Coopers bogged down in bible backlash?

[TimT]

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

Haha.

Christ is referencing previous discussions of marriage in the Hebrew scriptures.

So yep. Well aware of that.

 

[Cerveja]

So many people missing the point. What Coopers did, as a business decision, was really stupid. How they reacted to the backlash was also stupid. The level of reaction to this suggests it is NOT just SJWs and lefties having a whinge. Read the comments on their Facebook page and you will realise it is a lot of 'average' people that are disappointed. They have a battle ahead of them. I can see the bean counters at Asahi sharpening their pencils now. Me? I have opinions but most importantly I won't support stupid business owners.

 

[Mattress]

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

Haha.

Christ is referencing previous discussions of marriage in the Hebrew scriptures.

So yep. Well aware of that.

But marriage has existed in China since at least the Qin dynasty.

 

[Stouter]

Uh oh, this is all getting a bit deep and heavy. Started out talking about beer, then religion, now marriage, and now China's involved?! 我肏
Sounds like a step by step to chaos.
Goes beyond my decisions about what's for breakfast, and definitely goes beyond what beer I'm going to drink.

 

[Black Devil Dog]

I'm so faux offended (like everyone else), I'm going to make my feelings known where it really counts, at the cash register.



Tomorrow, I'm stocking up on Coopers Pale Ale.

 

[earle]

People can believe whatever they want. The problem is when people believe in something so much that it becomes fact for them and they want their belief to be the basis of law so that everyone else can be forced to live according to their beliefs whether they agree with them or not. That's why religion and state should be separate.

Whether they admit it or not Coopers bought into this idea of foisting beliefs.

I'm a married heterosexual and I'm much more offended by shows like Married at first sight or heterosexual unions where kids are ignored to the point of neglect than I am by same *** marriage.

 

[TimT]

Uh oh, this is all getting a bit deep and heavy. Started out talking about beer, then religion, now marriage, and now China's involved?! 我肏

I'm not leaving until we discuss the historical, sociological and ideological causes and consequences of the communist revolution under Mao!

 

[Cerveja]

Is that you Dr Tim?

 

[Stouter]

Uh oh, this is all getting a bit deep and heavy. Started out talking about beer, then religion, now marriage, and now China's involved?! 我肏

I'm not leaving until we discuss the historical, sociological and ideological causes and consequences of the communist revolution under Mao!

Well that's easy, Mao was a c&%t, end of story.

Now how about that porridge?

 

[EK]

I remember when this was about Cooper's backpedaling

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Marriage is a biblical principle

incorrect.

Based on.....?

Historically: it has existed in documented history well before the abrahamic religions were but a fart in an Arab's robe.

Currently: marriage is enacted by Australian federal law which has no basis or reference to biblical principals, and prior to the Marriage Amendment Act of 2004, was covered by common law, and deliberately undefined.

 

[Danscraftbeer]

I'm so faux offended (like everyone else), I'm going to make my feelings known where it really counts, at the cash register.



Tomorrow, I'm stocking up on Coopers Pale Ale.

I did! haha. Only because I did the rare thing and **** up a batch of beer its grass beer.
So got a slab of Celebrity Ale (because there are shelf products I trust) and **** both sides of this storm.. :chug:

 

[madpierre06]

Historically: it has existed in documented history well before the abrahamic religions were but a fart in an Arab's robe.

Currently: marriage is enacted by Australian federal law which has no basis or reference to biblical principals, and prior to the Marriage Amendment Act of 2004, was covered by common law, and deliberately undefined.

If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.

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.

Typo...eyes here are pretty scarred. Authorised logging country.

I do see what you're saying, there has been far too much twisting and misrepresenting and specific manipulation of Scripture so as to completely misrepresent Christ's teachings. And to alienate people. I do believe that there is an underlying agenda to try and force churches into performing ceremonies between people who identify by sexual persuasion though.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.

unfortunately, this has no basis in reality.

 

[Parks]

I do believe that there is an underlying agenda to try and force churches into performing ceremonies between people who identify by sexual persuasion though.

I'm not sure I have once heard of anyone trying or wanting to get a homosexual wedding in a church.

 

[madpierre06]

I'm not sure I have once heard of anyone trying or wanting to get a homosexual wedding in a church.

it will happen.

unfortunately, this has no basis in reality.

Based on.....

 

[GalBrew]

If you're going to accept it, or not, as related in Genesis at the beginning, then reference to man and wife predated any actual religion completely. Gen. 2:22 - 24.

Yep, that's totally what happened.......

 

[Cerveja]

Reality

 

[TimT]

I'm not sure I have once heard of anyone trying or wanting to get a homosexual wedding in a church.

As you know it's a highly politicised issue. Sooner or later there'll be a test case in Australia. It's been tested in the UK.

 

[Brewnicorn]

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.

I assume you're calling me a goose. That's impolite. Please don't be impolite.

And your point/s just garbage. There's more to a point than winning it, try understanding it. Bible, scripture, testament, the founder of Christianity was John the Baptist, if you want to be technical. If you believe in both those individuals altogether. The institution and formalising it in a ceremony... reproduction existed long before Christ.

And remember, keep it polite eh.