Abbott and Costello \u2013 Comedy duo and political nightmare! In this article we are not concerned with Bud and Lou, rather our attention is fixed upon Tony and Peter.<\/p>\n
Tony Abbot has come under fire for making the point that Homosexual Union is not the priority in the upcoming election. Mr Abbott sees that the issues of the economy are of a higher order.<\/p>\n
Mr Abbott, how wrong you are!<\/span><\/p>\n The problem with this country is morality,[1]<\/a> not economics; nor anything else for that matter. The economy of this country suffers because the economic principles employed have been divorced from morality. Governments believe that they can tax without limit; that they can demand more taxation be paid for their latest and greatest scheme. These Governments spend without regard to legitimacy, equity, longevity, or prosperity. These Governments spend immorally.<\/p>\n Think here of Kevin Rudd\u2019s stimulus package. People\u2019s \u2018hard earned\u2019 gathered by the Taxman had been stored by the previous Government. Economic downturn hits. Mr Rudd\u2019s genius plan \u2013 let\u2019s throw all this money at people (generally the people not taxed in the first place) in the hope that they will spend up big and save the economy.<\/p>\n Politics aside, who thinks this to be the master plan<\/em>? It is sheer nonsense. Who runs their household budget this way?[2]<\/a> Imagine the domestic equivalent: Your husband comes home from work and announces he has been fired due to economic downturn. No more money. He then announces, \u201cNo problem, we will just take all our savings and give it to Bert across the road. We will direct him to spend it on products made by my former employer. This stimulus should help them and they will reemploy me!\u201d Possible? Yes. Probable? No. Most likely you end up stone-broke living under a bridge or in your mate\u2019s garage<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n This leads us to the other half of this political duo, Peter Costello. When he was Treasurer, he was heard to say something along the lines of \u2018some debt is good.\u2019 At that time, this was a mantra. People were encouraged to hang on to a little debt because it supposedly gave them better options. Why pay out your mortgage and risk more fees should you ever want to borrow again? Keep the debt. Keep the credit line open and you could possibly<\/em>, maybe<\/em>, at some stage, save some money.<\/p>\n Again, economics divorced from morality. The Biblical point of view is that if you are in debt, then you are a slave. The slave has no freedom. The slave has his future governed by the one in power.<\/p>\n Then there was the whole, \u2018do not get a personal loan, add it to your mortgage\u2019 propaganda. Why pay 15% interest when you could pay 6%. It seemed so reasonable. However, none seemed to stop and do their sums \u2013 except for the Banks. When you work it out, 15% over two years is a lot less pain than 6% over twenty years. Consider, also, the epiphanic discovery by the Banks \u2013 pay your loan fortnightly and save money. Epiphany! Not even close. The word is \u201cmanipulation\u201d. These institutions knew this; they simply wanted to milk the situation.<\/p>\n So why was there a push to keep people in debt? The short answer is \u2013 a complete absence of morality in economics and business<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n What, then, is the point?<\/p>\n Australia is, above all, facing a crisis in morality<\/em>. This crisis is most clearly seen in the acceptance of homosexuality, the protection afforded to homosexuals, and the now constant demand for Homosexual Union.<\/p>\n What Mr Abbott has failed to grasp is that there are not a number of separate, standalone issues facing this country. We have one fundamental problem \u2013 as a people we desire immorality<\/strong>. This immorality permeates every aspect of our lives. It is the issue in dysfunctional families, poor customer service, the greed of \u201cBig Business\u201d, the demand for anarchic individualism, unjust taxation, murder, profligacy, border protection, the right of individual choice, and governmental tyranny.<\/p>\n We hear much about \u201cSecular Australia\u201d or the \u201cSecular State\u201d. What is meant by this term? Most, when hearing the term \u201csecular\u201d, interpret it to mean free from religion. What they do not grasp is that \u201cSecularism\u201d is a religion. It is an immoral religion. It is that simple.<\/p>\n This country was to a degree founded on Biblical truths. Those truths started with the fact that the God of the Bible exists and that He is the source of right and wrong \u2013 the moral Absolute. As a culture we have rejected God. In essence then, we have willingly adopted everything that God opposes. We are not \u201catheists\u201d, but \u201cantitheists\u201d in that we are anti-God.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Now you may ask, \u201cHow does homosexuality show this?\u201d<\/p>\n The answer to such a question is very easy, if you believe the Bible. I do not expect the secularist to jump in here with a hearty, \u201cAmen!\u201d However, I would ask that fellow Christians think about this seriously \u2013 not on my say so, but on the authority of God.<\/p>\n Consider Paul\u2019s argument in Romans Chapter one. Paul begins by noting that he is a preacher of the Gospel of God. He notes that he is not ashamed of this gospel for it is \u201cthe power of God unto salvation.\u201d Paul then (v17) posits that salvation is about the revelation of the righteousness of God.