W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
BULLETIN EIGHTY EIGHT
TO WILT WITH THE TOTALITARIAN TILT ?
NOT RECOMMENDED
Of many, in this day of redefining marriage, and forcing this on people, one must ask this.
Do you really want to suffer, induce or endorse a totalitarian tilt in our country ?
Do you want it to be TELLING you what your morals are to be, instructing both your genes and the God who made them, and then stopped, as both the Bible and nature show, where to get off, in terms of what is what! and all this without bothering about the facts.
Is history so far from you that you do not realise that this project not only involves the option of REMOVING the Constitutional prohibition of such religious intrusion by the Commonwealth, but trivialising what is great in religion, as forbidden in Section 116, while systematising the breach of it, and allowing one party, the neo-morals people, to RULE the rest, or even to attack them, as if we were in need of a new set of persecutors and new group of martyrs. To satisfy what precisely is this intimidatory alliance! A nicety of nomenclature and a drive to rule, not least ?
Do you really desire this type of grossly discriminatory preference to be given to one group in the nation, even worse, under the name of tolerance, while the coming result appears to be a banal confusion of terms, and in the case of love, a gross distortion! Love and what is biblically*1 rightly regarded as sexual abuse of design*2 with a marriage tag, are not the same, for it is simply not the case that the former is absent unless the latter is present; and trying to make them so is, apart from the confusion in the propaganda, an insult to love, as if as such, it is aborted by lack of sexual connection in a marital compass.
This is perhaps the worst of it: not acknowledging love's many criteria as if it could be fulfilled only through first demanding for it certain inventive types of sexual conduct to be endorsed in a marital setting. Exclude those and you exclude love! Really ? Is this some type of aggressive denunciation and mockery of both the natural productive realities of the body and the word of God, in their natural and supernatural unity, in order to use the term love ? Is it to be endorsed, demanded, proclaimed, pointed at people like a gun to which they must submit or else suffer indeterminate damage, perhaps even the audacity of contempt, because they insist on what is admirable, biblical, constitutionally safeguarded, even the mode of natural continuance of the human race!
WHY seek to IMPOSE this religious innovation, and where is its source to be found in terms of logical grounds ? Terminological abuse is not a ground. Why have people, supposed to eliminate discrimination, even used or applied to enforce it ? It makes Australia look like so much else, even in some ways like the case of the USSR, where its "religious freedom" was not just a farce, but a mockery and a denial of and lead to horrid persecution, which was so well exposed by Solzhenitsyn.
Do you want legal persecution, the Constitution in abeyance, to make legal fortunes and Madame Defarge nightmares, a clutter in the courts and the grabbing of fortunes by some, from others, because they could not in all conscience CONFORM ? A YES vote appears clearly the easy way to it. It would help some who did not work to gain their funds, use those of others who did work for it, just because the latter stood by their religious convictions. Injustice here vies with inequity, and both with constitutional fraud. Interference ? this is invasion!
Such a coup and take-over of deep religious issues by the State (cf. Bulletin 87) as is here offering, would be one more case of capitulation to its religious domination, a matter prominent over history for millenia. This is a due matter for every servant of God, therefore, as He is not identical with the State! It may seek to imitate the Creator-Redeemer, but it cannot be Him. It can however ignore His people and prepare them for the legal lions, or whatever form of assault may be contrived on those who dare not submit to this invasion. The new look in view thus is poised to make the State's dominance to become domineering and its subjects prisoners of a government whose members were never elected to fulfil such a role.
A PRIOR referendum on whether to eliminate the Article 116 of the Constitution, at least would be needed for any sign of propriety, law and order.
It would of course be much cheaper for it to be spuriously argued that Article 116 does not really mean what it says, that you cannot really do this, that systematic religious control by the Commonwealth (here 'the State') is really a form of liberty, and so on, speciously. Ignoring it all and doing what you please is the more common option. It is so easy, like a four-lane highway. Is this to be the way this land, once noted for great fortitude and independence of spirit, is to go!
While it is a grief that many people do not realise what they are doing, yet it is all the more a spur to warn of consequences, so that those who listen may be delivered from a profound failure in a nation, impending like a huge tsunami.
NOTE
The biblical position is shown in such scriptures as Romans 1:17-32, in which we find, for example, that women in their error, exchanged the natural sexual usage for what is against nature, while men, abandoning the natural use of women, had what Jude and II Peter describe in Sodom and Gomorrah terms, and Paul in this contrary to nature setting, declares to exhibit a form of lust (Romans 1:27, II Peter 2:6, Jude 7). The penalty for the "error", they receive in themselves, we read.
In I Timothy 1, we find a specialisation in terminology, for two aspects of same-sex action, in a list of violations of the will of God not only for the extremely clear creation which He made, but also for certain crimes, and some exceedingly grave and abhorrent. In other words, this error in biblical terms is not taken at all lightly.
As with much that the human race does wrong, even in traffic offences, there might be much that is sound in some situations (a good driver acts skilfully to avoid an accident, but still hits), but the point at issue is this: where is it wrong, why and how much! You can add features, but it is what is wrong that is to the point.
That is the position there. To these may be added I Corinthians 5:9ff., 6:9-10. Here it is made clear that violation of the inbuilt features of sexuality is applicable in the same absolute way to adultery (unrepented of as in the other cases) and fornication. In the Old Testament the result is equally fateful, in terms of straight rebellion where the thing is so treated in principle, as seen for example in Leviticus 20:13, 18:22, I Kings 14:24, 15:12. As for abusing the immature bodies of children, at their call, under whatever name, there is Matthew 18:4 to consider.
Mercy is not for rebellion but for repentance in faith in the Provider of the race and the redemption offered.
*2 See on design, Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny.