstrate that that worldview misses a critical diagnosis and cure for paedophilia and other sins, that are available through a Christian worldview. The diagnosis and cure relate to dealing with the heart of the matter, the sinful heart that needs a radical change provided by the Gospel and a relationship with Jesus Christ.
The final section examined why paedophilia is immoral and unlawful and how one informs the content of government legislation. This involved an examination of the nature of truth – relativism versus absolutes. Truth is that which corresponds with reality when the evidence is gathered.
Why are people not listening to the truth of Jesus and God's absolutes revealed in Scripture? 'But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (Rom 1:18 NLT).
Jesus said: 'The reason I was born and
came into the world is to testify to the
truth. Everyone on the side of truth
listens to me' (John 18:37 NIV).
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.[10] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).
Beckwith, F J 2009. Philosophical problems with moral relativism. Christian Research Institute (online), April 6. Available at: http://www.equip.org/article/philosophical-problems-with-moral-relativism/ (Accessed 26 January 2016).
Branco, J 2016. Convicted paedophile who raped stepdaughter to be watched until 2021. Brisbane Times (online), January 17. Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/convicted-paedophile-who-raped-stepdaughter-to-be-watched-until-2021-20160115-gm6xat.html (Accessed 17 January 2016).
Campion, T 2013. Tommy Campion and Phillip Aspinall – the road to redemption. news.com.au (online), May 25. Available at: http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/tommy-campion-and-phillip-aspinall-the-road-to-redemption/story-fnii5s3x-1226650281095 (Accessed 16 January 2016).
Copan, P 1998. 'That's true for you but not for me' (Relativism). uccf: thechristianunions (online). Available at bethinking, at: http://www.bethinking.org/truth/thats-true-for-you-but-not-for-me-relativism (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Family Voice Australia 2016. Gold Coast preacher arrested for talking about sin (online), December 7. Available at: http://www.fava.org.au/news/2015/gold-coast-preacher-arrested-for-talking-about-sin/ (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Geisler, N & Bocchino, P 2001. Unshakable foundations. Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.
Harrad, S 2015. Australian Humanist Conference – Brisbane 2016. Council of Australian Humanist Societies (online), September 28. Available at: http://www.humanist.org.au/ (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Herrick, G 2004. The seat of sin, the heart. Bible.org (online), June 9. Available at: https://bible.org/seriespage/3-seat-sin-heart (Accessed 29 January 2016).
Hitchens, P 2014. Good without God? Morality's foundations crumble in the absence of Christianity. ABC Religion and Ethics (online), December 3. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/03/4141760.htm (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Hughes, B 2015. Paedophiles who prey on kids under 10 to get life in jail: Laws tightened to crack down on offenders. Triple M (online), May 11. Available at: http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/news/blog/2015/5/paedophiles-who-prey-on-kids-under-10-to-get-life-in-jail/ (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Kaplan, M 2015. Taking pedophilia seriously. Washington and Lee Law Review (online), 72(1), Winter, 75-170. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4438&context=wlulr (Accessed 16 January 2016).
Lawrence, K 2009. Inside the mind of evil predator, convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson. The Daily Telegraph (online), September 19. Available at: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/inside-the-mind-of-evil-predator-convicted-paedophile-dennis-ferguson/story-e6freuy9-1225776838465 (Accessed 15 January 2016).
Leupold, H C 1959. Exposition of The Psalms. London: Evangelical Press.[11]
Loane, M 1997-2016. Hewn from the Rock. In 'Richard Johnson – first Chaplain to Australia', Anglican Church League (online). Available at: http://acl.asn.au/resources/richard-johnson-first-chaplain-to-australia/ (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Mamamia News 2015. New laws mean life in prison for convicted paedophiles, June 25. Available at: http://www.mamamia.com.au/paedophiles-maximum-penalty/ (Accessed 30 January 2016).
McKenna, M 2010. Aussie pedophile's jail sentence a fraction of US term. The Australian (online), September 9. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/aussie-pedophiles-jail-sentence-a-fraction-of-us-term/story-e6frg6nf-1225916110205 (Accessed 16 January 2016).
Miller, K n d. Paedophilia: Policy and prevention. Detection and reporting of paedophilia: A law enforcement perspective. Australian Institute of Criminology (online). Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/paedophilia/miller.pdf (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Mohler, Jr., R A 2015. We Cannot Be Silent. Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Books.
Sandeman, J 2014. Two Australian denominations face big challenges. Bible Society (online), July 11. Available at: http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/two-australian-denominations-face-big-challenges (Accessed 30 January 2016).
Seto, M C 2012. Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior 41, 231-236.[12]
Shepherd, T 2015, Should we help paedophiles? What choice do we have? The Herald Sun (online) April 7. Available at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/rendezview/should-we-help-paedophiles-what-choice-do-we-have/news-story/8bdfbee176a10520706f67c19a3bb8fd (Accessed 15 January 2016).
Sire, J 1988. The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, b updated & exp. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
[1] Throughout the body of this article, I have used the Australian (British) spelling of paedophile and its derivatives, but have used the American spelling, pedophile, in the title for Internet recognition by search engines.
[2] Dr Michael C Seto is a Canadian clinical psychologist, associate professor, and a director of forensic rehabilitation research. His CV details are at: http://individual.utoronto.ca/michaelseto/ (Accessed 16 January 2016).
[3] Bravehearts 2012. Child Sexual Assault: Facts and Statistics, December. Available at: http://www.bravehearts.org.au/files/Facts%20and%20Stats_updated141212.pdf (Accessed 15 January 2016).
[4] The word 'unendable' was not found in Oxford dictionaries (online), Merriam-Webster dictionary (online), dictionary.reference.com, and The Macquarie Dictionary. There is a brief discussion of the meaning and use of 'unendable' at: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/unendable.2351375/ (Accessed 26 January 2016).
[5] This is not the correct spelling as paedophile in the USA where the group is called 'Virtuous Pedophiles'. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_Pedophiles (Accessed 15 January 2016).
[6] No date is given for this presentation, but she cites statistics from 1994 and footnotes from 1996.
[7] The footnote at this point stated, 'Or Christ, that person is a new creation'.
[8] Yahoo! Answers n d. Available at: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070703010944AAI5VAc (Accessed 17 January 2016).
[9] Ibid., knackers
[10] This is 'a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur', 4th rev and aug ed, 1952 (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).
[11] This is a 1969 reprint edition. The original publication of 1959 was with The Wartburg Press, assigned to Augsburg Publishing House in 1961.
[12] Only the abstract of the article is able free online at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-011-9882-6#page-1 (Accessed 16 January 2016).
This entry was posted in Paedophilia, Sexual Abuse on 1 February 2016 by spencer.
(courtesy dreamstime)
(courtesy PublicDomainPictures.net)
In 2014-2015, Senator David Leyonhjelm in the Australian federal Senate has been promoting a Bill to legalise same-sex marriage (with support from other politicians). It was reported: 'Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm introduces same-sex marriage bill' (The Sydney Morning Herald, November 26, 2014). The Sydney Morning Herald also provided information on 'the surprise visitor [Senator Cory Bernardi] at David Leyonhjelm's gay marriage press conference' (SMH March 19, 2015). What has happened to the Bill? Leyonhjelm told Sky News that he expected the Bill to be debated in federal parliament in 2016. See, 'Gay marriage vote in 2016 says Leyonhjelm' (Sky News, 2 June 2015).
I wrote to the Queensland Senators to provide evidence why they should not support homosexual marriage. I wrote as a Queensland elector, one who has been a counsellor and/or counselling manager for 34 years, and someone who is not a homophobe.
Reasons not to support homosexual marriage
I urged the Senators not to support or promote this legislation for these reasons:
1. While there have been widows and single parents since the beginning of time, the marriage of a man and woman has been the norm to have the potential to produce children naturally. To change this is to change a necessary fundamental of society.
2. To go down the road of same-sex marriage would be a potentially dangerous social experiment in Australia for the following reasons:
One of those is the impact on children born to surrogates and then parented by a same-sex couple. Too often, the man who donated the sperm or the woman who donated the ovum is not known to the child. Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states: 'The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents'. All children, wherever possible, have the right to know and they need both mother and father. Such is not possible with many homosexual couples where there are children.
3. All is not well with children from some homosexual parents. On 19 March 2015, The Courier-Mail published the article, 'Heather Barwick, the daughter of lesbians, against gay marriage, defends Dolce & Gabbana'. Part of what she wrote was:
"I'm writing to you because I'm letting myself out of the closet: I don't support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It's not because you're gay. I love you, so much. It's because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself," she said. "Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mum's partner, but another mum could never have replaced the father I lost."
'Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It's only with some time and distance from my childhood that I'm able to reflect on my experiences and recognise the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me," she said. "It's only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting".
(Male same-sex couple with a child, courtesy Wikipedia)
A new study of children raised by homosexual parents by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin reverses the conventional academic understanding that such children are not at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by a married mother and father. The article in the journal, Social Science Research, has found that 'the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of "gay fathers" were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of "gay fathers" used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families)'.[1]
This newer study contradicts earlier research which was reported in, 'Children of same-sex couples thriving: study' (The Sydney Morning Herald, April 6, 2013).
Therefore, the same-sex relationship, even in marriage, does not have the same dynamics as those for the man-woman relationship and may have detrimental consequences on children and our society as the following points illustrate.
4. The rectum is not designed for sexual penetration; the vagina is. Anal sex is a high risk sexual activity. One of the many hazards is the vulnerability of the tissues to tearing and bleeding. Damage can be done to the sphincter muscles that may lead to incontinence and rectal prolapse. There is a high level of organisms that may cause disease in the rectum. Do you want these medical issues to be added to the already overloaded Medicare system?
5. Some research has shown that the risk for transmission of HIV is higher for anal sex than for vaginal sex. This report from 2008, "Inequitable Impact: The HIV/AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men in Massachusetts", demonstrates the increased HIV rate among MSM (men having sex with men) in Massachusetts
6. Please read this assessment by Brian Camenker in 2008 of "What same-sex marriage has done to Massachusetts: It's far worse than most people realize". Examine the impact in Massachusetts on education in schools right down to the primary school level. Observe how it influences public health, increased domestic violence, business, the legal profession, adoption of children, Government mandates, the public square and the mass media.
(diagram anal cancer, stage 1, courtesy Wikipedia)
7. The anal cancer problem. 'For HIV-positive Gay Men, the risk is even further elevated. In a recent meta-analysis of all studies describing anal cancer incidence in Gay Men living with HIV, it was reported that anal cancer incidence increased to 78-100 per 100,000 per year in reports published after 1996. These data demonstrate that the incidence of anal cancer is increasing in HIV-positive men, despite the improved general health associated with effective HIV therapies.
The incidence of anal cancer in men and women who identify as heterosexual and have HIV is about 20 per 100,000' (Submission, June 2014, 'Anal Cancer-Diagnosis, Monitoring and Management in Sydney and South East Sydney Local Health Districts', Positive Life NSW).
So, the occurrence in anal cancer for homosexual men is 4-5 times higher than for heterosexual men and women. Marriage is not likely to stop this incidence in the homosexual population, but Senators should be promoting the message in Parliament and to the mass media that the homosexual lifestyle has some deleterious medical consequences.
Another report on anal cancer indicated that 'in the general population, anal cancer is a rare disease…. Among men who have sex with men (MSM), the incidence of anal cancer is significantly more prevalent and increasing annually' (National lgbt Cancer Network, 'Anal Cancer, HIV and Gay/Bisexual Men', 2013).
8. The foundation of Australia's healthy democracy and laws has been built on a Christian world view that promotes heterosexual marriage for the health of the nation, which states that 'a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh' (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ affirmed heterosexuality for the norm of society when he repeated the Genesis mandate, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' (Matthew 19:5). Paul promoted it in Ephesians 5:31. If Australia moves away from this foundational law for a just and fair family, it will be violating a fundamental of Australia's national cultural health.
In light of these details, I urge all politicians not to vote for any Bill that legalises homosexual marriage.
[1] Mark Regnerus 2012, 'How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study', Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4, July, pp. 752-770. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 (Accessed 21 March 2015, emphasis in original).
Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 2 December 2015.
This entry was posted in Government, Homosexual marriage, Homosexuality, Marriage & the Family on 2 December 2015 by spencer.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)
Those who oppose a Christian view of homosexuality often come up with some interesting provocative resistance. Here is one I encountered on an online Christian forum:
There is no justification for a proscription against homosexuality as a "moral" law, although as a practical matter, it may have been forbidden as a violation of the stricture to "be fruitful and multiply".
What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?[1]
My response was:[2]
There was no need for Jesus to make a direct statement against homosexuality because He had established the boundaries of sexuality. What He spoke clearly about was sexuality in general. Of marriage, Jesus stated, 'At the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate' (Matthew 19:4–6).
Jesus here cited from Genesis and the relationship of Adam and Eve and affirmed God's design for marriage and sexuality. It was heterosexual and not homosexual as Genesis 2:24 states, 'That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh' (NIV).
Thus, Jesus did not make a direct statement such as, 'Thou shalt not commit a homosexual act', for Jesus to confirm he was against homosexuality. The affirmation in Matthew 19:4-6 was all that was needed to provide God's parameters for sexual relationships.
Homosexual behaviour as sin
I wrote to Jim: You don't seem to grasp that in the New Testament, Jesus' words have no more authority than other NT Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). What Paul wrote about homosexuality is just as inspired (breathed out by God) as that by Jesus. Paul wrote:
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[3] 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 (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV).
Paul is clear that homosexuality is among the sins that will cause a person not to inherit the kingdom of God. There are other sins that are included in this group.
Homosexuals can be changed
But the fantastic news is, 'That is what some of you were' (1 Cor 6:11). Like the sins of sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander and swindling, homosexual sins can be forgiven. Thus, Paul places homosexual sin among sinful behaviour that can be forgiven and not as a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a secular, contemporary labelling. 'Such were some of you' is a clear indication that all these sins can be changed by the living God – including homosexuality.
