SA Footy

mickey wrote:

nuggety goodness wrote:

mickey wrote:Serious question here NG. Should all biblical teachings, laws (whatever you call them) be followed, such as the marriage is for a man and a woman, or just the ones that suit?

I certainly try to live by, and encourage my church to live by the new testament church's example found in the book of acts and the epistles that Paul wrote to the early churches and also from Jesus' example himself.

Which ones dont suit?

Why differentiate between old and new? is there much of a difference between the 2?

Or is the new testament 'leanier' on behaviours/punishment

The old testament is law based and was for the Jews. When Jesus came on the scene he came to fulfil the lawamd the new testament is post Jesus. He extended the same principles found in the old testament and built on them. For example in OT law the act of adultery was sin and deserving of death, in the NT Jesus taught that the lust of a woman in your heart is sin, and so not more lenient actually.

However Jesus came to bring grace and also to break the divide between the religious Jews and the non-Jews aka gentiles because the Jews thought they were the only ones who could know and serve God.

Our sin is deserving of punishment but Jesus died in our place, extending forgiveness and grace to us when we ask for it. The NT outlines Jesus life and the beginning of the church and also has principles that show people how to live a life that pleases God.

nuggety goodness wrote:

Q. wrote:

nuggety goodness wrote:

HH3 wrote:[quote="nuggety goodness"]
No, but if i was you would have to accept it because i was born that way and in fact i want my love for Rover to be recognised so me and my fellow animals lovers can enjoy our love just like you. Who are you to tell me I'm sick and who i can and cant love!

Dogs aren't people champion. Marriage is between two consenting adults.

Rover can't consent, and probably doesn't wanna root you, so there's your answer.

Its not hard when you think about it, WITHOUT predetermined outcomes, such as the ones you're aiming for.

*Wrote this at the same time as Benny

As Q said these issues are totally separate...

The fact that we accept that LGBT are born that way lends to the idea that we must accept that Paedophiles and those involved in beastiality and other depravity are also born that way. Forget marriage for now.

now you said that these people are 'sick' and 'need psychiatric help' but why? Why is it so wrong that some people dont share the same sexual preference as you or others?

What are the predetermined outcomes im looking for?

I hate the idea that im homophobic and im vilifying people because i am opposed to their way of life and changing laws to accommodate that.

It doesn't lend any weight to those arguments due to the differentiating factor of consent/non-consent. The 'depravity' of your other examples arises from the non-consensual nature.

True but taking away from the act itself, is it wrong to be sexually attracted to children and animals? And if someone is that way inclined then how can we tell them it is wrong?

There is right and wrong and this is the issue, we are debating what it is right and what is wrong.

Society has changed dramatically and now what used to be seen as wrong has been accepted and is now embraced.

The problem is we all have our own standards and prejudices, religious or not, and hence the conflict.[/quote]

The right/wrong homosexuality debate was over decades ago, it's rightfully been legal to be gay for a very long time. If you want to have a debate about right/wrong on other topics then start a separate topic, but they are irrelevant to the current discussion.

nuggety goodness wrote: For example in OT law the act of adultery was sin and deserving of death, in the NT Jesus taught that the lust of a woman in your heart is sin, and so not more lenient actually.

So if I get the urge to pick up a fallen branch in the backyard on a Sunday, but don't get off my arse and actually do it, then I've still committed a sin?

Pseudo wrote:

nuggety goodness wrote: For example in OT law the act of adultery was sin and deserving of death, in the NT Jesus taught that the lust of a woman in your heart is sin, and so not more lenient actually.

So if I get the urge to pick up a fallen branch in the backyard on a Sunday, but don't get off my arse and actually do it, then I've still committed a sin?

What about masturbating to porn, how does that fit in here?

The last 2-3 pages of this thread are making me laugh

There, thread back on track

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

nuggety goodness wrote: For example in OT law the act of adultery was sin and deserving of death, in the NT Jesus taught that the lust of a woman in your heart is sin, and so not more lenient actually.

So if I get the urge to pick up a fallen branch in the backyard on a Sunday, but don't get off my arse and actually do it, then I've still committed a sin?

What about masturbating to porn, how does that fit in here?

I had a read through that wiki. If NG is right, Im f**ked!

But I guess if i see my death coming i can just accept god at the last minute and be hunky dory

Booney wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

nuggety goodness wrote: For example in OT law the act of adultery was sin and deserving of death, in the NT Jesus taught that the lust of a woman in your heart is sin, and so not more lenient actually.

So if I get the urge to pick up a fallen branch in the backyard on a Sunday, but don't get off my arse and actually do it, then I've still committed a sin?

What about masturbating to porn, how does that fit in here?

Does looking at pictures of scantily-clad ladies gathering sticks count as pr0n?

Booney wrote:

That's the biggest faggot I've ever seen.

@Booney has just proved Rule 34 of the internet.

Pseudo wrote:@Booney has just proved Rule 34 of the internet.

Ask and ye shall receive. Fitting, no?

PS - Its "art".... http://www.hauserwirth.com/exhibitions/ ... f-works/3/

Finally something funny again in this thread!

Q. wrote:

Booney wrote:

That's the biggest faggot I've ever seen.

Yeah, but you haven't met me yet.

I just got married 2 weeks ago tomorrow.

Our celebrant had to say some shit like "the government recognises marriage between a man and a woman, with no other exceptions".

Thats law, she has to say it.

Together, the three of us included a line directly afterwards, that expressed our own views. I think it was something like, "but HH3 and Mrs HH3 believe love can exist between two human beings, whether it be two men or two women."

Something like that, I forget the wording.

This is a fairly common thing apparently. Probably because the wording the celebrant has to repeat is very harsh when said over the mic to an audience.

We had some gay and bisexual people present at our wedding, and being well adjusted, considerate adults, we thought it was best for us to share our views, not just the governments. Hopefully soon, there will be no need for us to go the extra step, because that line will be stricken from the ceremony.

Great stuff HH3.

Booney wrote:

I've had a few beers tonight but on the right angle that chick looks.....

Spargo wrote:

Booney wrote:

I've had a few beers tonight but on the right angle that chick looks.....

Like Twiggy?

Did you get wood...

http://m.mic.com/articles/121596/bibles ... gn=partner

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

That's New Testament too.

bennymacca wrote:http://m.mic.com/articles/121596/bibles-guide-to-a-successful-fundamentalist-christian-marriage?utm_source=huffpost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=partner

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15

That's New Testament too.

I should take up Christianity and show this to my wife...

You guys read the obituaries, don't you? If so, you might read about my lack of success...