W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume What is New







Believe whom ? the tested word of God and His Christ,
or the various thoughts of man, as they come ... and go!

News 466,

Suffragio August 12, 2013

The Australian September 12, front-page,


Pillage of Marriage for Newspeak ?



There is a personal force in the affairs of man, as Christ showed as recorded in Matthew 4, of a very special kind. It is one which stops at nothing in bargaining, bartering, being enterprising in character, innovative in thrust, disparaging of creation in atmosphere, unruly in nature, opposing the mind of God with venom, oppositional in cast, aspiring in dream, malicious to man in temperament. It is called variously the devil, Satan, the adversary of the saints, and its territory is that of principalities and powers opposed to man's welfare, for reasons of their own (Ephesians 6:12, I Timothy 5:14, I Peter 5:8,  Revelation 12:9-12).

Sin is like a spoil for bacteria in the body, to infest. It tends to blind to truth and to become a site for decentralisation of man from his Maker, the systems made and the rules provided. Just as David in Psalm 86, asks God to unite his heart reverence His name, and thus to do His will, so sin moves to disintegrate the heart, disperse the understanding and delete perception of the vast and varied phases of life provided to and for man. 

Its moves could be compared to detaching cylinders from their base in an engine, and leaving them operating in pseudo-independence. Man is made for the purposes of God, comradeship with God, discipleship under God, the enjoyment of and participation in fellowship with God; detached he becomes like a signature without a cheque. The powers of evil greatly accelerate such detachment dynamics, as man moves, often with initial satisfaction, to disperse his connections both to his own base in design, by effrontery, and what might have been with God, by rebellion.

Fired by sin, inspired increasingly by evil, man comes to lust for autonomy, the heavens, total control mechanisms like Communism invented as vehicles, amid other false prophecies (cf. News  97-98). By this or that new and acclaimed method, mankind is drawn more and more to want neo-morals, neo-culture, hyper-sellf-will and blatant ignorance of God, in teeming masses of spiritual malcontents (cf. Romans 1, Ephesians 2:12, 4:17-19, John 3:36, I John 5:19). He both wants and seeks rules to rule out the rule of God (Revelation 13, Psalm 94:20, Isaiah 24:1-12, 14-21), a process ready to escalate as the time for judgment approaches (Matthew 24:8-13,24), even plundering the souls of the young by naturalistic, or atheistic, or man-centred pseudo-education, preparing the way for world-control (cf. Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation).

On the way, this rule and that rule, whether political or sexual or social, must be broken. 

To be sure, life is not just a matter of rules; but the body lives on them by the thousands, provisions in virtual language, the DNA, which MUST be followed for the whole to have its splendid liberties and functionalities intact, wholesome, enduring and serviced by the Maker as He desired. In Romans 1, we learn not only that man's nature (as in Romans 5), being now inherently distorted by sin, following diversion and rebellion from God, is active to resist the truth, as a wrestler, seeking to subdue it. As a preacher and Minister of decades, in various lands, one has seen this at work, as a physician might see cancer, and its products and ways. It also acts towards certain degradations of the special features granted. This we find as Romans 1 comes to its last verses.

Thus, in particular this tendency to suppress the attestation of God, which as in SMR and TMR is so clear that it is like looking at an elephant from two feet away, as there shown, and elsewhere in this sight, is a focus of Romans 1,  both generically as a type of thing (1:17ff.), and in particular, like a special cough for influenza, wheeze for pneumonia for various other aspirations and respiratory problems for various diseases.

In Romans 1:26, for example,  in the case of woman, there is mention in what are called "vile passions," and these are stated to be "against nature", that is unnatural, contrary to design, clashing with creation's dicta, designations. This is extended in the case of man with the description that it involves men "burning in their lust for one another," and this is not only deemed shameful, but such that they are "receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."



