Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Hacky McAxe]

Fucking lol @ interpretation of the Bible, it's in plain English that anyone with an is over 10 can understand.

While I disagree with a lot of what Capn has said, 'cause as I mentioned the church can do whatever it wants.. But I have to agree with him on this one.

Throughout history the bible has been re-interpreted. This is always done by scholars who know what they're talking about, but there has been some guess work. Things like the translation from the Greek "Arsenokoites" to "Homosexual". Biblical scholars admit that they don't know what Arsenokoites means (other than the separation meaning man and bed in plural), but they believe it means Homosexual through assumption.

But the translation issue aside, the current form of the bible in its simple English is still constantly re-interpreted. That's why we have theologists and biblical scholars. That's why we have many different Christian churches. Different interpretations lead to different teachings.

One church read ls "God create the earth in 6 days" and says "that's plain English. God crated the earth in 6 days", while another church says "that's a metaphor. God actually created the earth over millions of years"

It's all in the different interpretations of the scriptures.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

both bible and quran and open to interpretations , hence why we see millions of sects and denomination in both religions.

here is a gay muslim scholar who is a proud muslim but also a proud gay and he defends his homosexuality using Quran, lol

watch from 4:20 his interpretation of sodam and gomarah story. lol

And here is anti-flag's interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah... Actually, it's just them singing a song called "Sodom, Gomorrah, Washington DC". It's a cool song.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

How can you call yourself a believer when you PURPOSLY ignore parts of the Bible then blame you creator on you being gay?

There's a group of Christians that believe that the bible was modified to put in the anti-homosexual parts and they actually raise a very compelling argument for it, but they could also be completely wrong.

My personal stance is that if there is a God (and there very well may be), I don't think the bible necessarily represents the will of that God. I think that the scriptures are corrupted by man.

God's word may be infallible but the bible was originally written by men and over thousands of years it has been translated and altered by men. Heck, the word "homosexual" was only out in the bible 60 years ago.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Are you really God's child if you basically spit in His face?

Like I mentioned, there are athiests who are more God's children than hypocritical believers.

But to answer my own question, God will give you to your last breath on Earth to genuinely repent and you are instantly His child again.

In my personal opinion I think people answer to their own God. I think they answer to the will of that God. If people believe that God is against homosexuality and they still claim to be Christians and flaunt their homosexuality then I think they are spitting in their own God's face. But I also believe that there are those who represent their own belief of what God is and I think that those people should be respected.

That said, I don't believe those people should be going to the Catholic Church and demanding communion. They should be going elsewhere. But it also has to be understood that the Church is denying God's children if it denies people for being gay. I will be the first to support the church if they refuse communion to gay people but if the church says "we're not providing communion to these people 'cause they choose to be gay", then I'll also be the first to tell the church that they're scientific denying pricks and bigots. But they are free to choose to be scientific denying bigots.

 

[CaptainJackson]

All I ask is please don't label a dirty politician or a corrupt pedo priest as a label for TRUE believers.

Use the actions of real believers, the ones that obey the Bible and want nothing earthly in return. There are some athiests that are more Christian then the so called Christians. Not judging, just calling a spade a spade.

I addressed that 200 pages ago or so as well

Logically it would make sense for a real believer to abstain from voting. I completely accept that some religions see it as a sin and cannot accept it. But the thing is no one was going to change religious law, they were going to change secular state law.

Hence this change in secular state law (which was requested for legal purposes) has absolutely nothing to do with religious folk, conclusion being abstain from the plebiscite

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I addressed that 200 pages ago or so as well

Logically it would make sense for a real believer to abstain from voting. I completely accept that some religions see it as a sin and cannot accept it. But the thing is no one was going to change religious law, they were going to change secular state law.

Hence this change in secular state law (which was requested for legal purposes) has absolutely nothing to do with religious folk, conclusion being abstain from the plebiscite

As I see it, Christians voting No in the plebiscite is like Atheists voting to ban Christians from reading the bible in church.

If you support the right of Christians to stop gays from getting married then you also support the right for gays to tell Christians what they can and can't do in their own church.

 

[The DoggFather]

I addressed that 200 pages ago or so as well

Logically it would make sense for a real believer to abstain from voting. I completely accept that some religions see it as a sin and cannot accept it. But the thing is no one was going to change religious law, they were going to change secular state law.

Hence this change in secular state law (which was requested for legal purposes) has absolutely nothing to do with religious folk, conclusion being abstain from the plebiscite

It was a fuck up from the start by the cowards in Canberra, the yes and the no's.

You can't be 100% sure they would protect churches as they are corrupt lying ***** with a shit track record.

Like I said, they should of released the bill and the only no's you would get would have to be homophobes.

 

[The DoggFather]

As I see it, Christians voting No in the plebiscite is like Atheists voting to ban Christians from reading the bible in church.

If you support the right of Christians to stop gays from getting married then you also support the right for gays to tell Christians what they can and can't do in their own church.

Jews and Muslims voted no more than likely too.

Especially when the bill was hidden until when voting was nearly over.

