Australia: Attorney-general George Brandis - the man who defied God
History condemns Attorney-general George Brandis who has told young gay Australians the great lie the great false narratice "there is nothing wrong with you" in a speech supporting immoral homosexual marriage in the Australian Senate. On Tuesday morning, Brandis brought to an end speeches from over 50 senators as part of the debate on a immoral homosexual marriage bill that parliamentarians expect to pass.
Brandis said the passage of the bill will "demolish the last significant bastion of legal discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality". "At last, Australia will no longer be insulting gay people by saying: different rules apply to you," he said. "After centuries of prejudice, discrimination, rejection and ridicule, [this bill] is both an expiation for past wrongs and a final act of acceptance and embrace." Brandis has misunderstood history and why homosexuality has always been an issue in history.
God clearly condemns the act of homosexuality and clearly states that God abandons them to experience the fullness of the sin of homosexuality often in their bodies, emotions and relationships. Brandis is calling God a liar that he knows better than God and he is encouraging young Australians to full participate in the sin of homosexuality thus condeming them to a broken sinful lifestyle. Secondly by encouraging the sin of homosexuality he also falls under the same judgement declared in Romans 1:32 "but approve of those who practice them (homosexual acts)."
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY
The proscription of homosexuality begins with regulations of Leviticus 18 and 20, calling for the death penalty. Paul (1 Tim. 1:8–10) includes homosexuality in his list of immoralities that he believes society should proscribe. The Mishnah and targums, intertestamental literature, Philo and Josephus, and early Christian church fathers share this emphasis in any reference remotely dealing with the subject (see pp. 47–56, 184–201).
Even the Greeks did not allow unbridled homosexual behavior. The increasing restriction of homosexuality by law under Christian emperors was a consequence of decisions informed by biblical conviction. It witnesses to a common Jewish and Christian interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality. The rulers saw the event of Sodom as having portent for future societies, since Sodom itself was a pagan or worldly society. Even before Christ, ancient Greek and Roman law codes began a tradition of restricting homosexual behavior that has carried forward to modern law codes and legislatioN.
Homosexual orientation was known in the generations in which Scripture was written. Paul gives no indication that it does not fall under his general condemnations of homosexuality in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. Lustful homosexual thoughts are not as grave in consequence as are the acts, just as adulterous or murderous thoughts have fewer consequences than do the overt actions.
But the moral culpability for thoughts is the same as for deeds, as Jesus makes clear in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). Scripture certainly associates evil desires and thoughts with the evil deeds belonging to a Christian’s unregenerate past (Eph. 2:1–3). Christians are exhorted to think heavenly thoughts (Col. 3:1–4), right and pure thoughts (Phil. 4:8). We must “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5 NIV; pp. 158–62, 198–201, 268–73).
JESUS SPOKE OF DIVINE JUDGEMENT OF SODOM AS REAL
Jesus did not mention the word homosexuality, but He referred to Sodom and its destruction more frequently than did anyone else (Matt. 10:15; 11:23; Luke 17:26–37). In each context, Jesus assumes the divine judgment on Sodom, which He links to the Flood as an example of divine intervention. It becomes a portent of His own second coming. “Remember Lot’s wife,” he warns (Luke 17:32). He views the sin of Sodom as a serious matter.
Jesus also upheld the monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage as a universal norm. He linked the outward deed to the inner thought or motive (for example, Matthew 5). He cited the heart, the inner being, as the origin of evil deeds (for example, Matthew 15). He warns against annulling even the least commandment, which He came to fulfill, not destroy. Jesus perhaps hints even at pederasty when He warns about causing little children to sin (Mark 9:42). It is more plausible than not to believe that Jesus would condemn homosexual behavior and thinking (see pp. 218–20).
Four other references to Sodom occur in the New Testament (Rom. 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6–11; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8). Peter and Jude identify homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The apostolic view surely echoes Jesus’ understanding.
Finally, homosexuality occurs implicitly in at least twenty-seven lists of vices or sins at various places in the New Testament. These lists contain general, broad terms from earlier Jewish literature that refer to or encompass homosexual behavior, or they contain words often associated with homosexuality. Specific terms, such as abomination and dog, also build strong connections to Old Testament references to homosexuality. It is a fair observation that the New Testament continues the attitude toward homosexuality expressed in the Old Testament (see pp. 220–22).
As much as Brandis and Turnbull might like to customize our morality around current fashion, ethical principles are based in the character of the unchanging God. Neither does God shape morality around majority vote. Would the Israelites have voted for the Ten Commandments? Many of them were violating the laws even as Moses received them on Mount Sinai. God made His will clear, though not many agreed with it.