Australia has just escaped*M from a socialisation program so intense, that morals were about to be, in effect, made pliable to culture so as merely to mirror whatever this was deemed to be, so that giving offence became a vast sin (though by another name), and being offended became (in general accord with culture as appeal is made against certain practices, such as speaking the truth without fear!) one of the absolute grounds for prosecution. In other words, if someone was offended at what you said, then irrespective of the accuracy or otherwise of your assertion, even of its motive, you were to be set with a moderator and the 'victim' of your speech, and taught what is acceptable to the point of some kind of settlement. Of course you might capitulate sooner.

It is hard to believe that such wickedness came near to achievement. Wicked ? Yes, for what demeans truth to feeling, subordinates reality to dreams, and makes what is the case to be shelved in favour of preference, of how feelings respond so tarnishes fact with perspective preferred that illusion becomes king and people its subjects. We are not gods. We are not able to remake reality. God has made it, and has made it recoverable by the gift of salvation, and the offer of eternal life based on hard work which was wrought by His willing Son, who died as an offering for sin, a cover for justice, the just for the unjust to bring us to God.

If however we continue to choose our own ways on and out relative to our Maker, it is merely like continuing to inhale while smoking after being found a victim of lung cancer. It is provocative, occasioning special evils as a result of oversight. Then substitutes for fact come in feeling, for truth come in unbased philosophies, and millions die in wars beyond all reason, trying out surrogate gods (though not always with this name, man-created gods), and arrogant expressions of irrational human power, by human power trains, intimidation, slaughters, of individuals, groups, cultures, races or whatever else is in the way of the imagination that man makes, when God is found unacceptable and he worships his own shadow, his own thought! (cf. the ultimate case in II Thessalonians 2:4-10). How often man is biblically cited for following the imagination of his heart (Genesis 6:5, where it nearly wiped unrealistic man out, I Chronicles 28:9-10,18, Proverbs 12:20, Jeremiah 7:24, 23:14-19,17:9-10 cf. SMR Ch. ,, 44 Extension)!

This is the alternative to following the counsel of the Lord, and the wisdom of His handwork for our creation, the Bible, specifying our case, condition, need and the divine provisions.

Many reject these things, for reasons such as the Bible indicates, for example in Romans 1 and Ephesians 2. That is the norm, but not exclusively so. The way of life IS narrow, to be sure (Matthew 7:15ff.); but it IS a way, and many millions have professed to follow it in Jesus Christ. One nation, Britain, did so in terms of its national Church, and another nation, The Commonwealth of Australia, had its foundations set by that nation at the first, before it was formed. It inherited such a foundation and noted reliance on Almighty God in the Preamble to its national  Constitution.

Many nations seem now about to abandon former attitudes, whether of that kind, or of an ethical similarity in this field, and some are now authorising same-gender marriages, which formalises the trend, and commits a people as a whole,  to its upholding, its acceptance and the forwarding of such things, despite former distaste, rejection, religious or other.

When there has been religious opposition,  especially when founded on founding attitudes for a nation, such as a special relationship to the Bible by history, then this makes for a high level decision, like getting a new personality, but alas one drugged against deity and the Handbook (cf. Matthew 13:14-15, Isaiah 8:20, 24:1-21, Psalm 2).

Either a given such country will bend to the mood, based on no factual foundation, with no God or force or logic to support a SUPER-NATURAL morality of this kind or that (cf. News 19  ), substituting merely a rejection of anything that makes such claims, except their own preferred philosophy, so that it is rationally on a par with feeling or desire; or it will not, but keeps morals as obligatory because inherent in our structure from its Maker, and in His strictures and counsel. The wildly popular current model is that it will revolt, revolutionise, imagine images and propagate what is an irrational thrust of dreamy desire, or militant assertion, whether Hitleresque, Stalinesque, Islamic (cf. More Marvels ... Ch. 4), Romanist (cf. SMR pp. 1032-1088H), nationalist (as in current Russia), or neo-Marxist - communism wedded to capitalism in the State that voids personality, BY personality, as appears the current Chinese way, or some other invention to fight for, and with which to fight the Lord.

