Posted by: alexnader | December 10, 2008

Bill of Rights – right?

Flagpole ontop of parliament house02.jpg

The dust from the landslide failure of the badly-worded Australian referendum of 1988 seems to have finally settled. Although discussion has taken place in the past to no effect, it appears as if the battle for an Australian Bill of Rights is reaching a climax.

‘The Land of Oz’ is the only remaining member of the Western world without such a document, whether constitutional or legislative, in effect on a national level. Urban legend says that the man responsible for drafting the document was sick on the day it was in production, but in truth, it is probably faith in the common law system and Senatorial checks and balances that has halted previous pushes.

But the Federal Attorney-General, Mr. Robert McClelland, has now moved in favour of a referendum. McClelland stated that religious tolerance, women’s rights, and indigenous living conditions could be promoted and protected by a document of Australia’s liberties.

He’s begun a national discussion on the issue, headed by Jesuit priest and law professor Father Frank Brennan, that calls for input on what kind of rights and responsibilities Australia wants to protect.

Other members of the leading committee will include former SBS newsreader Mary Kostakidis, a speaker on pluralism, as well as former Northern Territory police commissioner Mick Palmer, and human rights advocate and lawyer Tammy Williams.

While many Australians may be pleased by the comeback of one of the nation’s biggest debates, non-pluralists may have to consider the double-edged sword that a Bill of Rights may represent. The religious tolerance component may end up much less a right and more of an imposition.

As one of the most “non-religious” nations in the West (30% at the last census), and perhaps one of the most religiously diverse, Christians particularly face the danger of political correctness. The pluralist and post-modernist l society of Australia could attempt the removal of one of Christ’s most fundamental teachings from allowed belief.

 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.”

Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

– John 14:1-6

Many “Pluralist Christians” (though clearly in contradiction with themselves and Christ) find it hard to justify their paradoxial ideals with this teaching. Many post-modernists detest it.

The stubborn support of post-modernists and pluralists for religious tolerance is far too absurd to be within reason – pushing religious tolerance to the point of intruding on non-pluralist religions is, by definition, religiously intolerant.

Yet society pushes onward in this direction. The tidal wave of political correctness, in all its inconsistency, continues to flatten the government’s capacity to make laws, pushing ‘discrimination’ further and further up its list of evils.

It’s any wonder that the Bill of Rights has not already been thrusted forward as ‘moral’ and ‘correct’.

But another question, one that applies to all Australians, should be considered – do we actually need to formalize our rights?

Where’s the call of the courts for more laws? Where, in this post-modernist world, does discrimination dare to lurk? What employer would risk denying a job on the grounds of race, or sex, or religion?

Certainly, our lack of a Bill of Rights is unusual, but perhaps the true anomaly is that Australia is the only nation with no need for it. Perhaps we are indeed unique in that respect.

Perhaps a Bill of Rights would present more of a danger than a safety.

Posted by: alexnader | November 6, 2008

Mummy and Medvedev

As of the South Ossetia War, there is now a fog of fear hanging over Europe. Medvedev Russia has shown its might, and NATO nations now squirm in concern over another European war. But now, this fear may come to fruition. Why? The Mummy Problem.

We’ve all seen or heard of the “change [that] has come to America,” the victory of Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama against Republican John McCain. We’ve seen his campaign slogans, “Change we can believe in,” and, “Change we need.” But ironically, this change may not be entirely good.

There is a recognized concept called the Mummy Problem, an issue that the Democratic Party has suffered from for decades. It refers to the common role that Democrat presidents take (intentionally or accidentally) as the “mummy” of America – caring for the people in their finance, health care etc.

This is in contrast to the Republican Party’s “daddy” presidents, who typically monopolize the issue of security easily. Most famously, George W. Bush threw the American blade into the heart of the Middle East, and McCain sought to maintain troop numbers in Iraq.

