The UAFC

rumncoke wrote: That does not deny the fact that a relationship can exist between persons of the same sex but to it doesn’t mean the relationship is a marriage .

Only if by you saying it makes it so.

Going back to Folau's post where he said that hell awaits homosexuals. Correct if I am wrong but is it not the practicing of homosexuality that some consider a sin, not being a homosexual? As an example aren't there Catholic priests that are homosexual but because they don't actually practice it it is acceptable?

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: No arguments from me on any of that, But I thought I had prattled on long enough instead of trying to cover every eventuality

Yes you had.

rumncoke wrote:To say it is only Christians who object to same sex marriage is the denial of a traditional truth of society — many and varied since time began — marriage is a relationship between persons of different sexes .

That does not deny the fact that a relationship can exist between persons of the same sex but to it doesn’t mean the relationship is a marriage .

The first task of those who seek to be immoral is to redefine what is moral and society has a duty to take exercise care over what changes it will and will not accept

Moral codes exist for the protection of all not the persecution of the few .





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What protection does denying homosexuals the ability to marry offer the majority of society?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Lurgan Lad wrote:Going back to Folau's post where he said that hell awaits homosexuals. Correct if I am wrong but is it not the practicing of homosexuality that some consider a sin, not being a homosexual? As an example aren't there Catholic priests that are homosexual but because they don't actually practice it it is acceptable?

I think (for the men amongst us) we all practice homosexuality. We've all got experience of w@nking off a man. Even if it is our self.

Lurgan Lad wrote:Going back to Folau's post where he said that hell awaits homosexuals. Correct if I am wrong but is it not the practicing of homosexuality that some consider a sin, not being a homosexual? As an example aren't there Catholic priests that are homosexual but because they don't actually practice it it is acceptable?

It's a broad church.....sorry for pun.

Some Christians don't consider it a sin, some consider acts a sin but not the homosexuality itself and then you have the RCC which claims to not consider homosexuality a sin itself but then has instead referred to homosexual people as disordered which is just their hypocritcal way of saying they are sinners.

The RCC has proven numerous times it is willing to turn a blind eye to even the very worst crimes, never mind the stuff they deem as sinful. They do not admit that there are homosexual priests so essentially don't have to deal with it.

But look what awaited Folau for the same approach .

And the fact is he took a big swipe at a large number of people because fornicaters may out number homosexuals but who is defending or complaining on their behalf .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jean valjean wrote:What protection does denying homosexuals the ability to marry offer the majority of society?

Don't hold yer breath for an answer. Previously on this topic Rum advised that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals......namely that a homosexual man can marry a woman if he wishes. When I pointed out that a woman can marry a man and asked why men could not have the same right to marry a man he ran away.

rumncoke wrote:But look what awaited Folau for the same approach .

And the fact is he took a big swipe at a large number of people because fornicaters may out number homosexuals but who is defending or complaining on their behalf .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fornicaters. Gas.

What I want to know is when is Falou going to explain why his tattoos are OK when they are forbidden by the same source he got for his list of 'sinners'.

Also would be interested in his reasons for lying last year to his employer given he thinks liars are going to hell.

On stupidity grounds alone I'd have sacked him if he worked for me.

Lurgan Lad wrote:Going back to Folau's post where he said that hell awaits homosexuals. Correct if I am wrong but is it not the practicing of homosexuality that some consider a sin, not being a homosexual? As an example aren't there Catholic priests that are homosexual but because they don't actually practice it it is acceptable?

Correct.

I also know two homosexuals who are Christian including one who is an Anglican minister/priest. Both are in (according to them, and who am I to question them?) celibate relationships with fellow Christian homosexuals.

I know what some will say of "sin", but the mainstream Christian belief is that it is the sin that is to be condemned, not the sinner. The sinner is still to be loved and as we are all sinners in so many ways, the practicing of homosexuality (not homosexuality itself) is no different from any other sin. If a few more Christians would remember that, we might all get along better, in my opinion.

Of course there are many Christians who take more or less liberal views on homosexuality and/or the practicing thereof and that's an entirely different kettle of fish in and of itself, and some denominations (Anglican for example, in different parts of the World especially) seem to be tearing themselves apart at times over this.

BTW, the Christian viewpoint for homosexuals and heterosexuals is exactly the same in one way - it is sex outside of marriage which is the sin, whether that is homosexual or heterosexual (fornication). Of course that is a large part of the reason why the definition of marriage is so important to Christians.

Shan wrote:What I want to know is when is Falou going to explain why his tattoos are OK when they are forbidden by the same source he got for his list of 'sinners'.

That source is Leviticus 19: 28 which says “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves." (NIV)

The important part for some people is the context and inclusion of the phrase "for the dead".

Other translations are clearer, for example, "You shall not cut yourselves nor put tattoo marks upon yourselves in connection with funeral rites;

There were customs among other cultures in the middle east a few thousand years BCE that required relatives of the dead to pierce or tattoo themselves at a time or as a sign of mourning. This prohibition is widely accepted now to refer only to funeral rites, to show that Hebrew people were different from other tribes who did not worship (the same) God/god.

It is widely (but not universally) accepted among Christians and Jews that tattoos for other reasons are not "sinful".

Personal taste is a different matter altogether though, but I do confess I recently thought long and hard about getting a tattoo for my 60th birthday a few weeks ago. I finally settled for something small and tasteful - my name, address and telephone number on the inside of my arm.

And before I'm called a liar ... again ... I will now state in the interests of accuracy that I didn't really get the above tattoo

Snipe Watson wrote:It is not a jacket I put on every Sunday and discard the rest of the week, although plenty of people do live that way, go to church on a Sunday and have a less personal, transactional relationship with Christianity. For me, it's a 24/7/52 way of life.

What do you do on the Leap days?

Shan wrote:

rumncoke wrote:But look what awaited Folau for the same approach .

And the fact is he took a big swipe at a large number of people because fornicaters may out number homosexuals but who is defending or complaining on their behalf .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fornicaters. Gas.

What I want to know is when is Falou going to explain why his tattoos are OK when they are forbidden by the same source he got for his list of 'sinners'.

Also would be interested in his reasons for lying last year to his employer given he thinks liars are going to hell.

On stupidity grounds alone I'd have sacked him if he worked for me.

Too bad you can't sack someone for being stupid

With regard to the bolded statement, you can't really use that as an argument because that is assuming he has been a Christian all his life

If the timeline went: he was born, got tattoos and then became a Christian, there is not much he can do about that. Christianity is a religion of grace, so assuming the timeline is as above it wouldn't be very graceful (and a contradiction) to disqualify someone on past sins

Saying that, a) I don't know what Folau's situation is, b) I personally have no issues with tattoos. Wouldn't get one, but wouldn't oppose them, and c) you have to consider the hermeneutics of the book of Leviticus as well. But that is for another day

To me the explanation from both Grumps and UAB around the tattoos is acceptable and I appreciate the answers. Every day is a good day to learn something.

I note that the more important issue of lying was not tackled. However I don't really expect anybody to be able to explain away the hypocrisy of somebody else.