At present*M1, our interest is focussed on a particular expression of such revolt, because it is crucial currently in our own country of Australia. It is then part of a far broader revolt, but as a symptom it needs attention, like a temperature of 107 degrees fahrenheit. What then if a nation does not only permit what the Bible deems unnatural acts, in the field of gender relationship, but tries to use the term 'marriage' for such an attitude and for agreements in this line, parallel to those in the natural, reproductive function ?



If it does, then it is in an advanced stage; for to AUTHORISE AND FORMALISE marriage of those who by and in themselves are not equipped to produce the next generation of this race involves a change from our design (cf. Deity and Design...), the working model (for there is in visible nature, nothing so fulfilling of the definition of design as the body and brain of man as shown in The gods of naturalism have no go!). In means a mutation from the nature of our past procedures and law, and from a just concern for aspects of children's lives, to one not meeting these criteria.

Men and women are of one stock, but variants. They have comparable brains, bodies and facilities in general, being of one type, but there are reproductive differences, such that a woman is ipso facto nearer to the child in its coming, from the first, than a man even CAN be; and it is she who has it growing from within herself, so that in one sense it is almost like a new member of her body, as which it begins, though it is far MORE than that.

Differences between man and woman constitute a subject for animated debate; but some studies have pointed our differences in early childhood. One's own observations are that women can be, on the whole, and as a just expectation, expected to have more social and inter-personal sensitivity than men, or at least to be better aligned, adapted and adjusted to such things, not always, but as a decisively apparent trend. Their attentions can be of a specially perceptive kind in this sphere, and  their alertness memorable. This is by no means to suggest many men may not excel here; but one has found the trend, the facility, the readiness so to be and so to act, over time, to be overwhelmingly the case.

Forget that if you will, for the point is already clear. There are differences which tend to make a man-woman pairing to have a certain complementarity which appears to many to be apt, just and beautiful, a blending like that of pepper and salt, a femininity and a masculinity which makes of both, something the more beautiful, like having a heart as well as lungs, to put it at a simple physical level. Physical strength of certain kinds is only one of the more obvious diversities, in trend, and engineering, which may require more of this in some cases, tends to follow this trend.

Since man and woman have various crucial physical differences and objective complementarities, in that the race has been dependent for its very existence on these, and there are certain more immediate priorities given to woman relative to a baby as foetus and new born, and in the natural desire to care from the first for such a product of the womb, it is a crucial defect to deprive the child of the elements of this natural complementarity, by providing a sanction, even to the point of the name  "marriage" for two fathers, one not physically so, or two mothers, one not physically so, as if to proliferate potential and actuality in one. Not only does this have a genetic distancing from those bringing it up, but a diversity deletion.

If a child can be so deprived,  discriminated against, by a national procedure and authorisation, so that the nation is entirely indifferent to such considerations; and if a people can so act that the Bible is utterly rejected in its foundational morals and requirements (for adultery or homosexuality and fornication are all grounds  of exclusion from the God of creation and salvation,  if practised without repentance, according to the New Testament - I Corinthians 5), then what ? Then, to this extent, we have a crucial change; and if, further, this is made a FORMAL CHANGE, even including the name 'marriage' for this unnatural mode of continuing the race, then several breaches occur simultaneously.

It is well to consider divorce from a spouse most carefully, and not to forget the impact on the children; it is better to consider divorce from God, the God of the Bible, the ONLY book claiming the authority of God which is not only exhaustively testable*1, but never fails to meet relevant test: before acting!


From biblical perspective, which is that of truth as noted above in the evidential and logical packages provided, there are a number of implicit or explicit steps, at this level and in this field,  in countermanding, contravening and showing virtual contempt towards the God on whom in the Australian Constitution, there was expression of reliance.


1) There is the abuse of an intensively sophisticated, incomparable design unit,
called the human body, for all that is visible on earth.


2) There is an ignoring of its long successful provisions for continuing the race.