Without faith in the buried and resurrected Christ of Golgotha, Jim and other sinful rebels are not likely to understand the biblical view on homosexuality. They need a heart change that involves, 'that is what some of your were' – an encounter with the living Christ – before their views of homosexuality will change. If that happens, hardening of the heart will continue.
What is a hard heart?
A hard heart is an obstinate and calloused heart that fails to respond to God or obey him. A hard heart is blind to the precious value of the gospel and refuses to embrace Christ (Rom. 11:8). Most precariously, a hard heart is synonymous with spiritual ignorance and alienation from God (Eph. 4:18) (Reinke 2014).
That's what I encountered with Jim, the atheist.
Reinke, T 2014. You Asked: Does God Harden a Believer's Heart? The Gospel Coalition (online), March 18. Available at: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-asked-does-god-harden-a-believers-heart (Accessed 21 November 2015).
[1] JimOdom#106, Christian Fellowship Forum, 'Five things I wish Christians would admit about the Bible'. Available at: http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Christian_Fellowship_Forum/_/_/ws-fellowship/123829.106?scrollTo=os_message_106&nav=messages (Accessed 2 March 2015).
[3] At this point in the NIV (New International Version), the footnote was: '1 Corinthians 6:9: The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts'.
This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Jesus Christ on 21 November 2015 by spencer.
Traditional marriage = anti-marriage equality
(courtesy ChristArt)
I was alerted to what SBS television had done with censoring heterosexual marriage by an item on news.com.au. The heading of the article was, 'Anti-marriage equality ad pulled from SBS TV' (March 09, 2015).
AN ADVERTISEMENT critical of same-sex marriage was pulled by SBS management ahead of their telecast of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on Sunday night, the ad's sponsors say.
The Australian Marriage Forum said in a statement that the ad was booked and scheduled for broadcast during a Sunday night Mardi Gras special.
Dr van Gend says the ad was booked and paid for before he received an email on Friday to inform him it had been pulled from the Sunday night schedule. "I've unfortunately been instructed to advise you that we choose not to run this TVC for the Marriage Forum during the Mardi Gras telecast," the email from SBS sales manager for Queensland, Nick Belof, said….
Dr van Gend said: "It is outrageous for a taxpayer funded broadcaster like SBS to apply censorship to one side of the debate on same-sex marriage."
"SBS is funded by taxpayers on both sides of the same-sex 'marriage' debate", Dr van Gend said.
Dr van Gend called the cancellation of the ad a "suppression of free speech on a matter of public importance".
An SBS spokesperson told Fairfax Media that it reserved the right "to determine what advertisements it broadcasts" (emphasis in original).
My complaint about this censorship
(courtesy clker)
SBS TV is an Australian public broadcaster. It receives government funds to the tune of approximately $275,000 a year (see below) from the Australian taxpayer. So, on 11 March 2015, I sent this email:
The manager,
SBS television comments@sbs.com.au
Dear manager,
I object strongly to what SBS, a publicly funded broadcaster, did to an advertisement by the Australian Marriage Forum (AMF) on SBS on Saturday evening, 7 March, when SBS was telecasting the Gay Mardi Gras.
Here is a link to the advertisement that your network censored: youtu.be/s80wL5al5NA.
The AMF advertisement was booked and paid for to be shown on Saturday night, 7 March, during the SBS delayed broadcast of the Parade – but only on Friday 6 March did the AMF agent receive this message from SBS management: 'We choose not to run this TVC for the Marriage Forum during the Mardi Gras telecast'.[1]
No explanation was given. This is disgusting discrimination against the heterosexual community and traditional marriage. It is censorship to be condemned.
Please advise me why your publicly funded network engaged in this kind of discriminatory censorship of an advt that had been paid for and scheduled to be telecast?
Mr S Gear
SBS reply
On 11 March 2015, SBS replied:
Dear Spencer,
Thank you for contacting SBS.
SBS reserves the right to determine what advertisements it broadcasts.
Regardless, I have passed on your comments to our relevant departments as viewer feedback.
SBS Audience Relations
In other words, SBS continues to promote its censorship with 'SBS reserves the right to determine what advertisements it broadcasts'. That's not how Sam McLean of The Drum saw it.
'SBS should have run this offensive ad'
Sam McLean of ABC's, The Drum, even though he objected to the content of the advertisement, complained that SBS should have telecast the ad:
I was offended by the Australian Marriage Forum's new anti marriage equality TV ad, but we shouldn't censor any one side of a political debate, writes Sam McLean.
A lot of people have been in uproar over the Australian Marriage Forum's new anti marriage equality TV advertisement – chief among them, my fellow progressives.
The ad, which the AMF pitched for a provocative first run on the night of Sydney Mardi Gras, implies same-sex marriage poses a danger to children. I was offended by the ad, but frankly, so too by SBS refusing to run it.
Yes, the ad is incendiary. Yes, it is wrong. But yes, the AMF has absolutely every right to run it – and no broadcaster should be able to deny them that. An email from SBS sales manager for Queensland, Nick Belof, reads:
Our review board has instructed that SBS has the right to choose what ads we run, and I've unfortunately been instructed to advise you that we choose not to run this TVC for the Marriage Forum during the Mardi Gras telecast (Mclean 2015, emphasis in original).
The following represents a summary of the ABC and SBS funding from the Australian government over the next 5 years (Turnbull 2014):
Therefore, for the 2014-2015 financial year, $287,023 was funded from government proceeds to run this operation. The conclusion is that '80 per cent of funding for the SBS Corporation is derived from the Australian Government through triennial funding arrangements. Funding is legislated annually through the Budget Appropriation Bills…. The remainder of SBS revenue is derived from independent sources. These include advertising and sponsorship, production services and sale of programs and merchandise' (Jolly 2007).
ringsview.com
Several issues are playing out in our Australian culture and the promotion of homosexual marriage:
The promotion of heterosexual marriage in the language of anti-marriage equality, is deconstructing language to make heterosexual marriage mean something else.
SBS has censored one side of the debate, the discussion that supports traditional marriage. That is abhorrent for a public broadcaster that receives 80% of its funding from the Australian government. It is supposed to represent ALL Australians and not just the homosexual community and its supporters.
Those who support 'marriage equality' are 'fellow progressives' (Sam McLean). This again is deconstructing language. In an era of political correctness, to be conservative and supporting traditional marriage is to be radical in a mass media environment that wants to silence the traditional marriage voice.
Sam McLean rightly concluded, 'The anti marriage equality lobbyists said it was unfair for SBS to apply censorship to one side of the debate on same-sex marriage, and I agree' (McLean 2015). I would have stated it this way: Those promoting traditional marriage consider the censorship of their advertisement was unfair for SBS to withdraw the advertising.
It's impossible or extremely difficult to get through to public mass media with an alternate message to their allegedly progressive, anti-conservative views. Penetrating the barrier is like pounding a brick wall with a foam hammer.
hanglogic
Jolly, R 2007. Special Broadcasting Service (SBS): Operations and funding. Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives, 28 March. Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/SBS (Accessed 10 August 2015).
McLean, S 2015. SBS should have run this offensive ad. The Drum (ABC), 13 March. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-13/mclean-sbs-shouldnt-censor-anti-gay-marriage-ad/6314748 (Accessed 10 August 2015).
