Coopers bogged down in bible backlash?

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
wynnum1 said:
The problem with the bible they keep changing the word to make it more acceptable needs a rewrite by Quentin Tarantino
Wont happen. Theres a distinct lack of reference to black people in the bible, robbing Tarantino of one of his most popular nouns. The book of Mormon the other hand..


'What the **** am I doin in the back, you the muthfucker should be on brain detail, we ****** switchin, I'm washin the windows, and you pickin up this Lamanites skull'
 
Bribie G said:
That's one reason I don't eat Weetbix, the company is entirely owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

The other reason is that I wouldn't feed breakfast cereals to a pig (exception, oat bran porridge with sultanas, dates and drizzled with cream).
Ahh no, too late this morning then, but that's breakfast tomorrow fu&#ed then.
Porridge for me, then more porridge for the day.
 
Religion and drink don't mix? Hahaha, nobody's heard of communion wine?
 
It's not entirely clear to what extent Coopers had involvement in this. The publicity they've had certainly hasn't been all good (nobody wants to cause boycotts to your brand, even unintentionally). But they'll survive.

The CUB dispute with the unions was much worse: that went on for months, and more and more pubs signed up to the boycott. It'll stick around in memories in a way that the Coopers gaff won't. CUB pissed off the unions and workers. These remain a core demographic for a company that specialises in beer. A discussion about gay marriage, on the other hand, is neither here nor there.

A couple of inner-city lefties might be pissed off, but then again, everything pisses them off. They have far less influence than they think they have.
 
Initially Coopers were not distancing themselves from it....I don't hear Coopers condemning the use of their product here:
From https://coopers.com.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/coopers-keeping-it-light.pdf
With regards to the ‘Keeping it Light’ video from the Bible Society featuring Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson, this is a light hearted but balanced debate about an important topic within Australia. As a mature community it's a debate we need to have but in a good spirited and good natured way. That's how we've done business for a 154 years. Coopers isn’t trying to push religious messages or change your beliefs by celebrating 200 years of charitable work undertaken by the Bible Society, in fact, over the years we have produced a number of different celebratory cans to recognise the historical achievements of a vast array of different organisations.
Only when people didn't like it did they decide to backpedal: https://coopers.com.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/commemorative-premium-light.pdf
Coopers have released commemorative cans of Premium Light beer to celebrate The Bible Society’s 200th anniversary. In doing so, we aren’t trying to push a religious message, we see these commemorative cans as a celebration of the Bible Society’s 200 years of charitable work in Australia. We want you to know that Coopers did not give permission for our Premium Light beer to feature in, or ‘sponsor’ the Bible Society’s ‘Keeping it Light’ video featuring Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson. We respect the beliefs of our community and do not wish to try and change them. Our family brewery is made up of individuals from a number of different backgrounds, all of whom hold differing views on politics and religion, which we think is reflective of the wider community. We would like all Coopers fans to know that we support and embrace all of our beer drinking community.

In light of all this, people will decide (as they are entitled to do) if they will purchase from Coopers any longer. Pubs and organisations also have this right...and it's good to see that they those that have done this, did so in a professional manner. Effectively saying: "No thanks." as opposed to any other method.
 
If I'm honest, Ballast Point could be in cahoots with ISIS.
Would buy again.
 
Adr_0 said:
Yeah that's a good point. People are pretty passionate, and probably need to temper the vitriole somewhat. The catch is, we're talking about rights and liberties being taken away. This is not simply a debate of meat vs vegetarian vs paleo diet - it's debating why fundamental civil rights should be extended to good, hard-working people or should not. Why is that even a debate?
Hey Adr_o. One thing I would disagree on is that while some see it as rigths and liberties, others see it as a defining value based on Scripture, a set of values they see as sacrosanct. That things like 'right to ,marry someone I love' I see as an emotive ploy thrown in to influence public opinion. And while there is a significant history of the church acting entirely contrary to the writings in Scripture, it does not mean that those writings are at fault. Marriage is a biblical principle - if those whio identify themselves on a sexual orientation basis wish to join with someone, then have a civic union. But don't expect someone who has devoted himself to following Christ as a Pastor to completely throw HIS values out the window and perform a marriage ceremony in a place of worship for someone who is going completely aginst the values of that place of worship.

Ideally, I like to play based on the principles of Booker T....don't hate the player, hate the game. I count myself as a true follower of Christ....I have nothing against anyone based on sexual orientation or other emotive issues used to attack the church, and anyone who is also a true follower would say the same thing. My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person.
 
My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person.

Pierre. I'd suggest it is sentences and thoughts like this that may keep many gay people away from church. And I'd further suggest, it has very little basis in scripture or tradition.

Too often modern interpretation of Christianity focus obsessively on a narrow interpretation of a few lines from Genesis, Leviticus, or Romans. It can lead to a very Pharisaical kind of Christianity, an eagerness to cast out the mote in your brother's eye while not seeing the beam in your own.
 
TimT said:
My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person.

Pierre. I'd suggest it is sentences and thoughts like this that may keep many gay people away from church. And I'd further suggest, it has very little basis in scripture or tradition.

