Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[kelly tully]

yeah it just says wife

OH GOSH BUT IT WAS IMPLIED.

 

[Kwayera]

yeah it just says wife

OH GOSH BUT IT WAS IMPLIED.

Nah, it says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." That's justification for marriage. But it doesn't say that Adam and Eve are married.

 

[Name_Taken]

So, uh, where does it say that Adam and Eve were married?

*sigh*

Gen 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will be one flesh.

 

[Name_Taken]

Nah, it says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." That's justification for marriage. But it doesn't say that Adam and Eve are married.

Ok fine;

Gen 2:25 (the very next verse)
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Also later on a bit;

Gen 3:6
When the women saw that the fuirt of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Ergo Adam and Eve, being the only two people at this time, and being male and female, were in fact husband and wife.

 

[Kwayera]

Ok fine;

Gen 2:25 (the very next verse)
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Lol okay I concede that point, but when and how were they actually married? Depending on the context, "wife" could be a translation of just "female partner".

PWAR WHERE ARE YOU

 

[HumanDichotomy]

This sort of ties in with Kwayera's point about being unable to argue against gay marriage without bringing the Bible into it. Those against gay marriage primarily base their arguments around those found in texts written TWO THOUSAND years ago and fail to acknowledge that perhaps things may have changed since then. We obviously don't base our entire lives around the Bible anymore, otherwise we'd still be stoning adulterers etc etc. We've dropped those traditions because we understand them to be outdated and cruel. So what gives the lines within the Bible that condemn anymore credence in our contemporary world than those advising the stoning of adulterers? Tell me that. If you, and others like you were truly, truly as intent on sticking to the Bible as you seem, go and live your life by such gems of wisdom as:

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

I mean, they're such great pieces of advice, really. Who wouldn't want to kill their kids for 'cursing' them, or give up their first born child?

Not only do the arguments against gay unions fail to warrant real consideration because they are based on outdated values, it's also that those who use them continually fail to address *why* this particular instruction within the Bible should be upheld in our contemporary society when so many others aren't. See Kwayera's example of marriage between 'believers and non-believers'. The burden of proof is on those opposing gay unions to come up with credible reason against them without using the Bible, as those who are for it have done for their side of the argument. The problem with your argument is that it is based on such a narrow source, which so many people no longer value in the same way. Whether this is good or bad, or right or wrong is not at issue, because it's the way things are, and therefore *that* is what you have to work with here.

 

[kelly tully]

Yeah we get it, it says husband and wife.

It does not say marriage.

it does not even imply marriage.

Aren't you the one Name, saying that if the Bible doesn't explicitly state something, then it's not God's will?

It doesn't explicitly state marriage.

 

[NewiJapper]

i think the church just disowns homosexuality because they cant "create" anymore future followers with a gay couple XD It makes sense.

 

[Name_Taken]

Lol okay I concede that point, but when and how were they actually married? Depending on the context, "wife" could be a translation of just "female partner".

PWAR WHERE ARE YOU

Lol.

Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Have a look at this website, its great, it has all the major translations (old and new) as well as commentaries by biblical scholars.

They all say "wife".

 

[BlackDragon]

The following statement indicates just how truthful the bible is and how much we should actually take notice of it and its believers:

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days;

Go theism! lol.

 

[Name_Taken]

This sort of ties in with Kwayera's point about being unable to argue against gay marriage without bringing the Bible into it. Those against gay marriage primarily base their arguments around those found in texts written TWO THOUSAND years ago and fail to acknowledge that perhaps things may have changed since then. We obviously don't base our entire lives around the Bible anymore, otherwise we'd still be stoning adulterers etc etc. We've dropped those traditions because we understand them to be outdated and cruel. So what gives the lines within the Bible that condemn anymore credence in our contemporary world than those advising the stoning of adulterers? Tell me that. If you, and others like you were truly, truly as intent on sticking to the Bible as you seem, go and live your life by such gems of wisdom as:



I mean, they're such great pieces of advice, really. Who wouldn't want to kill their kids for 'cursing' them, or give up their first born child?

Not only do the arguments against gay unions fail to warrant real consideration because they are based on outdated values, it's also that those who use them continually fail to address *why* this particular instruction within the Bible should be upheld in our contemporary society when so many others aren't. See Kwayera's example of marriage between 'believers and non-believers'. The burden of proof is on those opposing gay unions to come up with credible reason against them without using the Bible, as those who are for it have done for their side of the argument. The problem with your argument is that it is based on such a narrow source, which so many people no longer value in the same way. Whether this is good or bad, or right or wrong is not at issue, because it's the way things are, and therefore *that* is what you have to work with here.

"Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays

 

[Name_Taken]

The following statement indicates just how truthful the bible is and how much we should actually take notice of it and its believers:

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days;

Go theism! lol.