Generally speaking, Republicans are voted into the Oval Office when a war arrives at the gates, and Democrats when financial troubles fall upon the nation (I would argue this is one of the reasons Obama won). However, we now face quite a dilemma – a Democrat is in office and war is potentially going to break out during his reign.

The day after the United States Election Day, President Medvedev of the Russian Federation announced the placement of short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, the largest city in a small exclave of Russia located on the Baltic coast between Poland and Lithuania. He said that this was to counter the United States missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic that were created to counter in turn the Russian attack on Georgia in the South Ossetian War.

“Mechanisms must be created to block mistaken, egoistical and sometimes simply dangerous decisions of certain members of the international community … To neutralize – if necessary – the [U.S.] anti-missile system, an Iskander missile system will be deployed in the Kaliningrad region. Naturally, we are also considering using for the same purpose the resources of Russia’s navy.”

– President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia

Kaliningrad map.PNGMedvedev expressed his hope that United States relations with Russia would improve under President Obama despite this obvious move against the United States into fully-fledged relations.

‘Course, that still leaves room for different interpretations – most likely, Medvedev envisions a future where Russia can move against any other nation with no slap on the wrist from the United States. Not the warless world that Obama envisions, no doubt.

Nations surrounding Russia have been wriggling in their seats since Medvedev ordered an attack on Georgia in August. The United States reacted with its Eastern Europe missile defence systems, and Lithuania even shifted its foreign policy around in fright.

The real scare is that both Poland and Lithuania are on the edge of NATO and the EU. Any real attack be Russia would draw most European and North American nations into a cross-continental war – especially keeping in mind Alaska’s proximity to Far East Russia. 

Despite all this, there is still hope – Russia is about as reliant on the EU and US for economic success as the US and EU are reliant on Russia. According to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Germany is Russia’s biggest import source at about 13.9% of imports, and the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany together form about 27.5% of Russian export destinations. Russia is the world’s 7th largest economy, and continues to rely on international co-operation for success.

Naturally, though, this does not necessarily stop the Kremlin from ordering an attack. Remember that Georgia was practically torn to shreds before the EU carefully persuaded Medvedev to pull back. The effort required help from EU maverick diplomat and key figure, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, along with US negotiation from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice herself.

And one of the speculated reasons for Russia’s impulsive raids is the oil pipelines that run through its target nations. Georgia had a pipeline running from the Caspian to Turkey.

Poland could be a target for the extending Odessa-Brody pipeline planned to run to Gdansk and supply the rest of Europe. Or maybe Russia dreams of claiming the entire Druzhba pipeline, a significant transmitter of oil from Russia to Germany, Ukraine, and Poland. Either are quite useful prizes for a Russian offensive.

After all, Obama isn’t going to solve the issue – his first response to the South Ossetia War was that the UN should lead the peace mission there. Someone forgot to tell him in his few years in the Senate that Russia had the power to veto any UN action. Whoops.

And then there’s the Democrat “Mummy” stereotype that Obama will likely fulfil – especially since he has a “diplomacy-over-war” approach to megathreat nations like Iran, North Korea, and yes, Russia.

So now, we wait for Obama, Russia, or perhaps a third-party, to act. And hope for the best.

Posted by: alexnader | October 23, 2008

Barack Obama Quote Generator

I just found this generator on ( that produces hilarious* fake quotes from Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.


It only needs six input words, and produces three different formatted quotes. Here’s an example of one I encountered:

“These people haven’t had bowel movements for fifty years. So you can’t be surprised if they get bitter and cling to their vita-brits and their coco pops and their vegemite. That’s what my campaign is about. Teaching all the little people in this country that they can have porridge.”

– Barack Obama Quote Generator

Lol! Try it out, it’s loads of fun, even if you’re a supporter of him.

*humour level is dependant on user’s imagination.
Posted by: alexnader | October 6, 2008


Well, the election’s over. The Democrats won. A new VP, a new President, and a new government.

Now we just have to wait for Santos to confirm his staff.