Turnbull, M 2014. Communications and Broadband: FAQs on the ABC and SBS, How much do the national broadcasters receive from taxpayers in the budget each year? (online) Malcolm Turnbull MP, Minister for Communications, 19 December. Available at: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/communications-broadband/faqs-on-the-abc-and-sbs#budget (Accessed 10 August 2015).
[1] Included in McLean (2015).
This entry was posted in Homosexual marriage, Homosexuality, Marriage & the Family, Mass media on 10 August 2015 by spencer.
A Christian discussion of homosexuality and sexuality
(image in public domain)
I have spent many years in counselling individuals and families and sometimes dealing with their sexual expressions. I retired in 2011 after 17-years full time as a counselling manager and counsellor of youth, families, relationships and marriages – most of it in a secular environment.
To raise the topic of homosexuality and sexuality from a Christian perspective, automatically raises suspicion in some quarters, especially with secularists in the mass media and in online forums. There is quite a bit of confusion in this area today because of the increasing promotion of homosexuality and homosexual marriage as an acceptable lifestyle choice.
How should evangelical Christians (including myself) respond to this kind of explanation of homosexual behaviour? On alleged Christian wrote:
For many years of my life, I also believed that all homosexual behavior was wrong — whether it consisted of anonymous hookups or committed relationships. I believed, based on what I had read in the Bible, that even the most loving and monogamous of same-sex relationships was evil in God's eyes. But as I studied the Bible, my view on that subject changed. I now believe that homosexual behavior is appropriate within the confines of a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship. Essentially, I'm arguing that a Christ-centered marriage is a good thing, regardless of the gender of the people involved….
But a growing number of Christians believes the church has made a mistake and that the church's position ought to be reformed. In this essay, I'm going to refer to these differing Christian viewpoints as "the Traditional View" and "the Reformed View" respectively. I support the Reformed View.[1]
That was promoted by Justin Lee, executive director of the Gay Christian Network. This paragraph includes his basic understanding of homosexuality:
He used to believe that all homosexual behaviour was wrong;
He gained that view from the Bible and believed that even monogamous, same-sex relationships were evil before God;
He changed his view after further study from the Bible and now believes that,
It is appropriate to have a Christ-centred homosexual relationship that is committed, loving, monogamous and lifelong. So,
Christ-centred marriage is a good thing whether homosexual or heterosexual.
The traditional view of the church needs to be reformed.
If your children and youth are exposed to that kind of approach, how will they view homosexuality? It will send them a positive message that it is possible to have a Christ-centred homosexual marriage.
That is not the assessment that will be reached in what follows. Let's look at some definitions.
I. Definitions
A. Sexuality
How would you describe your sexuality and the expression of sex in your relationship?
Students from the University of Western Australia in 2012 provided this definition: 'Sexuality: Is about sexual feelings (who we are emotionally and sexually attracted to), sexual behaviour (how we express our sexual feelings) and sexual identify (who we say we are to ourselves and others based on our internal beliefs)'.[2]
Andrew Comiskey, a former homosexual who has been redeemed by Jesus,[3] gave this explanation:
Sexuality involves a lot more than mere behavior. It includes a heartfelt yearning for connection with another. At the core it's not a lustful seductive exercise. It grows from that God-inspired desire within each of us [unless you have the gift of celibacy] to break out of the walls of the lone self and merge with another human being. [Sexual] intercourse is only one expression of this merging, albeit the most obvious (Comiskey 1989:37).
B. Homosexuality
Here are some biblical explanations of what is involved from Romans 1:20-30,
Romans 1:24, calls them "the lusts of their hearts to impurity" (ESV);
Romans 1:26 as engaging in "dishonorable passions" and "exchanging natural [sexual] relations";
Romans 1: 27, Women were "consumed with passion for one another." "Men [were] committing shameless acts with men."
II. A biblical view of homosexuality (based on a biblical worldview of sexuality).
A. Sexuality involves a longing and desire for unity/union
The body longs for human touch;
The human soul longs for companionship to ease our aloneness [unless you have the gift of celibacy].
BEFORE the fall into sin, God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone; 'I will make a helper suitable for him.'" (Gen. 2:18).
This intimate desire for another happened in the pristine state of a human being, prior to the fall into sin.
What was God's answer? [Please understand that man had access to God, but that was not enough.]
B. God's plan is male and female
Background understanding comes from these two passages:
Genesis 1:26-28 (NIV),
26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[4] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Gen. 2:22-25 (ESV) states:
22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[5] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
C. The origin of all depravity (incl. heterosexual & homosexual depravity)
1. Genesis 3: the fall into sin
No matter what the sin, whether it be theft, adultery, rape, homosexual acts or genocide, the origin happened at the beginning of the human race.
Romans 5:12 explains how sin and all of its dimensions entered the human race: 'When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned' (NLT). Read the full fuller story of how it happened in Genesis 2 and 3.
How could a sinless human being whom God declared to be 'very good' (Gen 1:31) commit sin and condemn the whole human race, as our head, to depraved sinful actions? While admitting that Adam's sin was the original sin of the human race, theologian, Henry Thiessen stated that
it still does not show how the sinful disposition found a place in Adam's nature. We can be sure that God did not put motives before man that led him to sin. That would make God responsible and absolve man from guilt. Nor did God remove from him His sustaining grace, in which case He would likewise bear the responsibility. Nor is it sufficient to say that the power of choice with which God had endowed Adam was bound to lead to this result, for as [Augustus] Strong says, 'The mere power of choice does not explain the fact of an unholy choice'[6]…. We cannot tell how the first unholy emotion arose in the soul of a holy being, but we know the fact that it did. The only satisfactory explanation is that man fell by a free act of revolt from God (Thiessen 1949:247-248).
All sin entered the world as a result of this disobedient action by Adam and Eve. That's when the sin of homosexuality entered the world. Please note what I wrote. It is the sin of homosexuality and not the genetics of homosexuality that led to its being a sin that prevents one from entering the kingdom of God. But I'm jumping ahead of myself.
Here is an extended example from the Book of Romans that shows how homosexuality is one of the sinful desires that issues in sinful acts and God's wrath is revealed against this godlessness and wickedness of human beings. Let's take a read:
2. Romans 1:18-32 (NIV),
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
3. The male-female relationship fell from innocence.[7]
When sin entered the human race, our sexuality was cast into disorder. Comiskey explained: "Every one of us is in turn is sexually vulnerable to some degree. People with a heterosexual orientation are no less fallen than those with homosexual tendencies."[8]
Therefore, for anyone to experience homosexual healing, there needs to be, at the very base,
A clear understanding that brokenness comes from the fall into sin;
A humble recognition that "God never intended for man or woman to seek completion in the same sex. Thus, homosexual pursuit of erotic and emotional bonding [with a person of the same sex] violates something basic in our humanity."[9]
The homosexual MUST accept that "homosexual pursuit of erotic and emotional bonding violates something basic to our humanity."[10]
PLEASE also recognise that homosexuality is only one of the sinful sexual behaviours that is woven into our sinful humanity – the others include, any kind of sex outside of marriage, including pre-marital sex as singles, defacto sex as singles, prostitution (male and female), bestiality,
"The Genesis account underscores the futility of trying to become whole through a member of the same sex."[11]
D. That is what some of you were
Who are the people who will not enter the kingdom of God? What are the possibilities of change? These verses put these issues in context and provide answers.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV) reads:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous[12] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality,[13] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. 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.