Too often modern interpretation of Christianity focus obsessively on a narrow interpretation of a few lines from Genesis, Leviticus, or Romans. It can lead to a very Pharisaical kind of Christianity, an eagerness to cast out the mote in your brother's eye while not seeing the beam in your own.
Tim, I focus entirely on no interpretation other than as made clear by the Holy Spirit, leaning as far away as possible from those Pharasaical principles you mention as possible. And you're correct, there are so many interpretations which neglect personal spiritual responsibility and inventory which leave such a nasty taste of what genuine Christianity actually should look like. As I sais, don;t hate the player, hate the game. And if looking at the speck in my own eye, there is no way I can judge the other for the log in his.
 
madpierre06 said:
Hey Adr_o. One thing I would disagree on is that while some see it as rigths and liberties, others see it as a defining value based on Scripture, a set of values they see as sacrosanct. That things like 'right to ,marry someone I love' I see as an emotive ploy thrown in to influence public opinion. And while there is a significant history of the church acting entirely contrary to the writings in Scripture, it does not mean that those writings are at fault. Marriage is a biblical principle - if those whio identify themselves on a sexual orientation basis wish to join with someone, then have a civic union. But don't expect someone who has devoted himself to following Christ as a Pastor to completely throw HIS values out the window and perform a marriage ceremony in a place of worship for someone who is going completely aginst the values of that place of worship.

Ideally, I like to play based on the principles of Booker T....don't hate the player, hate the game. I count myself as a true follower of Christ....I have nothing against anyone based on sexual orientation or other emotive issues used to attack the church, and anyone who is also a true follower would say the same thing. My issue is with the sin itself. Not the person.
Unfortunately in the Marriage Act it is fairly explicit:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361

I think that's what gets people down a bit. So essentially, two people cannot be legally married unless they are a man and a woman. So while traditional, sure, the values of marriage don't really line up with law - though they may line up with the Christian values of marriage according to some sections in the Bible.

(hence not all people have the right to get married)
 
So. People (or pubs) want to boycott Coopers because of this. Are they checking up on all the families of the other brews they will serve instead? Or every Australian business? or on every product you buy for that matter. To make sure they are pro gay marriage?
Just curious of the solidity of absolutists reactions etc. ("If they're not with us then they're against us" attitude)
and these new age crusaders wonder why there has been a rise of Trumps and Hansens....Its a backlash too.

To quote the saying: If you want to gather honey don't kick over bee hives.
 
what gets me is the same people whinging about coopers donating to a christian group and the lnp and carrying on about gay rights fall all over themselves to donate money to the watermelon party and are deeply in love with another religion that has the death penalty for gays.they cant even see there own hypocrisy like usual.
 
Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle. Ask yourself the chicken and the egg question. Even if it was recorded in 'a scripture' there wasn't a bible to record it on - the bible is a collection of writings. There was never an endorsed canon or volume regarded as correct. It's a diary of occurrences. Asking for a faith based blessing you'd be on the money but referring to it as a biblical institution is a complete misrepresentation of the institution. It's man made. Not even divinely handed out, if you're inclined to take your faith that far.
 
And if looking at the speck in my own eye, there is no way I can judge the other for the log in his.

Hm, this is somewhat pedantic of me but I note you've reversed the normal position of the log and the speck there. But yeah. I know what you're saying. The trouble is, I think, too much general discussion of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' can lead to gays feeling rejected from church. Are we really to say to, say, a gay couple who have been in a faithful loving relationship for years that we love them but hate their sin? I can't come at that.

Gay marriage in a church is a slightly different issue. I certainly don't think churches should be forced into doing that.
 
Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle.

It comes from Christ himself, you goose, and you can't get a much more biblical principle than one that comes from the very founder of Christianity himself.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I've got no problems with the idea of gay marriage; though some people may wish to distinguish it from the type of marriage that Christ describes above - I'll leave that up to them. But arguing that marriage is not based on biblical principles? You're going on a long walk off a short pier there.
 
Adr_0 said:
Unfortunately in the Marriage Act it is fairly explicit:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361

I think that's what gets people down a bit. So essentially, two people cannot be legally married unless they are a man and a woman. So while traditional, sure, the values of marriage don't really line up with law - though they may line up with the Christian values of marriage according to some sections in the Bible.

(hence not all people have the right to get married)
And the fact that you could basically scribble that amendment on the back of a beer coaster makes it all the more contemptible. Its the legislative equivalent of telling your kids 'because I say so' and absolutely reeks of religious decree.
 
Dave70 said:
And the fact that you could basically scribble that amendment on the back of a beer coaster makes it all the more contemptible. Its the legislative equivalent of telling your kids 'because I say so' and absolutely reeks of religious decree.
Bingo.
 
TimT said:
Marriage being recorded in the bible doesn't make it a biblical principle.

It comes from Christ himself, you goose, and you can't get a much more biblical principle than one that comes from the very founder of Christianity himself.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I've got no problems with the idea of gay marriage; though some people may wish to distinguish it from the type of marriage that Christ describes above - I'll leave that up to them. But arguing that marriage is not based on biblical principles? You're going on a long walk off a short pier there.
This has to be a troll comment.

Surely no ones stupid enough to think that marriage didn't exist before the time of Christ.
 
Back
Top