That’s right – I just finished watching the West Wing’s 2nd election, and the most emphasized: Santos vs Vinick. In fact, I’m up to the last episode, Tomorrow, but I’ve seen it before.

Personally, I was going for Vinick – but that’s just because of my right-wingedness. I disagree with both candidates on abortion, but Vinick seemed to be the best candidate between the two. Perhaps it’s just my Republicaness.

On the other hand, I couldn’t agree more with Santos’ choice to place Vinick as Secretary of State. He certainly had the political advantage against Santos in foreign policy, and it was a smart move for Santos to take advantage of his skills while eliminating a potential future political opponent.

Sam was a wise choice for Deputy Chief of Staff, seeing as he quite obviously can keep Josh in check. Donna knew the First Lady best, and she really does have no role under Josh anymore – so another tick. And taking Baker as VP eliminated another political opponent, another wise choice.

I would have liked to have seen Annabeth take the role of White House Press Secretary, but (as unfortunate as it is) I think her height would have worked against her – as well as the irony of going from a tall Press Secretary to a short one. She would do well in the East Wing.

The one concern I have is Josh – I can’t see him speaking to foreign leaders or working in the situation room. It just doesn’t work. He’d be much more suited for Legislative Affairs or Deputy Chief of Staff again, but I guess it’s too much of a hierarchy drop for a Campaign Manager and former Deputy Chief of Staff as well.

Any fellow West Wing watchers feel free to share your thoughts.

Posted by: alexnader | September 25, 2008

In England and Wales

There are some times I wish I lived in a more significant country. 

One of these times is when the only Wikipedia pages on certain legal procedures are based on England, Wales, Canada, or the US.

No (insert home country here)!!!!

I mean, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The legal system in my country is sewn together from various other systems, so it’s really not that unique…. or does that make it unique?

Anyway, so when I watch Judge Judy in mid-afternoons and I suddenly get inspired to look up a legal procedure, I always experience a tiny sinking feeling – small, but noticeable.

I can glean some info from the many pages on the topic, but even then, the knowledge barrier blocks the way – there’s some stuff I just can’t understand.

But that’s what law school is for, right?

P.S Well, now you know I don’t live in any of the above places…. oh well ; )

Posted by: alexnader | September 14, 2008

Sorry, Palin

A Palin aide confirmed details of her foreign travel Saturday.I owe the Republican VP candidate an apology, just like many other political enthusiasts. I listened to the Leftists in their criticism of her supposed lack of foreign policy, and tried to defend her from this in an earlier post.

Instead, I should have waited to hear from the Alaskan Governor herself, because as it turns out, the Leftist attack on her was not founded on fact. It was, just like the majority of all political attacks, an exaggeration of the truth.

Take a look at the transcript of her interview with ABC News’s Charlie Gibson, and you’ll see what I mean – Sarah Palin does have foreign policy. Not only that, but she is quite ready to defend herself.

Yet the Left continue to throw punches at her.

For example, you will notice (as the Left did) that she never ruled out war as a last resort for resolving disputes overseas (particularly over the South Ossetia War). For this reason, many have labelled her (along with the rest of the GOP) as a warmonger.

But the point has been missed. Wouldn’t the people of the United States prefer that their Army fought to protect the millions of people under Russia’s threat? More so, wouldn’t even Obama, the great “pacifist”, consider sending the Army to intervene in the slaughter of multitudes? And furthermore, she placed it as a last resort! For goodness sake, she isn’t saying that war is the initial response.

“In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.”

– Gov. Sarah Palin

In another instance, severely left-wing interviewer Charlie Gibson questioned Palin on her view on “the Bush doctrine,” and Palin rightly asks for clarification. Then Gibson, instead of defining it himself, asks her to clarify an ideal he introduced to the conversation. 

So she plays his game. Palin defines the Bush doctrine as, “…his worldview.” Smart move.

But Gibson then does the unthinkable – he tells Palin, the person he is interviewing, that she gave the wrong answer.

“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.”