Please note that one of the kinds of unrighteous deeds preventing a person from entering God's kingdom is the sin of practising homosexuality. It is important to emphasise that it in only one among a number of other kinds of unrighteous actions that will prevent people from entering the kingdom of God. Those who practise homosexuality are included with idolaters, adulterers, thieves and drunkards. ALL UNFORGIVEN SINNERS will be prevented from entering God's kingdom and that includes those who practise homosexuality. Too often the homosexuals have been singled out by Christians without emphasis on the other kinds of sinners in this passage.
However, God's view of sinners from 1 Cor. 6:9-11 is, 'Such were some of you'. It is not, 'Such ARE some of you'. It is in the past tense which means that these sinners have changed and that includes homosexuals – thanks to God's redemption through Christ. Jesus changes all sinners if they confess their sins, repent and receive Christ alone for salvation. And that includes homosexual sinners. Yes, homosexual SINNERS. God's assessment is that homosexuality is a sin that can be changed through Christ.
E. Accept/Receive one another
There is an important verse to help the church deal with recovering homosexuals in the church. Romans 15:7: "Accept [or receive] one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God."
When I preached this message at a local church, I said: I could have brought a redeemed homosexual along to share his testimony, but I resisted UNTIL we know the truth of Rom. 15:7 in the Christian fellowship. I know of redeemed homosexuals who have been so hurt by Christians in the church that they may never return to the church – and that is tragic.
When I shared this verse in a devotional at a ministers' association meeting with a group of pastors, one pastor shouted me down before I finished the devotional – objecting strongly to the biblical view that I was sharing that we ought to accept ALL believers, including redeemed homosexuals, redeemed paedophiles, redeemed prostitutes, etc. Please understand that I am talking about redeemed sinners who are being discipled and growing in grace. We are seeing the fruit of change in their lives. It is always wise to have others supervising redeemed sinners who have come from a dangerous, reprobate lifestyle. However, we need to remember that 'there but for the grace of God, go I'.[14]
III. The genetic hypothesis for homosexuality has some holes in it.
The basic root is sin, as has been explained above.
A. Hasn't it been proven that people are born homosexual?
There have been a number of examples of those who try to prove homosexuality has a biological cause. These are only two examples.
1. Simon LeVay[15]
This neuroscientist, Simon LeVay, has admitted he is gay.[16] He published research in 1991 (see LeVay 1991), indicating that there was an area of the hypothalamus in the brain that allegedly governs sexual activity and this is supposed to be smaller in homosexual men than heterosexual men.
LeVay has admitted that his findings do not prove "cause and effect," but the media have reported it differently.
Zetlan's assessment of LeVay's research was:
'as far as I can tell, LeVay has not found a biological substrate for sexual orientation. All LeVay has reported is that in groups of people
with unknown medical and sexual histories there is a significant difference in the size of a structure whose function is not known'
(Zetlan n d).
For a pro-homosexual expose, see Richard Horton's article from Frontline, 'Is homosexuality inherited?' (1995)
2. Bailey and Pillard
Shortly after LeVay's research, Michael Bailey, a gay-rights' activist, together with psychiatrist, Richard Pillard, who is a homosexual, showed research on identical twins versus fraternal twins. They suggest there is a link between homosexuality and genetics. However, this research has many questions needing answers. We need to ask:
Was the research conducted in an unbiased and fair way?
What are the true implications?
Are they accepted universally by the scientific and medical community?
Are they compatible with biblical truth?
We do know this: The media were quick to jump on this bandwagon and promote homosexuality's supposed biological cause, when the research did not prove that. There are too many questions about this research. Don't let anybody convince you the biological cause of homosexuality is proven. Not so!
Even if at some point in the future it is proven that there is a biological association with homosexuality, we need to conclude as the Bible concludes: genetic origins do not justify sinful behaviour.
The Bible praises sexuality and sexual enjoyment within the boundaries of marriage. Homosexual behaviour is consistently condemned in both Old and New Testaments and there is no exception in this condemnation.
[I recommend the article, "Born Gay?", by a redeemed homosexual, Joe Dallas, in Christianity Today, June 22, 1992, in which he assesses this research and comes to some thoughtful conclusions.][17]
3. Frank Worthen's view
A lot of money has been spent on research to try to link genetics with homosexuality, but Frank Worthen stated in 1991 that "no concrete proof has been found" (Worthen 1991:6). In their book, Human Sexuality, Masters and Johnson say, "The genetic theory of homosexuality has generally been discarded today."[18] However, as indicated below, more research has been done on this topic since Masters and Johnson.
Elsewhere they say, "Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies."[19]
Why are homosexuals so determined to believe they are born gay? Frank Worthen, a redeemed homosexual, gives two reasons:
a. "The idea that a choice exists as to whether or not they remain homosexual is both frightening and threatening. The gay person has a real investment in his/her identity."[20]
b. "Most gay people cannot remember a time when they did not have homosexual feelings. They actually believe they were born gay. What research has proven is that the paths we take in life are laid down at a very early age."[21]
4. A 2012 study put the cat among the pigeons
A new study (published in 2012) by William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets of the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California Santa Barbara, California, has an interesting twist to this genetic view. The abstract of their article states:
Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality…. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants (Rice et al 2012).
This research concludes that
A major strength of our epigenetic model of homosexuality is that it makes two unambiguous predictions that are testable with current technology. Therefore, if our model is wrong, it can be rapidly falsified and discarded.
First, future, larger-scale genetic association studies will fail to identify genetic markers associated with most homosexuality.
Second, future genome-wide epigenetic profiles will find differences between homosexuals and nonhomosexuals, but only at genes associated with androgen signaling in the later parts of the pathway (e.g., AR cofactors or miRNAs that regulate them) or be restricted to brain regions controlling sexual orientation, i.e., not affecting sexually dimorphic traits like genitalia or sexual identity (Rice et al 2012).
While this is not a definitive study, it does progress the scientific evaluation of the origin of homosexuality beyond concluding that genetics is the cause of homosexuality.
5. What about the identical twin studies?
I highly recommend that you read Dr N E Whitehead's research, MY GENES MADE ME DO IT! Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence (2013). Neil Whitehead (PhD biochemistry) has worked for 40 years as a research scientist in New Zealand and around the world. The book is written in association with his son, Briar Whitehead, who is a journalist, writer and editor.
Dr Whitehead wrote:
'Over the last decade, studies of twins have provided some of the strongest numerical evidence that "Our genes do not make us do it"…. Results from twin studies are quantitative, so they greatly focus and sharpen the results of many other studies we've mentioned so far. In a nutshell, if you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the identical co-twin (a monozygotic (MZ) twin) is usually not homosexual. That means, given that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay. The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors' (Whitehead 2013:175).