 

[Dawgfather]

It was a fuck up from the start by the cowards in Canberra, the yes and the no's.

You can't be 100% sure they would protect churches as they are corrupt lying ***** with a shit track record.

Like I said, they should of released the bill and the only no's you would get would have to be homophobes.

Or people who just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Dawgfather]

Your last point is regurgitation of what I have been saying from day 1. FFS I take your side against Prick Wall because he claims to be a believer but just is a fucking hypocrite making real believers look bad.

How very Christian of you.

 

[CaptainJackson]

***** like Pell turn away people with their hate talk. Like you said, stick to the Bible and don't add your twisted hate speech.

I'll address this too @TANK 2.0

So when I say something against your religion, It's not necessarily against your religion nor you, its rather these other individuals who act/talk on behalf of their denomination of your religion.

The unfortunate thing is that these hate mongers profess to follow the same religion as you (well a different interpretation of it) And hence you get caught in the cross fire. And I say you especially because you believe "live and let live". Hence these fire bombs that atheists throw I don't think you should take personally as it's not really directed at people like you but the hate mongers. Atheists still don't believe in your religion but the animosity is reserved for those spew hate speech.

And to answer @JayBee point about respect (which entails the level of bigotry shown), respect is earned. Until people like Abbott and Pell get it through their thick skulls that the rest of society doesn't follow their morals or ethics, we won't be respectful of any public hate speeches they give. Respect is earned.

 

[Alexander the Great]

Gays are fine with it being used on homophobes otherwise i wouldnt.

View attachment 4338

Holy shit thats pretty bad haha

 

[Alexander the Great]

PS @Realist my misses' cousin, cousins were the ones that painted over that *** graffiti.

Watch the SJW/snowflakes try to spin this as hate...

I dont agree with that painting in public. I would not be happy with my kids seeing that shit.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I dont agree with that painting in public. I would not be happy with my kids seeing that shit.

That's pretty much all it comes down to. I admit that I found it funny but it's also crude and semi-pornographic. Not something everyone wants their kids to see.

 

[The DoggFather]

I dont agree with that painting in public. I would not be happy with my kids seeing that shit.

That's pretty much all it comes down to. I admit that I found it funny but it's also crude and semi-pornographic. Not something everyone wants their kids to see.

Even though I'm not a fan of Abbot and Pell, still don't like it because of parents explaining that filth to kids.

 

[The DoggFather]

That's pretty much all it comes down to. I admit that I found it funny but it's also crude and semi-pornographic. Not something everyone wants their kids to see.

I laughed too, I think if he wasn't wanking him off it would be a non-issue as both of them brought backlash on themselves.

 

[The DoggFather]

How very Christian of you.

Well I'm being honest, you just give ammo to the opposition with your twisted view of religion.

Plus you know I don't like you from 2003 because you and your boyfriend 1/2 acted like shit *****.

And I really don't give a fuck if you think I'm a Christian or Not, straight out, you are nothing to me except some homophobic words on a forum.

God knows what's in my heart and that's all that matters. So in the most Christian way..... get fucked you hypocrite **** rash Ronald McDonald looking ranga ****.

 

[The DoggFather]

Or people who just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As religious people do. What's a gay civil marriage got to do with you? A real Christian lives and let lives. I really don't care what others do as long as they leave me and my faith alone.

You still upset that you couldn't marry 1/2 back on 2003? Self hating homo?

You are an annoying hypocrite uneducated ****.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I dont agree with that painting in public. I would not be happy with my kids seeing that shit.

That's pretty much all it comes down to. I admit that I found it funny but it's also crude and semi-pornographic. Not something everyone wants their kids to see.

It achieved its aim. To start conversation.

Go see ancient relics from ancient Greece or rome and you see paintings or statues that are completely naked.

The point of the whole Abbott and Pell painting wasn't an attack on religion but an attack on Abbott and Pell for their bigoted views.

It just happens that certain religious folk took it as a personal attack, They probably were all for the Charlie hebdo cartoons though and je suis charlie on their Facebook statuses

Again this painting did not have Christianity in its sights, it had Tony Abbott and George Pell in its sights.

The failure to understand the target of the painting would, imo, show a lack of understanding of art

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It achieved its aim. To start conversation.

Go see ancient relics from ancient Greece or rome and you see paintings or statues that are completely naked.

The point of the whole Abbott and Pell painting wasn't an attack on religion but an attack on Abbott and Pell for their bigoted views.

It just happens that certain religious folk took it as a personal attack, They probably were all for the Charlie hebdo cartoons though and je suis charlie on their Facebook statuses

Again this painting did not have Christianity in its sights, it had Tony Abbott and George Pell in its sights.

The failure to understand the target of the painting would, imo, show a lack of understanding of art

As I said. I found it funny and I understand the point of it and have no issue with it attacking Pell and Abbott with the outfits. The problem is the sexual nature of it.

Nudity is fine. The nude statues in Greece and Rome are artistic and tasteful. This was deliberate sexual beyond that which little children should be exposed to without their parents being able censor it themselves.

Do the same artwork without one guy jerking off the other and I'll call for it to get a heritage listing.