– Charlie Gibson

What kind of an interview is this? I would understand if he said, “Sorry, I meant the doctrine enunciated in September 2002,” but he has to tell her she’s wrong.

But it doesn’t stop there. Palin, still unsure about what Gibson’s on about, continues to play the game. She talks about the mistakes she believe were made in the War on Terror, but defends her support of the actual war.

Then Gibson reveals the “correct” answer: the Bush doctrine is (supposedly) preemptively striking a country when a threat is made against the United States. And when Palin answers (four times), he pretends she didn’t answer.

I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes?

– Charlie Gibson

And Palin answers yet again, in case he didn’t understand the other four times.

Grrr! Some journalists make me angry – especially when they’re just searching for the answer they want (wait a minute – isn’t that all the time…?).

Anyways, Sarah, I’m sorry.

Posted by: alexnader | September 12, 2008

Christians and Sin

I do not argue that Christians are immune to the effects of sin. But, on request from a friend, I thought I’d talk about my belief (backed by the Bible) that Christians are not sinners.

Already, you may be a tad confused over what exactly I’m saying. So here’s some analogies of what I mean:

A man breathes. Yet is his identity ‘breathing’?

A woman has two legs. But is she known as ‘bipedal’?

The answers to the above are simple – no. Although humans breathe and walk on two legs, their identities are not encompassed by these two facts. It is the identities of human beings that I wish to explore here.

So what do I mean?

Well, to those who believe that all humans are sinners (by the conventional definition of someone whom sins), I wonder this – what is it that differentiates Christians from non-Christians? Why are we any more deserving of Jesus’ forgiveness? Is it simply because we acknowledge Him as Lord? Or to truly acknowledge him, should we be reborn and transformed into His followers?

In answering these coterminous questions, we have to (as always) turn to Scripture.

“We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will.”

– John 9:31

Not actually spoken by follower of Christ, but useful in our search for answers nonetheless.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

– Romans 5:19

Interesting – through Adam’s sin, we were corrupted, but through Christ’s sacrifice, we are cleansed… even made righteous…

We also see many sections where sinners are differentiated from Christ’s followers, for example:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

– James 5:19

Luke 6:32-36 is another reference along these lines.

Not only does God not listen to sinners as above, but:

The LORD detests men of perverse heart but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.

– Proverbs 11:20

I know, it’s an Old Testament verse that only describes God’s relationship with his people before Jesus’ ministry. But even this is intriguing – is it true, then, that in some way, humans can be blameless?

And about the human heart – here’s a section from Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the seeds:

But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

– Luke 8:15


The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

– 1 Timothy 1:5

So humans can, and Christians do, have a noble and good heart? We have to, if we’re going to ‘produce a crop’, and more importantly, if we are going to love (which we are commanded to do).

(Below, a random video for a bit of a break as usual – this time, a weird American ad to get kids to take tough classes for college)

In a very complex jumble of speech, we have another reference:

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have a desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is the sin living in me that does it.

– Romans 7:14-20

Ok, so if you understand that, great, but if you don’t, just look at the last sentence or two – they’re the ones I want to focus on. It is no longer us (Christians) who sin, but the evil within us. This is because we are new flesh (reborn, cleansed, made righteous etc.) with old flesh (evil, sin etc.) sitting as a burden on our shoulders. Therefore, do we sin? Or is it the evil, old flesh within us that sins? And furthermore, are we sinners?

There are more verses:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions 0 it is by grace that you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus…

– Ephesians 2:1-6

And more:

Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

– 1 Corinthians 1:1-2

(Another break, this time a video of the Foreign Languages part of the above ad series; it’s mildly amusing)

Now, let’s wrap all this up in a nice little bolded-and-coloured summary of conclusions.

1. Christians are not, and cannot be, sinners. As the good seed, we must have a good and noble heart in order to ‘produce a crop’, and although our old flesh still inhabits us, we are not dominated by it as non-Christians are.