His continued assessment was:
'These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. Identical twins with identical genes are about 11-14% concordant for SSA [same-sex attraction]. If homosexuality were "genetic," identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time. In classic twin studies the genetic fraction is less than 22% for men and 37% for women, and may be as low as 10%. Twin studies continue to find steadily lower genetic fractions for homosexuality as methodology improves and samples become larger' (Whitehead 2013:267).
IV. What causes gender confusion?[22]
How secure we feel in our maleness and femaleness can significantly affect how we relate to those of the opposite sex. A major study in 1981 (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith) found that one consistent theme among homosexuals studied was gender confusion. Looking back as adults, homosexuals have sensed a number of factors that influenced them to have a sense of being different from their same-sex peers in childhood. This confusion seems to be linked later in life with an erotic preference for the same sex.
What factors contributed to this gender confusion?
A follow-up study was conducted by Blanchard & Zucker with these results:
The authors compared parental age, birth order, and sex ratio of siblings for 575 homosexual men and 284 heterosexual men, matched on age and education. They were originally part of Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith's large-scale study of male and female homosexuality. The results confirmed the previous findings that homosexual men have older fathers and later births than do heterosexual men but not the finding that homosexual men have larger proportions of brothers. The collective findings suggest that birth order is perhaps the single most reliable demographic difference between homosexual and heterosexual men (Blanchard & Zucker 1994).
A. The role of parents
Parents have a powerful influence on a child's acquisition of gender identity. This is natural, since Mum and Dad are our first and most influential models in life of a man and a woman.
1. Perhaps the most powerful influence on our gender identity comes from our relationship with the same-sex parent. The nature of the relationship is very important (see George Rekers, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity). That parent will influence your views of intimacy and how you identify with the same sex positively or negatively. If it was an affirming relationship, you will be approved in your gender role.
a. If that relationship is broken (e.g. physical or sexual abuse, personal victimisation, emotional detachment, death, illness, neglect, etc.) it can block the lifeline of intimacy and identification. Secure gender development may be obstructed.
b. The child responds to this breach by moving away from (detachment) the same-sex parent, the need for healthy same-sex love is repressed.
c. This detachment may limit the child's ability to take on the characteristics of the same-sex parent. More than that, the child may develop a tendency to shy away from a person of the same sex.
d. But in adolescence, when one is aroused erotically, this repressed need for same-sex love may be expressed homosexually.
2. The parent of the opposite sex may play a vital role in affirming or hindering your sexual identity. If you do not see the parent of the opposite sex as a caring individual with whom you want to identify, you may be repulsed by that parent. How you relate to your opposite-sex parent will convey your `adequacy' with the opposite sex.
a. Male example:
A dominant mother who is usually intense and emotionally smothering, may breed a fear of women. Gender confusion may develop along with perfectionism and contempt. A young man who detaches from his mother may generalise this contempt to other women.
b. Female example:
An abusive, erratic father fosters fears of the possibility of being violated. In future relationships with men, the woman may close down emotionally. Because the mother is most often the main nurturer in the family, the female child may develop a neurotic tie to mother's love with no bonding with the masculine.
3. What impact does marriage have? How parents relate as a heterosexual couple will impact children. The children will be either attracted to how they see Mum and Dad interact or they may be repelled by it. Will the children want to repeat what they see in the parents' response to each other, or will they be attracted to a same-sex model? This may be influenced by:
a. Evidence of abuse in marriage.
Does one partner seem to be victimised by the other? With which one does the child identify? This becomes somewhat complicated when there is a separation and/or divorce.
b. Siding with one parent against the other.
c. Inner vows that a child makes —
swearing never to be like him/her/them. This vow may handicap prospects for marital intimacy.
The child's relationship with his/her family will determine many of the attitudes to life later. It is the seedbed in which attitudes grow: co-operation, competition, perception of self and one's body, submission or domination. It is in the family that we nurture our hopes, fears and feelings about sex.
B. Some other contributors to gender confusion
1. Early sexual experiences.
By whom have you been erotically stimulated?
a. Heterosexual:
For young girls and women, sexual abuse by men can easily create a fear of, hostility and a repulsion towards men.
b. Homosexual:
Especially for boys, if there have been sexual advances by men and these have affirmed the boys, this can create a perversion of same-sex intimacy.
2. Peer rejection because of gender confusion.
a. This may alienate one from the peer group.
There is ambivalence—a yearning to be accepted, but there may be rejection by both the peer group and the same-sex parent.
b. There may be an over-identification with opposite-sex peer group.
c. You sense there is a difference about you, the peer group rejects you, you are labelled as 'homosexual.'
So you experience a profound sense of inadequacy.
d. High anxiety linked with gender identity in your peer relationships.
So gender identity becomes a point of conflict (Satan the accuser).
3. Gender alienation:
a. If you are secure in your gender identity and it is being positively affirmed,
You relate reasonably well with males and females. However, insecurity leads to your being rigid and maybe fearful. So, in such circumstances one feels a need to work on trying to be 'normal.' One feels cramped and anxious.
b. The alienation leads one to suppress opposite-sex attraction.
c. A self-fulfilling prophecy, especially in adolescence.
4. What gets lost?
a. A clear and realistic picture of the opposite sex.
b. Legitimate needs for same-sex intimacy and identification.
c. The realisation that our need to have same-sex associations without being erotic.
d. The grace to allow God to separate sinful lust from legitimate desire.
The result of this gender confusion is often loneliness and fear. We have a fear of our sexuality—gender, bodies, ourselves—so we launch into homosexual expression in spite of the guilt that we experience.
IV. The steps that lead to healing for the homosexual.
Books by redeemed homosexuals:
Andrew Comiskey, Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the Homosexual (1989).
Jeanette Howard, Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind (1991).
Frank Worthen, Helping People Step Out of Homosexuality (1991).
A. Summary of Steps out of Homosexuality[23]
1. Making the decision
This is not a decision to be made lightly. Weigh the costs. Note Luke 14:25-35.
2. Brokenness
Change comes out of brokenness. Homosexuality is sin and you have grieved God. Deep sorrow is needed for your actions. Please take seriously this Scripture:
James 4:7-10, "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will lift you up" (NIV).
Before you find peace, there may be a time of grief.
3. Your need of a Saviour
"Brokenness must be so complete, that we no longer have any desire to regain control of our lives, but allow the Holy Spirit to lead. Victory is dependence on Jesus."[24] (John 3:16)
4. Doing the ordinary with other believers
Join with a group of Christian believers. You need the love and support of God's people.
There may be difficulties in fitting in with a church.
Need to spur one another on to love & good deeds.
Intercessory prayer is vital for victorious Christian living (with Christians). (Heb. 10:23-25)
5. Spiritual Warfare
Every step out of homosexuality will be challenged. (Eph. 6:10-20). Do not expect the secular world to be favourable towards the steps you are taking to be healed of the sexual sin of homosexuality. The mass media will be hostile towards your change if journalists hear about it.
6. Holding a correct view of God
His majesty, His unlimited power and His everlasting love. (Jer. 29:12-14: 'Call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,' declares the Lord" and will bring you back from captivity")
7. Hold a correct view of others
Part of brokenness is that you realise how selfishly you have used others for your own gratification. They may have hurt us; we may have hurt them, but we need to respond to them as people made in the image of God.