3) There is an overturning of the male-female inter-relationship, bypassing this gift.


4) There is a relaxation of regarding this as against the law,
despite the disease danger, the innovation
in ignoring reproductive means and seeking to bypass them:
contrary to the natural order.


5) While this distances from the moral order with which this Commonwealth began,
the acknowledgement of spouse relationship for those so acting,
is a further step to acknowledge the departure.


6) If however, in a flush of contrariety to all these things,
same-gender households are actually taught as an institution,
though diversity of gender has been
the clearly defined and demarcated mode of continuance of our race;
that this radical change is as much the institution of marriage,
as that which has so served by our very construction: 
then this is a formal commitment
which is not even some specious form of neutrality.

It not only gives freedom by law, payments as if marriage, but CALLS it marriage so changing the definition normative for so many for so long, relative to our construction, production and the way we function for reproduction.

When therefore THIS ALSO, EVEN THIS is done, then this becomes a declaration not only of war on the God of the Bible, a cold war; it becomes a hot war.

After every provision for those who want so to act, then the NAME of the normative arrangement, inbuilt into our very selves with enormous technical skill, is being abused. A specialised combination of name, reproductive procedure, ethics, a definitional exactitude is so changed that it can equally apply to what ignores design, function, custom, normal and natural efficacy and goes outside the natural product, the Bible, walking away from the long  route of this nation. If this is not spiritual and moral revolution, involving both the word and the ways of God, the God of our original founding as a nation, then WHATA COULD BE!

In fact, such movements in morals and speech, attack the other side, the design side, and hence the Designer; it does far more than allow equal treatment for those who wish so to bypass natural function. It allows their preference to be made invasive of the very term for what is natural, inbuilt, not to say biblical. It moves towards the making of  marriage a mere term for whatever amid mankind has continuing sexual association, and wishes to formalise this, in principle. What has been long abhorred in nations, legislated against, comes into action because of changed desire, despite the interests of children; on what ground then may they not be further imperilled! Impossible ? The term is beggared by what has already been done. If you forsake design and the natural, WHAT IS COMMON soon can become what is captured in legislation. But let us pause just as what is imminent, unless the Lord intervene: making marriage a term applicable to same-gender from of association that parallel the natural. 

Is this nation to put its name to such a tilt ? to go past mere equality of natural and unnatural (biblically, and in terms of what our very nature provides), and to use the one term for the productive side of the reproductive equipment, as of yore, in its own arrangement, for what in fact bypasses it ?

Is what is bypassed to become terminologically a pirate to seize the name for what is natural ?



Do it. By all means pass this in Parliament, if it is so desired. Let it be seen without regard to the loss of specialised complementarity in parents, on the part of children, deprive them of this more varied personal landscape, this natural provision, deprive those who use the natural method of the very word for their action.  Do it then. Invade on behalf of what is not in that sense natural, so that what is left even in terminology of the word for such action,  is stripped bare of its connotation. Make marriage cover the lot,  and you are using an unnatural base to confuse categories, and hide the loss for children, the male and female duet and the .

Since it also as a life style, one way biblically, of ensuring that you do not enter the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 5), along with many other rebellions against the way God in His word has made us and wants us to act, it is to ask a question. Does this God of the Bible, who has NEVER been shown to promise what He does not keep, fail to perform according to His word, does He undertake NOT to respond to such treatment of His designed premises for the human spirit, namely our bodies ?

Far  from it; for not only does He state that the due result of misled passion (which He deems it) will have its due result in those who so act, an inward resultant, but He makes it clear that sustained, purposeful, continual, disregarding dynamic against His word and His will, misusing the glory of freedom which enables love,  for mere rebellion, invites disaster.

God is not mocked. There is a provision for the provocative: It is found in Hosea 8:7. Sow the wind and reap the whirl-wind!