<\/p>\n With the scene set, Paul then states unequivocally that God\u2019s wrath is<\/strong> revealed from heaven against ungodliness<\/span>. Not will be, may be, might, or could; is<\/strong>![4]<\/a> Paul then advances his argument, showing that God is known and seen in creation and that Man\u2019s refusal to obey God is because he shuts his eyes to the observable. For this action, Man is condemned as darkened and foolish.<\/p>\n This said, the Apostle unpacks the consequences of Man\u2019s rebellion. Paul outlines three specific points. Each contains the phrase \u201cGod gave them over<\/span>\u201d and illustrates a particular point in which Man\u2019s rebellion has had dire consequences. For us, the importance of the text is to be found in the parallels with Genesis and the Creation Mandate.<\/p>\n In Genesis 1:26, we see God purpose to make Man after His own image. The implication here is that Man, whilst lower than God, would be made in the same perfection as God. This perfection would mean that Man could share in and express the worthiness (worthship) of God. Today, we call this worship. Thus, man was made specifically to enjoy God in worship.<\/p>\n When we look to Romans 1:24ff, we see that the first area in which God handed Man over to his basest[5]<\/a> desires was in the area of worship. Man worshipped himself, among other things, rather than the One True God.<\/p>\n Next, and this is the most relevant aspect<\/span>, we see that God made Man male and female <\/em>(Genesis 1:27). With this difference in sexuality, Man was gifted the ability to \u201cbe fruitful and multiply\u201d. Having been gifted in this manner, Man was able to propagate and thereby \u201csubdue the earth\u201d. In these sentences, we are introduced to family and to an expanding social structure.<\/p>\n Turning again to Romans, we see that this is the very next area in which Man\u2019s basest desire came to expression. Man would no longer, in his maleness, fulfil the role for which he was created. This in turn resulted in Man not fulfilling her femaleness. Rather, male and female rebelled against God\u2019s design and devised other uses for their sexuality, viz personal, self gratification (hedonism).<\/p>\n Therefore, in homosexuality we see both Man\u2019s ultimate rebellion against God and the ultimate judgement of God against immorality<\/span>.<\/p>\n Then, in verse 28 of Romans one, Paul moves on to the societal aspect. With Man rewriting his own being, sexuality, and purpose, it would not be long before there was a flow on effect to society. Instead of Man, as male and female, establishing the family unit in righteousness and propagating both his kind and the knowledge of God throughout the earth, Man adopted the absolutely selfish traits epitomised in homosexuality.<\/p>\n As we move toward implication and application, it is important to note that we commonly speak of four institutions in society: the Individual, the Family, the Church, and the State. Thus, the rebellion of Individual against God\u2019s design and purpose had to have an unavoidable and negative impact upon the design and function of the family. As the Family is the building block of society, any fundamental shift in the family\u2019s structure had to have an impact upon society, particularly in regard to morality and consequent behaviour.<\/span> Then we see both the Church and the State capitulate to the Individual\u2019s demands. The Church locks the doors and goes to prayer in the corner, not daring to raise a voice. The State looks for electoral \u201cBrownie points\u201d and therefore kowtows to any socio-political demand that seems like it might be a vote winner or which further strengthens its position in rebellion against God.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n In analysing the flow of Paul\u2019s argument, we note that the individual\u2019s rebellion can reach to great depths. Paul shows, in regard to the individual and family, that homosexuality is the absolute acme of rebellion. This, for us, is the clue<\/em>. This is the key indicator<\/em>.<\/p>\n Armed with this, let us make some points in application:<\/p>\n 1. We are not saying that homosexuality begets immorality in the \u2018prime moving\u2019 sense. What we are saying is that homosexuality is the height of rebellion. Therefore, if our society and government readily accept homosexuals, a great statement is being made concerning our nations immorality<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2. Man\u2019s rebellion means that Man must be governed and sin restrained. If the Man will not be self\u2013restrained, it is up to the other institutions to correct and teach to restraint. Therefore, if the other institutions fail in their task, either through dereliction, coercion or sympathy, sin will not be restrained but proliferated<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3. The reality is that we have had successive Governments who have had sympathy with rebellion against God. As a consequence of this sympathy, these Governments have coerced the other institutions into aiding and abetting the rebels. This aiding and abetting is seen throughout society. Where is justice? Why are criminals paroled so as to murder again? Why are families hounded so as to not discipline their children? Why do the claims of the rebellious teenager automatically hold sway? Why can mothers kill their children in the womb with impunity? Why can Governments tax incessantly and without limit?