8. You must have God's view of you
You are made in the image of God;
You are fallen;
In spite of your sinful, wicked condition, God loves you enough to die for you.
God loves you too much to leave you that way; he wants you to change.
9. The belief principle
Walk by faith. Christ lives within you. He is alive in you. This is not blind faith, but faith build on the evidence of Jesus revealed in Scripture.
10. Submission
For the person seeking salvation and healing from homosexuality, accountability is part of the healing process. You need to submit to God, but you must also submit to one another. "Submission is death to self-interest and birth to God's interests."[25]
11. Fruitfulness
You must bear fruit consistent with repentance. Your old life, its attitudes,
associations, the ties that held you to that sinful lifestyle must be broken. Growing in grace (sanctification) is clearly God and us working together. (James. 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.")
12. Walking in the light
I John 1:5-7, walk in the light;
I Thess 5:17, pray continually;
1 John 4:4, Live daily in the light of God's presence; "the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world".
I agree with Frank Worthen's assessment: "In our ministry, we are frequently asked: 'Do you make homosexuals into heterosexuals?' Our answer is, 'No, we only point the way to wholeness in Christ"' (Worthen 1991:137). Why take this approach? It is because God's design for heterosexuality has been so distorted by this worldly system in which we live.
V. God's design
A. There is a deep spiritual factor involved in the sexual relationship – worship.
First Corinthians 6:16-17 says: "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit" (NIV).
Young people, if you forget everything else I have written here, please remember this: sex is a spiritual issue. It is impossible for you to commit sexual immorality and still be one with God. Sex has a strong spiritual dimension, as I Cor. 6:13 says: "The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body."
The infamous Jim Bakker of PTL Television Network fame, USA, commented as his ministry lay in tatters: "It's amazing how fifteen minutes can ruin your life" (Comiskey 1988:31). What he didn't say was: Not just any fifteen minutes, but fifteen minutes of sexual immorality.
While Paul, the apostle, speaks of becoming one with a prostitute in I Cor 6:16, he expands it to general immorality in I Cor 6:18, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."
B. DO YOU WANT SEX AT ITS BEST?
Surrender your rights to Jesus Christ. You must choose with your actions (not just words) to follow Jesus as Lord. This means refusing to yield to sexual temptation and fleeing sexual immorality. Does your walk match your talk? You will find it impossible to "flee sexual immorality" if you are in the back seat of a car at midnight in Queens Park.
God says through Paul, "They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work" (Titus 1:16).
But, you might ask:
C. ISN'T A FAITHFUL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE OK?
A little while ago, a man in his seventies said to me: "The young ones these days have sure cottoned onto a great idea. They are very progressive. It makes sense to try her out before you marry her." He was thinking of living with her first and sampling each other sexually.
But is living together before you marry very smart? Back in November 1977 the American edition of Seventeen magazine included an article, "The Case Against Living Together" (in Remsberg 1977). It included an interview with Dr Nancy Moore Clatworthy, a sociologist at Ohio State University.
For about 10 years, she had been studying unmarried couples who had been living together. When she began, she was like the elderly man with whom I spoke. She thought it was a good idea. The young had told her it was wonderful and she believed them. It seemed a sensible, practical arrangement. Then, as now, it seemed to have a reasonable ring to it.
But her research led to a change of mind. She said, "The things people say living together is doing for them, it's not doing." She found that this was especially so for girls who were uptight, fearful and looking past the talk 'to the possible pain and agony.'
She stressed two points. First, "In the areas of adjustment, happiness and respect," couples who lived together before marriage had more problems than those who had married first. They argued more about money, friends and sex.
"In every area the couples who had lived together before marriage disagreed more often than the couples who had not." It was evident to this researcher that living together first did not solve problems. In fact it created difficulties.
Second, Dr Clatworthy discovered that defacto relationships had an impact on commitment. She believed that "commitment is what makes marriage, living together or any human relationship work."
But "knowing that something is temporary affects the degree of commitment to it."
So, unmarried couples living together are not wholehearted in working at and protecting the relationship. She found that 75% of them break up. And girls are badly hurt.
Nancy Clatworthy concluded: "Statistically, you're much better off marrying than living together. For people who are in love, anything less than a full commitment is a cop-out."
More recent studies have similar results. Newsweek magazine (1983) reported that 16% of college students thought that it was harmful "for a man and woman to live together before marriage" while 61% said it would be "helpful."
But a study in the same year (1983) by the National Council on Family Relations (USA) found that those who lived defacto first were less happy in marriage. Women complained about the quality of communication after the wedding.
Yale University sociologist, Neil Bennett, discovered that defacto women were 80% more likely to separate or divorce than women who had not lived with their spouses before marriage.[26]
It is startling to realise that one study discovered that those who shacked up before marriage were almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages.
What does all of this say? Marriage is one shoe you cannot try on before you wear it. When it comes to marriage, try before you buy is not a smart idea.
This confirms what the Author of marriage commanded: "Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4).
This is a puzzle many people grapple with–not just the young. Why should sex with a permanent partner outside of marriage (in a defacto relationship) be any different than marriage to one woman for life? Many think the essential elements of both are identical.
The government thinks so and has given legal status to this kind of immorality (according to the Bible). The government treats the defacto couple like marriage.
The difference is this: God designed marriage; human beings designed the live-in, look-alike, defacto relationship.
I am indebted to Al Haffner for this illustration:
"Consider this: `It is possible to analyze an apple and ascertain its chemical constituents; but all the chemists in the world cannot make an apple, nor anything that can substitute for it.' Neither can the world make any relationship do what marriage does, not even a monogamous love affair" (Haffner 1989:34).
In our way of thinking, there is a vast separation between a faithful lover and one who sleeps around. From God's point of view, He lumps all sex outside of marriage into the same heap because sex makes a spiritual statement.
In Al Haffner's words: "Inside marriage it is the melodious beauty of spiritual serenity; outside of marriage, even in a monogamous relationship, sex cries out a cacophony of spiritual chaos."[27]
When you indulge in "sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed" this amounts to idolatry, according to Col 3:5-6 because it is self-serving selfishness, opposed to serving God and "because of these, the wrath of God is coming."
I refer you to these links for further details:
5 (Secular) Reasons Not to Live Together Before Marriage (Jennifer Fulwiler 2013);
Seven Reasons Why Living Together Before Marriage is not a Good Idea (Pastor Arron Chambers 2009);
5 Great Reasons to Live Together Before Marriage & 1 Better One Not To (Pastor James Hein 2010);
20 good reasons not to cohabit before marriage (Don Weston 1998).
D. WHAT ARE GOD'S REASONS FOR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT SEX?
We must begin by understanding the character of God.
He is not a killjoy wanting to ruin your fun.
He didn't make us to enjoy sex and then frustrate us.
God made and designed us.
He knows everything.
Only God knows what is best for us. Deuteronomy 10:13 says, "Observe the Lord's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good."
Those last four words are critical: for your own good. All of God's commands to us, all of his requirements are not to break us and kill our joy, but they are for our own good.
Psalm 84:11, "For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless.