2. Christians are righteous. Similar to the above point, but different. Not only are we not sinners, but we are quite the opposite – we are of good and noble heart. Only through Christ’s sacrifice is this so, and through our transformation into new flesh. Like the human hand, evil is still a part of us, but it doesn’t enslave us as it once did.

3. We still need to ask for forgiveness. Why? Because our body still sins. When we allow our old flesh to take hold momentarily, and once our new flesh reclaims command, we must acknowledge what we did wrong and present it to God for his judgment. He will always strike it from the record, because the righteous shall not be held accountable to sin.

So, as a final word, any readers can feel free to question and challenge the conclusions drawn from this exploration. In fact, I encourage it.

Please do.

Posted by: alexnader | September 5, 2008

Palin’s prelection

Palin, you pulchritudinous politician!

No, that wasn’t an insult (pulchritudinous is a word I found that means ‘beautiful’). I was referring to Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s stellar job in her debut primetime speech at the Republican National Convention. She stood before more than 2000 fellow Republicans to make an address that was to be the most important speech of her life.

And indeed, a great success. Ms. Palin ran a successful defence of her political experience while simultaneously attacking the Democrat’s Obama-Biden campaign.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involved.

“I guess — I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

I might add that, in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they’re listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

No, we tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

– Governor Sarah Palin

Democrats have responded to the speech by highlighting the role of George Bush’s speechwriter in advising Palin.

“The speech that [Alaska] Gov. Palin made was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush’s speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years … if Gov. Palin and John McCain want to define ‘change’ as voting with George Bush 90 percent of the time, that’s their choice, but we don’t think the American people are ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.”

– Bill Burton, Obama spokesperson

Sure, Bill. Keep going on that “Palin = Bush” line, and you’ll reach several fundamental differences.

Palin is an Alaskan Governor, former town mayor, 44-years old, female, single-state politician and hunter. Bush is the President of the United States, former Texan Governor, 62-years old, male, multi-state politician. Not that mere life differences have anything to do with it, but just thought you might wanna know, Bill…

But to the point – are there any similarities between Bush and Palin? Well, they are both Republicans. And they’ve both been Governors. But in terms of policy, Bush has a history of ill-regarded policies, and Palin has a clean slate. Where’s the catch there?

In terms of partisan attacks, I doubt the Obama-Biden campaign have much credibility. Here’s an excerpt from Obama’s own nomination acception speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives… Sen. McCain has been anything but independent… it’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it…for over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy…”

– Senator Barack Obama 

 Yes, of course. Completely non-partisan, isn’t he?

And to Bill’s other comment on voting with Bush: isn’t change exactly what laws cause? It seems a bit of a stupid comment – passing laws means change no matter who it supports, doesn’t it? Bill might classify change as allowing certain Democrat bills to pass, but I tend to think of change as a non-partisan ideal.

I’m watchful for signs of the world going crazy – partisan bills passed as ‘change’ is one of them.

Posted by: alexnader | September 1, 2008

Two Republicans and an election

With the Republican Convention in process, and Election Day fast approaching (November 4th), John McCain and his new running mate, Sarah Palin, are under more pressure than ever to gain polling numbers and, more importantly, votes. The board is now set – all the players have arrived. Now the real game begins.

Personally, I think it was a wise choice of McCain to choose the Governor of Alaska as his vice-presidential running mate. She has so much going for her: her gender, youth, untainted past, anti-corruption reputation, and several further desirable qualities. One of the only problems is her lack of foreign policy, which Democrats have picked up on.

Many Democrats say that this is a massive flaw – since the primary role of the Vice-President is to replace the President in the case of his absence or death, they have no room for such a massive hole in experience. But what are the odds of McCain dying in office?

According to a UN life expectancy study for the next three years, male Americans can be expected to live for approximately 75.6 years. Seeing as McCain is 72 years old already, the Democrats might seem right – assuming he is of average health, he should die approximately within his first term.