This can come in many forms, and in Israel frequently did. One form of result for rebellion was raiding on the nation; another its exile; another disease. You see this in Kings and Chronicles exceedingly often. He pleads, exhorts, reasons (cf. Ezekiel 20); but when they did not listen, but insisted on changing their ways far from Him, He acted eventually.

The Lord might postpone it for quite a long time, in major results; but in the end, as you see in Jeremiah, despite many offers and hopes and helps (as in Jeremiah 17, 38:14ff.), and much in the way of divine desire to show mercy, as in Ezekiel 33:11, horror happened. In the case of that nation, it came first in the form of a 70 year exile and the ruin of temple. When they used more rebellion directly on their very Lord, when He came where, how and when predicted, the time of virtual exile was about 1900 years. Indeed, it was even predicted centuries ahead that they WOULD reject Him. But they would not listen (cf. Luke 19:42ff.).

This is a warning, and a witness*2 and a mercy for us to consider. Wonderful were earlier time in Israel; but it fell.





Is it impossible to think then  ? Is it really absolutely necessary to be AS PROVOCATIVE AS POSSIBLE in the matter of changing the term 'marriage' to incorporate what does not in itself have the means of reproduction, by natural order ?

Is this needed, as well as all the provocative results already present ? Biblically, it would be parallel to calling getting drunk, by the term, taking refreshing drink, and insisting on the same vocabulary. Freedom to do wrong, biblically, is one thing; trying to subvert the difference, let alone remove its very expression, is another.

Will  Australia so deal with what is natural, definitive of design by the Maker, Creator, Designer, even in language, subverting even the term! Will it so act with what in the Bible,   just like unrepented adultery, excludes from God ? like other rebellion, which as a kind of action is deemed worse than witchcraft (II Samuel 15:23) ?  Sexual alterations, whether in adultery or in the unnatural are not only in the same category as in I Timothy 1 and I Corinthians 5-6; they are in a listing with the uttermost disorders as in I Timothy 1. Is it now to come to this, that the nation will insist on a take-over even of the vocabulary! Is MARRIAGE to be the chosen term to cover what is blessed by the Designer and what is abominated (cf. Jude, II Peter 2:4-8), as if there, there was no difference ?

DO IT and learn. One would not like to see Australia needlessly ask for a reply, to be given with all the depth and wisdom of God, a response to such things, to be realised at leisure: after seeing many things blindly, at last to awake! One would fail greatly if not warning; and we have warned Australia on various issues RELATING TO GOD AND THE BIBLE, the proper domain for a Church, repeatedly. Love could do no less. Concern must act; and those concerned, need to act, just as those already with lung cancer, need to act the more rigorously and soon, in stopping smoking. But some will not discontinue,  even if already possessed by a hacking cough.



If a country wishes to depart from the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ,
or from the rules that flow from this, the constitutional backdrop,
the institutionalised orientation of much in its founding, then this is the first step.


If it also wishes to inhibit the experience of children,
by omitting from the immediate domestic presence,
one of the gender variants, with built-in relational propensions,
then that is the second.


if it wants to avoid the natural usage for reproduction,

if it wants to lessen the gender similarity between parents and child
by having two  'parents' with only one a gene-contributor,


if it wishes indeed to play god over the natural, then that is understood.

It is already a cyclotron in operation, with 5 steps done, a significant quantity as in Jude 7.

But please let it not simply add to the confusion which sin inevitably brings, by calling non-natural reproduction by the name of the natural, and so abusing vocabulary and special features of the natural, as well! 'Marriage' as a term,  is merely shanghaied into such a usage as that.

That is mere confusion and deserves all it gets.

Mercy like 'flu injections, is available where it may be found (Isaiah 55, Titus 2-3), not anywhere you choose to imagine it. It is available to repentance into life, through faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 11:18, Luke 13:1-3, Mark 1:15). How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation! challenges Hebrews 2:1-3, "Seek the Lord while He is may be found," declares Isaiah, "call upon Him while He is near!"