James 1:17, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
God knows how you are wired–body, mind and spirit. God knows how human relationships function most fully and joyfully. God is not trying to stop us from having a wonderful sex life. He is giving us the positive instruction to have the most wonderful sex life possible.
I have found many Christians ignorant of this perspective.
If you look on God's commands, such as, "You shall not commit adultery, flee sexual immorality, etc.," as negative and designed to frustrate your enjoyment, you will miss what God wants for your sexual enjoyment. Remember, these negatives are given for positive reasons.
When my children were young, I warned them: do not touch a hot plate on the stove. That was very negative and it looked like I might have been stopping them from having fun. But it was really a positive command. If my Paul, Wendy and Jeff had burned themselves, it would have prevented them from enjoying life for a while–maybe permanently.
That's how it is with God: Whenever he gives a command, there are at least two positive reasons behind it:
1. He's trying to protect us from some harm, and
2. He's trying to provide something good for us.
If you abstain from sex now, it is because God wants you to experience greater intimacy later–in marriage. But God is also calling you before marriage to greater intimacy with Himself.
There are many valid reasons for you to say "NO" to premarital sex. God really is acting in love when He commands that sex be enjoyed in the bonds of marriage only.
This is a message of prevention for those who are virgins. God loves you and wants to protect you from entering into the damaging consequences of illicit sex.
On the other hand, I know there may be some for whom this message is too late–you have lost your virginity, you are loaded down with guilt, you know what I have been saying is true. What can you do? You do as I had to do because the message I'm sharing with you was too late for me also.
Run to Jesus! You cannot undo what you have done, but you can be forgiven. God will lay down all charges against you if you repent and seek his forgiveness. The biblical message for all Christians who sin is I John 1:9, "If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".
You can be forgiven today. If the Lord has convicted you about sexual sin in your life, respond to him.
1. Do you want sex at its best?
Wait for the sexual relationship until marriage.
If that is too late, confess your sin and abstain from sexual relationships until marriage.
Be faithful in marriage.
Homosexual thoughts and practice are not consistent with biblical revelation of sex in Scripture.
The story is told of Alexander the Great who was reviewing his troops after a fierce battle. He encountered one of his captains disciplining a soldier for being a coward. Alexander approached.
"What is your name, soldier?" he asked.
"Alexander," replied the soldier.
"What?" exclaimed Alexander the Great.
"Sir, my name is Alexander!" said the soldier.
Trembling with rage, Alexander the Great yelled, "Soldier, either change your ways, or change your name" (Haffner 1989:91).
As soldiers in Christ's army, we must stop acting cowardly in the face of sexual temptation, or we should change our name—which will have eternal consequences. In this sexually perverted generation, the words of I Corinthians 4:20: come thundering through: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power." Change your ways or change your name.
As noted in this article, there is a radical difference between a secular approach to the research of homosexuality and the biblical diagnosis of the condition and its treatment.
See also: Why is the Mass Media Promoting 'Gay Rights'? – YouTube
Bell, A P, Weinberg M S & Hammersmith, S K 1981. Sexual preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Blanchard, R & Zucker K J 1994. Reanalysis of Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith's data on birth order, sibling sex ratio, and parental age in homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, September 15(9), 1375-1376. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8067496 (Accessed 10 July 2015).[28]
Comiskey, A 1988. Pursuing sexual wholeness (Guide). Santa Monica, California: Desert Stream Ministries. [You can read Andrew Comiskey's blog at: http://andrewcomiskey.com/].
Comiskey, A 1989. Pursuing sexual wholeness: How Jesus heals the homosexual. Lake Mary, Florida: Creation House.
Haffner, A 1989. The high cost of free love. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers.
Howard, J 1991. Out of Egypt: Leaving lesbianism behind. Eastbourne: Monarch.
LeVay, S 1991. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 253, August 30: 1034-1037.
Malcohn, E 2014. Review of Gay, straight, and the reason why: The science of sexual orientation by Simon LeVay (online). PsychCentral, available at: http://psychcentral.com/lib/gay-straight-and-the-reason-why-the-science-of-sexual-orientation/0005404 (Accessed 17 April 2014).
Remsberg, C & B 1977. The case against living together. Seventeen, November, 132-3, 162-3.[29]
Rice, W R, Friberg, U, & Gavrilets, S 2012. Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. The Quarterly Review of Biology (online) , 87(4), December, 343-368.[30] The University of Chicago Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 (Accessed 10 July 2015).
Strong, A 1907. Systematic theology, 3 vols in 1. Philadelphia: The Judson Press.
Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Whitehead, N E & B K 2013. My genes made me do it! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence (online), 3rd ed. New Zealand: Whitehead Associates. Available at: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/ (Accessed 10 July 2015)
Worthen, F 1991. Helping people step out of homosexuality. Manila, Philippines: OMF Literature Inc.
Zetlan, S n d. LeVay critique: Neuroscience or nonsense (online). Women's Studies Program. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Available at: http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique (Accessed 17 April 2014).
[1] Justin Lee 2014. Justin's view, Homosexuality & Christianity, The Gay Christian Network (online). Available at: https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php (Accessed 17 April 2014, emphasis in original).
[2] Current students, University of Western Australia 2012. Sexuality definitions (online), 15 May. Available at: http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/life/health/fit/share/sexuality/definitions (Accessed 17 April 2014).
[3] See The 700 Club 2014. Ex-gay encourages the church to welcome the sexually broken, The Christian Broadcasting Network (online), Available at: http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/andrew_comiskey_082504.aspx (Accessed 17 April 2014).
[4] The NIV footnote here was, 'Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text the earth'.
[5] The ESV footnote here was, 'Hebrew built'.
[6] This citation is from Strong (1907:585).
[7] The following is based on Comiskey (1989:43).
[12] Or 'wrongdoers' (ESV footnote).
[13] 'The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts' (ESV footnote).
[14] For discussion on the origin of this phrase, see The Phrase Finder, available at: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-but-for-the-grace-of-god.html (Accessed 16 April 2014).
[15] For an assessment of the research, see Zetlan (n.d.)
[16] Malcohn stated, 'LeVay, who is gay himself' (Malcohn 2014).
[17] I was not able to locate the article online on 16 April 2014.
[18] p. 319, in Worthen (1991:7).
[19] Ibid. p. 320, in Worthen (1991:7).
[20] Worthen (1991:8).
[22] This section is based on Comiskey (1988).
[23] This is based on Worthen (1991:142-147).
[24] Worthen (1991:143).
[25] Ibid., p. 146.
[26] Psychology Today, July/August 1988. Also available at, 'Sociological reasons not to live together ', from All About Cohabiting Before Marriage. Available at: http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html (Accessed 16 April 2014).
[27]Ibid., 34.
[28] This online reference only provides an abstract of this research.
[29] Some of this material is available online at the University of Alberta, in Paul Flaman's 'Chapter 7: Some contemporary arguments for premarital sexual intercourse and responses', 1999. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~pflaman/PSAL/Ch7.pdf (Accessed 16 April 2014).
[30] The online edition of the article had no pages indicated.
Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 6 August 2019.
This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Sexuality on 10 July 2015 by spencer.