However, we have to take into account that the President of the United States has probably the best health care in the country (possibly even in the world). He has his own physician, and he receives regular physical checkups to ensure stable health. Or so The West Wing tells us 😉 . Oh, and btw, is an American 80 year old such a rare sight?

We also have to take into account that the President is surrounded my an entourage of elite advisors, including (believe it or not) foreign policy advisors. The President is presented with all the info, and must only make a decision (though this is perhaps the more difficult part). There’s no need for any real foreign policy knowledge (but it can come in handy).

And don’t forget that, assuming McCain does survive his presidency as he probably will, he has his own portfolio of foreign policy. This is a man who’s been in the Vietnam War, who’s been a political voice on many international issues facing the United States today. He’s got it covered. 

So you can see why Palin‘s lack of foreign policy might be less of an issue than Democrats make out. Perhaps all this talk of inexperience is covering up a deficiency in someone else’s character…? 😉

Posted by: alexnader | August 31, 2008

On Homosexuality (and lazy “Christians”)

We live in a world where the very ideals of right and wrong are thrown into uncertainty. For example, when I say that homosexuality is a sin, I will be attacked from nearly every corner (even the Church is partially confused on this matter). Worldviews will (and do) clash: some modernists might also discourage homosexuality, saying it does not progress the human race; post-modernists defend the “right” of homosexuals to believe what they want; lazy or stubborn “Christians” might argue that “the Bible doesn’t say that.” It is this last group that I want to address here.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, many “Christians” are lazy. This group seem to think that the life of a Christian is merely attending a building every Sunday, drinking some wine, eating some bread, singing some songs, and looking as if you’re praying when the time comes (severe silence in their faith is also common). Yet this contradicts the life brought to us by Jesus and described in the New Testament. 

It is truly revolting when I must explain the life we Christians are commanded and given to live to my own brothers and sisters in Christ. It is disgusting that so many Christians are duplicitous enough that they dare testify God’s Word to others without following it themselves. It is against His Word, and by extension, against Him.

But more on that later. At this time, I am speaking of homosexuality, and the sinfulness of it that many so-called “Christians” refuse to see.

I’d like to draw your attention to Romans 1:26-32:

 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

– Romans 1:26-32 (KJV)

The NIV translates this as:

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.

– Romans 1:26-32

Quite obvious, isn’t it? And note that even approving of those who practice them is considered sinful. If any stubborn “Christians” out there continue to disagree, read the following:

1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

– Genesis 19:1-5, 24-25 (KJV)

Doesn’t seem so bad, wanting to “know” someone, right? Yet God killed them for it, obliterating their city. Why, you ask? Well, the NIV translates this differently:

5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Genesis 19:5 (NIV)

Ok, so now it looks a little more obvious. Note that I have omitted a section from the big KJV quote – it says that in response to the request of the men, Lot offers his daughter to them:

 6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
– Genesis 19:6-9 (KJV)


A random picture to split the text a little ;)

A random picture to split the text a little 😉

Now, I don’t accept the comfy interpretations many lazy “Christians” have thrown onto these verses – that the men were truly wanting to get to know the two angels in Lot’s house, and that they were not homosexual at all. I don’t accept it because, quite frankly, it is a lethargic way to look at things, an avoidance of the truth, an attempt to live a comfortable life in this sinful world. Oh, and because it isn’t true as well (translations show that).

Many homosexuals and many those tolerant of their choice want a black-and-white, transparent verse that says homosexuality is sinful. But the Bible isn’t and never was supposed to be a one-glance reference book. It is the Word of God, more intricate than a Swiss clock and deeper than space. God wants us to want a relationship with Him and to want to study His Word; this would not be achieved by a clear-as-day book.

So, in closing, I’d like to make this perfectly clear – I do not condemn homosexuals (or those whom are tolerant and supportive of their decision). God does. I can only direct them to scripture, and stand up for the truth, because for all I know (and it is this that I hope and work for), they may one day be redeemed in Christ.

Older Posts »