<\/p>\n This list could go on. No matter whether you are a Christian or not, most would be dissatisfied with the current state of many things in this country. In the words of Julius Sumner Miller, \u201cWhy is it so?\u201d It is precisely the result of us being an immoral people who love immorality in rebellion against God. It is the result of successive Governments peddling this rebellion as \u2018the wisdom of the age\u2019.<\/p>\n Tony Abbott is absolutely wrong<\/span>. Homosexuality is the big issue in this election. It is so precisely because morality is or should the big issue in this election<\/span><\/strong>. Our economy will not improve without a moral injection. The ills of society will not improve without a moral injection. The hospital system will not improve without a moral injection (excuse pun). Our education system will not improve without a moral injection.<\/p>\n The choice is simple: carry on in rebellion and continue to reap the misery that is Secularism or repent and turn back to God<\/em> \u2013 leaning not on our understanding but always acknowledging Him so that He will make our paths straight.<\/p>\n The choice is not<\/span> between Labor, Liberal, Democrat, Green, or Independent. It is not Business v Social welfare; it is not Economy v Environment; it is not Wealth v Equity.<\/p>\n The choice is<\/span>: God or Man? Morality or immorality? Life or death?<\/span><\/p>\n Sadly, to date, I have not heard one candidate or one Party state these facts; not one person or party distill the issue to this point.<\/p>\n I guess that is why this election campaign looks like it has been orchestrated by\u00a0Abbott and Costello \u2013 that is, Bud and Lou!<\/strong><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> morality<\/strong><\/p>\n \/muh’raluhtee\/ noun<\/em>, plural <\/em>moralities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sexual virtue; chastity.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 moral quality or character.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a doctrine or system of morals; ethics; duties.<\/p>\n This definition is taken from the Macquarie Concise Dictionary. Several questions are immediately apparent. 1. On what basis are the decisions of right and wrong to be made<\/em>? 2. Is there an Absolute that must be used in making moral choices<\/em>? 3. If there is no Absolute, how then do we speak using the absolute terms of \u201cright\u201d and \u201cwrong\u201d<\/em>? 4. If there is no Absolute, how then do we speak of \u201cvirtuous conduct\u201d? What standard is used to define a particular action (conduct) as virtuous and moral?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is the watershed. Only Biblical Christianity gives an Absolute for morality and a set of guides for making choices of right and wrong. Every other system leaves a person to either guess in the dark<\/em>, form their own doctrines of morality<\/em> or, by necessity, deny the existence of morality<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So when politicians talk of a \u201cSecular State\u201d divorced from religion, what they are saying is that they proclaim a religion divorced from the Bible\u2019s God. Having ruled out the Absolute, what view of morality will then be adopted? Similarly, this definition shows that morality must impact every subject. The pertinent question then is, \u201cHow will the Government\u2019s system of morality or denial of morality impact upon all the areas under their governance?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> I sadly fear that in the current moral climate some attempt this strategy. It is a cousin of the popular \u201cRetail Therapy\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> In an upcoming article we will explore this a little more. However, the point is simple: we do not want some \u201cGod\u201d telling us what to do, who we can have sex with, how much we can drink, or whether we can kill our unborn children, and so forth. Yet we are content to claim God\u2019s standard when someone \u2018does us wrong\u2019; wants to forcefully have sex with us; when the drunk driver wrongs us; and when it is our life on the line. This is thy hypocrisy of \u201cSecularism\u201d and other anti-God views.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> We need to understand that the \u201cwrath\u201d and \u201cis\u201d refer to God handing people over. Therefore, all the vices listed are manifestations of God \u201chanding them over\u201d to their depraved desires. Logically, when we see these vices been promulgated, advanced, advocated, and accepted in our society, then we must see that our society is under judgement. We are evidencing the outpouring of God\u2019s wrath. God judges our immorality by handing us to further immorality. Thus we are robbed of peace, prosperity, and purpose as a people. Righteousness exalts. Sin is shame.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> This \u201cbase\u201d desire is Man\u2019s rebellion against God. It is to usurp God\u2019s right and authority and to establish instead the right and authority of Man.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a> This can be anything from the demand to ban the smacking of children; leniency for criminals; legalising marijuana; or legalising homosexual union.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Abbott and Costello \u2013 Comedy duo and political nightmare! In this article we are not concerned with Bud and Lou, rather our attention is fixed upon Tony and Peter. Tony Abbot has come under fire for making the point that … Continue reading
<\/p>\n
\n