Posts

Showing posts with the label against nature

New Life Church Robina fasting to accept or reject immoral homosexual decision

Image
If one acknowledges that the Bible presents universal claims regarding God, then there is no escaping the universal significance of what the Bible reveals about homosexuality. The essence of the error of homosexuality is pride, and pride is always wrong, for everyone.  ABANDON THE NOW APOSTATE UNITING CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA The Uniting Church has failed to HONOUR the authority of scripture and has failed to display biblical leadership by offering a choice. The Uniting Church in Australia is now in open rebellion against God. NEW LIFE ROBINA QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA  - will be fasting for 40 days to determine if they will follow the unbiblical decision from the 15th Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia.  What was the decision? To permit pastor to marry homosexuals. But in reality, they have chosen to ignore the authority of scripture. Why do you need to fast when the leadership of a Church movement clearly violates the authority of scripture? You don't! Y...

Homosexuality a former crime is now celebrated?

Image
Today people are pushing for same sex marriage. But only a few decades ago homosexuality was deemed to be illegal. So what happened? How did homosexuality that was 'against nature' (physical design / reproduction), a crime, becomes something to be celebrated as something - good, positive ( as per LGBTQ radicals)?  The 1950 UK Wolfenden Report which decriminalized homosexuality as an 'act against nature' was based on flawed science from Alfred Kinsey who essentially molested children. Fake science was the basis of this horrific decision. In the early years of the American colonies , the penalty for sodomy was death, and a number of executions are documented. Why was sodomy, usually conceived of as anal intercourse between men, thought of as treason against the state, and punished so harshly?  Even in Australia , until 1949, the death penalty remained on the statute books for sodomy in the southern state of Victoria . Legislative change came in Septembe...

Why has homosexuality 'acts against nature' now changed?

Image
Fifty years after homosexuality was decriminalised in England and Wales . It was based on the simple yet false idea - sexual activity behind closed doors is private and the government has no interest in such private behaviour. This logic of course doesn't work. Why? Because  domestic violence , incest, underage sex , pedophilia - are all prohibited  behaviours  behind closed doors but are illegal? So what is the difference? So only indecent behavior, acts against nature or buggery were decriminalized and given a free pass. Why? Homosexuals in power brought about changes using false arguments just like 'easy divorce.' Why was it criminalized as indecent in the first place? Because everybody understood that homosexual behaviour was wrong, infertile, based on lust, against common sense, devalues marriage, against scripture and against children and families. 72 other countries and territories worldwide continue to criminalise immoral homosexual relationships, ...

A response to Brad Chilcott - Homosexuality, Romans 1 and Against Nature Explained

Image
Romans 1 :26–27 Perhaps no New Testament text has suffered more assaults than has Romans 1 . Central to the revisionist approach like Brad Chilcott- to Romans 1 is the focus on new ways of understanding the meaning of nature (physis) in verses 26–27. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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. The words for “natural relations” represent more literally “natural use” (physikēn chrēsin). Unnatural relations, then, are “against nature” (para physin). The word for “nature” occurs once as a noun (in v. 26) and twice as an adjective (in vv. 26 and 27). “Against Nature”—Views of Interpretation Perverts and Inverts Some interpreters limit the term natural to “what is natural for m...