Genius, Gen 6:4 (NIV) reads;

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Look up the interpretation and summary of it if you need to (and the actual verse itself in the first place), don't just post crap.

 

[BlackDragon]

I don't need to post anything for the falseness of theistic belief to be self evident.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

You still haven't answered my question. Why must some teachings be adhered to absolutely, whilst others be forgotten?

Also, you have still failed to provide an argument which does not include the Bible.

 

[Name_Taken]

I don't need to post anything for the falseness of theistic belief to be self evident.

Ooooh I just think you're annoyed that you got it wrong...

 

[BlackDragon]

lol. I didn't get it wrong.

 

[Name_Taken]

You still haven't answered my question. Why must some teachings be adhered to absolutely, whilst others be forgotten?

Some of the Old Testament laws, for example, are restated in the New Testament as commandments for New Testament believers. When the Old Covenant was abrogated, the Old Testament Law ceased to be a Law for Christians. However, when the New Testament repeats a law it thus becomes a commandment for believers, to be obeyed as a commandment of Christ. But this validity and authority as a command comes from the New Testament and not the Old Testament. In addition occasionally the New Testament qualifies an Old Testament law, either modifying it or expanding on it. For example for the command in Exodus 20:14, "You shall not commit adultery," the universal principle relates to the sanctity of marriage and the need for faithfulness in marriage. As this principle is filtered through the New Testament, Jesus’ teaching on the subject must be incorporated into the principle. Jesus said, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28), thereby expanding the range of this law. He applied it not only to acts of adultery but also to thoughts of adultery. Therefore the commandment for Christians today becomes "You shall not commit adultery in act or in thought." But Christians should seek to obey this command because it reflects a universal biblical principle reinforced by the New Testament, and not simply because it is an Old Testament law.

And yes, in case you're wondering, homosexuality is condemned in the Old and New Testaments alike, and the notion of marriage is likewise described in both as a union between a man and a women.

That was taken from the link I gave you. Its not so much a TL;DR version, but it should answer your question.

If you're still unsure, seriously, I recommend you read the entire paper, its not that long and it will fully answer your question (probably among others you may have).

"Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays

Also, you have still failed to provide an argument which does not include the Bible.

Lol, an arguement based on the Bible is superior than one based on the principle of "I wanna".

 

[Aeriff]

Your argument kinda sucks because everyone knows the Bible isn't a reliable source of information on anything at all.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Your argument kinda sucks because everyone knows the Bible isn't a reliable source of information on anything at all.

It's a reliable source of info about what you have to do before sieging the city of Jerusalem:

Ezekiel 4

Ezekiel Acts Out an Attack on Jerusalem

The LORD said:

1 Ezekiel, son of man, find a brick and sketch a picture of Jerusalem on it.
2 Then prepare to attack the brick as if it were a real city. Build a dirt mound and a ramp up to the top and surround the brick with enemy camps. On every side put large wooden poles as though you were going to break down the gate to the city.
3 Set up an iron pan like a wall between you and the brick. All this will be a warning for the people of Israel.
4-5 After that, lie down on your left side and stay there for three hundred ninety days as a sign of Israel's punishment [a] --one day for each year of its suffering.
6 Then turn over and lie on your right side forty more days. That will be a sign of Judah's punishment--one day for each year of its suffering.
7 The brick stands for Jerusalem, so attack it! Stare at it and shout angry warnings.
8 I will tie you up, so you can't leave until your attack has ended.
9 Get a large bowl. Then mix together wheat, barley, beans, lentils, and millet, and make some bread. This is what you will eat for the three hundred ninety days you are lying down.
10 Eat only a small loaf of bread each day
11 and drink only two large cups of water.
12 Use dried human waste to start a fire, then bake the bread on the coals where everyone can watch you.
13 When I scatter the people of Israel among the nations, they will also have to eat food that is unclean, just as you must do.

 

[evilflic]

Oh, now it gets interesting. So, Name_Taken, you think I have only a superficial understanding of Christianity?
I went to Anglican schools since I was 4. I have not only read the bible, I could quote it. I went to sunday school, church, bible studies, was a member of Cru for years, and believed wholeheartedly in all Christian beliefs.
That was for 14 years of my life.
But then, I realised the hypocrisy behind Christianity; the 'holier than thou' mentality that has arisen out of what was fundamentally supposed to be Jesus' message of love and peace. So-called Christians judging others and attempting to justify their prejudices whilst reassuring themselves they were doing things in the name of God.
My faith crumbled.
I'm now about as atheist as it gets, and attitudes such as yours sicken me.

Marriage is not a Christian institution, and Australia is a secular, not Christian, country. As such, marriage in Australia should not be defined or regulated by Christian ideologies or ideals.
In other words, get off your high horse, fuck off and keep your dated, homophobic, selfish and illogical views to yourself.