Reviews

About the author

avatar

Jeremy Crooks

Jeremy grew up in Sydney Australia. He has tertiary qualifications in business, training, and Bible. With experience in both church ministry and corporate human resources, Jeremy has a strong interest in how faith is demonstrated in our homes and workplaces. You can contact Jeremy at jeremy@teaminfocus.com.au.

10 Comments

  1. avatar

    Socrates McRae

    I’m proud of my Prez today. My God is smiling.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jeremy Crooks

      The true God of the Bible does not smile at sin.

  2. avatar

    Adisen Dilmen

    Morals and decency forgotten. Leaving what is natural. Souls in bondage to things they are now blinded to. Children becoming more and more confused. And the majority becoming none the wiser. Corruption accepted as truth. And you are so correct Jeremy, God does not wink at sin…but most in our modern times have no perception of SIN. The blind are leading the blind into an ABYSS…And the world LOVES TO HAVE IT SO…

    Reply
  3. avatar

    Socrates McRae

    Morals and decency selectively remembered and driven by fear and fictional agendas. Making arbitrary assertions regarding the natural. Souls in bondage to fictions. Children becoming more and more confused by those who preach love and acceptance while embracing fear and loathing. And the twisted minority climbing onto higher and higher horses made of fantasy. Corruption dressed as faith. And you are so correct Jeremy, God does not wink at sin… Which is why he scowls at some many who practice perverted religiosity… and too many in our modern times cling to interpretations of sin that lead them to the most egregious affronts to any worthwhile God. The blind are leading the blind into an ABYSS… Fortunately, the blind are on the wrong side of history and progress. They scream the loudest because they’re afraid. And, fortunately, disappearing.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jeremy Crooks

      Socrates (which is probably not your real name).

      You are correct that my opinion is no more valid than your opinion. So for us to have a discussion of truth / sin we must have an external basis on which to judge right and wrong. That external basis is the Bible. This site and my position must be based on the teachings of Gods Word which is found in Holy Scripture.

      Romans 1 clearly states that homosexual practice is reprobation and evidence of abandonment by God. Those are not my conclusions – they are God’s words. It does not matter if my or your opinion is in the majority or minority. Those truths are eternal.

      Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. The new ground that is attempting to be broken is officially validating that sin. I can understand why secular governments want to validate all relationships of voting citizens. However there is a higher power who we all will answer to. For me or other ministers of the gospel to tell you what you want to hear at the expense of truth, would be the most cruel thing to do. It would be setting you up for eternal damnation, while telling you everything is ok. God does not leave us that option. True love tells the truth, whether it is popular or not.

  4. avatar

    Socrates McRae

    “You are correct that my opinion is no more valid than your opinion. So for us to have a discussion of truth / sin we must have an external basis on which to judge right and wrong. That external basis is the Bible.”

    Must we have “an” external basis? Perhaps many external bases and/or a search for more nearly universally held beliefs found across multiple perspective might allow us to have a discussion?

    When one holds out a single lens to view the world and asserts that it is the only valid tool through which to look, it tends to discourage discussion. It tends to eliminate those who may have other lenses from participation.

    That’s not to say that your particular Christian lens is right, wrong, silly, or genius. It’s not, however, the only perspective. Using it to slam the door shut on differences or opinion by proclaiming it as the sole basis by which to assess things is anti-discussion.

    “Marriage was, is and always will be a religious recognition, ordained by God, for one man and one woman.”

    You wish. Marriage wasn’t always an element of civilization. It isn’t always a religious phenomena (Know of any atheists who may have tied the knot? I do.). There are married gay folks now. It happens. Period. It wasn’t always what you wish it was. It isn’t always what you wish it is.

    Marriage is religious for some people. For others, it isn’t. For almost everyone it’s political–even if that’s unintentional. That’s due to the policies that reward marriage and treat married folks differently.

    If you wanted to get the state out of the matrimony business and leave it up to individual churches to set up their own criteria for who could and couldn’t get married in those churches, I probably wouldn’t mind.

    So long as the ramifications of a marriage touch on rights, privileges and policy matters, I think everyone deserves a shot at kissing the bride or groom, whether they’re brides or grooms themselves.

    “Who knew that the American dream was to have homosexual sex with one’s neighbour?”

    I’m sure it is for some people. And I don’t have a problem with that. You do? Your God does? Fine. Have your problem and move on… Don’t use it as an excuse to withhold rights/privileges/advantages from those who do have a longing to get it on with a same-sex neighbor.

    I guess this is the deal with me… If you really think you have THE God and you really think you have THE truth… Feel free to talk about how much you wish gays would find Jesus and become straight-up holy Bible-believing good guys. That’s your right. And, if you really believe your lens is the only one that provides an accurate focus, it’s your responsibility.