In His gift to faith to those who find in Him the only Saviour from sin by His bearing of its guilt on the cross (Romans 3:23ff., Acts 4:11-12), there is delicious freedom, without charge or variation. In His power (Ephesians 1:19); you then come back to be in regular contact with God and to the power that raised Christ from the dead. Whoever, knowing well of Him who came and who acted to save (John 14:1-10, 10:9,27-28), who in faith calls on the name of the Lord, even His who came to  save, and who is mighty to do so, will be saved.




*M, *M1

As shown in the News item at the outset (News, Suffragio August 12, 2013),

which picked up a last days offer by PM Rudd, as he was in that short second innings near the heavily lost election on September 7, there was a PM who wanted same-gender marriage. He was even offering smart action, and fast, to get it within days of election - if placed on the PM pedestal again. The Australian, September 12, shows that some are urging him to pursue this objective, as a backbench MP, in opposition.


Pillage of Marriage for Newspeak ?

As seen in the main text of this August article, this was merely, such an approach in this land, an expression of a far broader spiritual malaise, in biblical terms, and a normative result of the disparagement of the declarations of deity to the found in the Bible as evidenced in *1 below. The cited item for August 12, 2013 as above, noted the exceptional character of a PM in this land offering such a thing. It is a land in an exceptional position, not unlike that of Britain after World War II. It had had enough of war and put in the Socialists.

So here, many have had enough of culture wars, as some like to call them. There are such things, of course; but this is not of that type. They want to capitulate to this new thrust in the mind of man. It is not really however simply a culture war; as such it is misnamed.

This is a war between culture and super-culture, between God and man, between product Manual*1 and product personality, between operational laws in both  Testaments of the Bible, and voluntary rebellion against these, between what is an absolute exclusion zone if unrepented, in common with that of adultery, from the kingdom of God as in I Cor. 5-6.

Last time, as shown in the first News item noted, the attempt to change the national law in this regard, lost decisively. Will there be a new lunge to what the Bible deems, as shown in the text above from Romans 1, lust! Will we be a cultural-catch-up nation, citing New Zealand, or looking to Britain, looking to ourselves, what people want out there, as the PM appears to have declared; or are we going to attend to the former reliance on Almighty God, not a cultural object but the Producer of man who makes culture ? are we to further the movement to being at war with God, or to act otherwise, with some restraint ?

WHAT former reliance ? one may ask. It is that stated in the Pre-amble to our Constitution, when we were showing a certain thankfulness not to some race here before us, in parts of this continent, but to the Maker of all land, to God who made all races and all places and apportions as He will! All races have significance; never should this be used as an excuse to make the Maker of all of them insignificant. That is a false dichotomy, a confused abuse of concepts.

The matter is poised. Many have been the defiant rebellions already in our educational system (Lead us Not into Educational Temptation, TMR Ch. 8, Government and Education; but is this to enter into an even more voracious appetite for revolt ? Is that to be a form of thankfulness wildly askew for the goodness of God to this land when it had still in some forms at least, kept to some institutions, some allegiance in many, some verisimilitude of virtue in biblical terms, even if increasingly shadowy ?

Let us hope not; for who wants to see wild provocation to the Almighty, rather than reliance on the God who was in mind in our first arrival as a complete Australian nation, in terms of the whole continent!




See not only

Deity and Design,

 The gods of naturalism have no go!


but the extensive coverage in





It is necessary to think not only about the general drift to divorce from the declarations of deity about man, in terms of the substitutes made for the Bible and the Messiah, Jesus Christ, which equally divorce from reason, futilities as one word for them in the Old Testament has it, evanescent vaporisings (cf. SMR Chs. 3-4, 10, for example, with Epilogue to God is not Only Great ..., Divine Agenda Ch. 6); but also to do so in terms of this country, the Commonwealth of Australia. This is given attention in sites like  The Paganisation of Australia and especially in the latter part of   The Freedom, the Nation, the Internet, and the Next Generation, Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation.

See also *1 above.