    However, you need to leave some room for those who have their own God and who don’t believe your truth. You need to leave that room so you can discuss these issues and so that they can move through their lives without facing constant resistance from those who think they know better.

    And you need to consider the possibility that everyone deserves a chance to live based on their understanding of the world and God. There are some things (murder, etc.) that need to be regulated for a society to function, but we don’t need one faith (right or wrong) to set the rules for everyone all the time.

    Preach on brother. But don’t legislate.

    Against gay marriage? Be against it. But don’t worry about banning it or mocking it.

    Do unto others… How does that go?

    Oh, and you’re right. My name isn’t Socrates McRae. I use a fake last name online.

    Reply
  5. avatar

    Jeremy Crooks

    Nice last joke about your name.

    I suspect we are not going to agree – no matter how much discussion we have. One of the benefits of living in a ‘free and democratic’ society is that we do not have to always agree.

    Having said that, I will respond to your first comment – as all the other conclusions derive from that.

    “Must we have ‘an’ external basis for our beliefs?”

    The answer hinges on if one believes in a Creator (also referred to in Romans 1)

    VIEW ONE: If one believes that we were not created, but evolved, self-materialised or came into existence in some other way, then our own logic, opinions and beliefs are the ultimate truth. Your view of gay marriage would be just as valid as mine and neither of us could authoritatively declare the other belief wrong. (unless we believe that opinion polls are the external truth that determine right and wrong)

    VIEW TWO: If one believes that we were created in male and female form, then there would be a designer/creator. That Creator would have knowledge and instructions (truth) which precede and usurp its creation. We the creation would be encumbered to find, follow and account for the truth of our Creator. This truth (right and wrong) would hinge on the validity of the Creator’s Word and if that creator gave instructions on gay relationships.

    The whole topic of apologetics is worthy of its own post, rather than just a comment.

    Needless to say, I am convinced of the external truth as outlined in view two. This does not leave me the option of isolating my belief to a mental understanding or opinion. It must affect my words, my politics, the way I train my children, my eternal priorities and all aspects of life.

    We both acknowledge that you don’t have to agree with me, but I cannot be censored or sidelined. It does not mean I hate you or others that disagree with me, it just means that God does not allow me to be silent.

    Cheers.

    Reply
  6. avatar

    Andrew

    First of all Obama’s evolving view on marriage is a little difficult to swallow. The only thing that is evolving are the polls showing a larger percentage of votes for same-sex marriage and the fact that the election is around the corner helping him to re-ignite the youth vote once again. Let’s not forget that the youth are far more likely to accept homosexual relationships than the older generations.

    Obama never had a problem with same-sex marriage in my honest opinion; he just had little to lose from changing the status quo in the past.
    Same-sex marriage doesn’t infringe on heterosexual marriage. You are still able to marry a partner of opposite sex and believe that homosexuality is wrong.

    In a pluralistic society laws shouldn’t and aren’t created as if it is a theocracy. And that is what you propose if you argue that the laws governing a diverse country such as the United States should all derive from the Bible. Doesn’t the religious freedom in the first amendment contradict the first commandment of “Thou shalt have none other gods before me”. And as the commenter Socrates already said we have people marrying who are not Christian. If marriage is a Christian concept then why not stop non-Christians from marrying?

    Just to restate what my point is. Even if you believe wholeheartedly that God is against homosexuality and wishes marriage to be with one man one woman (OT Patriarchs not applied?), let God handle that in his time. The society best functions when it caters for all its diverse citizens granting them as many right and freedoms as possible with the view that it doesn’t snuff out others right and freedoms in the process.

    Reply
  7. avatar

    Jeremy

    Hi Andrew,

    Your premise is that America and other western countries are pluralistic societies. In practice they are – based on today’s accepted behaviours. However, whether they were intended to be by their founders and whether they should be are different and legitimate questions.

    No, I don’t believe that governments can legislate morality of the heart. Every individual is free to choose what they believe. But I do believe that good and godly governments can and should legislate moral compliance. The difference is that God defines what is good, moral and righteous – not community opinion.

    At its core, homosexual marriage is a movement to white-ant the traditional definition of marriage while elevating the legitimacy of sodomy. In all of recorded history, including diverse religious history, marriage has been defined within communities as one man and one woman. That is now changing. Creation itself declares homosexuality illegitimate – because it cannot reproduce. Without hetro-sexuality, this world will be extinct within 100 years.

    Reply
  8. Pingback: O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E » InFocus

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2005-2016 by InFocus. Powered by WordPress. Effective News theme by Themelions Team.