Everald reads from a strange Bible. The word according to “Sponge-Bob square pants”, with a soggy sponge for brains.

The neurotic logic of this article, sits squarely at odds, with the straight forward teachings of Christianity and Islam. It shames religion in its promotion of evil, and is a dismissive tirade against the no voters; simply petulant!

A holier-than-thou piece of diatribe, would be unimaginable.

An excellent article Everald, following Jesus teachings, Love Thy Neighbour and all.

This is in contrast to the intolerance of many parts of the Bible where stoning, putting to death, sacrificing living things, owning one's wife and slavery USED TO BE an acceptable response or legal norm.

Well written as always, but truth is the boomers trashed marriage long before the lbgt's had anything to do with it...the divorce rate was already at 50% in the west before ssm came in. So if the christian wants to resurrect the family, its going to require going back to the appropriate fork in the road to make the right turn this time and taking contemporary technologies with them. A christendom with a 'middle ages' sensibility that embraces digital comforts would be sick as, if you think about it.

All the little snowflakes will find gay marriage does absolutely nothing to harm their lives. Remember the inter-racial marriage debate? The religious claiming it was "against god" and "the world will end." Did it? Nope. The religious always needs something to hate - that's why they worship a psychopathic invention. It reflects themselves.

Christianity does not support homosexual relationships, and that's that.

I find nothing whatsoever to disagree with here, but note, it could have come straight from the mouth of the master?

Who allegedly said, be as a good Samaritan and do unto others as for yourself.

Whatsoever you do to the least among you, you also do unto me.

Suffer little children to come unto me.

All examples of the universal golden rule and straight from the heart of a God of Love.

And opposed by the usual suspects, the over the top hypocrites, brainwashed from birth, disbelievers, resident homophobes and hiding in plain sight, very verbose paedophiles!

And if the cap fits, prove it is so, by going ballistic! AGAIN!
Alan B.

70% plus votes for no in heavily populated Muslim seats and Everald writes about the 'hateful' Australian Christian lobby. Seems to me Everald has an ax to grind. If he thinks the bible encourages homosexual behaviour he displays great ignorance. I would of thought true love included truth not the nonsense Everald writes.

//70% plus votes for no in heavily populated Muslim seats and Everald writes about the 'hateful' Australian Christian lobby.//

But you do hate queers, runner. You take every available opportunity to tell us so. I find it hard to believe that you've had a sudden change of heart.

' But you do hate queers, runner'
Really Toni I thought you were a little smarter although I suspect you are just being plainly dishonest.

Yep, lets all vote yes for euthanasia because god really wants us to give up the life he apparently gave us. I'm still trying to get my head around that one, because according to what I was taught, suicide is a sin and bars one from entering heaven, so why any Christian would support that is beyond me.
Reading that article just reinforces my reasons for not following any religion. It takes a really twisted mind to use a religious reason to support a family structure that deliberately and artificially creates children who will be raised without at least one biological parent. To use Christianity as a safe place for those who would bring children into the world, not as a result of a natural loving action but artificially, to fulfil some selfish purpose of their own, blind to the fact that these child may spend a lifetime wondering who their biological mother or father is, and suffering the emotional consequences of being raised by a single sex, rather than the two who were essential to the conception.
At least Islam has got that part right.

Jesus also didn't give a damn about man-made laws, so a "true Christian" wouldn't care about law reform or authorised pieces of paper.

I see no condemnation of the vocal opposition of your best pals, the Muslims.

When will the first gay wedding in a mosque happen, I wonder?
[Crickets chirping]

You cannot get morals through to Christians. They still support slavery, herding pigs off cliffs, child sacrifice, and nailing people to crosses, and still think this is normal behavior.

Everards organisational involvement, takes him to strange places. Did you as a professing Christian, not have a conscience about this bit of hypocrisy Everard?

https://uniting.org/about-uniting/newsroom/mardi-gras-2016

When it is written in your Christian handbook by Saint Paul:

“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person (1 Corinthians 5:11).”

You berate the Anglican Church, for opposing homosexuality and gay marriage, and donating money towards a no vote, opposition which of itself, promotes good Christian ethics and a purity of soul, as St Paul demands of the Church.

It is inexcusable to represent the God of the Christian, in a debauched pagan ceremony, the Gay and lesbian Mardi Gras. A parade that celebrates all of the evils, a revered Christian saint warned against becoming involved with.

You and your organisation, have fallen from grace Everard. There is no credibility in anything you say. You have lost it

Before I comment on the article, allow me to applaud Progressive Pat:

Television has butchered the family and computers and other electronic gadgets finished the job.

---

Dear Everald,

«They intend to get divorced, but still live together»

No, they do not intend to get divorced - only to pretend to divorce in the legal sense. Good on them!

«the piece of paper we signed on our wedding day has had nothing whatsoever to do with us living happily together for 60 years, it is a treasured document that we are not going to tear up. It is a symbol of our commitment»

That piece of paper has nothing to do with your marriage: you should be proud of your long marriage and commitment, but ashamed of holding onto that document which symbolises subservience to the evil secular state.

Yes, commitment is generally an excellent thing - but commitment to what? Your commitment to God is not in question, nor is your commitment to your wife, but that third commitment... Do I need to remind you that one cannot serve two masters?!

Jesus Christ was never a nationalist. Sooner or later you will need to choose between Christianity and nationalism.

A revered Christian Saint had an opinion that reflected the ethnic culture he sprang from? So what?

What sayth revered Saint Joan of Arc?

Well, they those holier than thou, Judge everyone else but me, Christians burnt her at the stake, for the power of prophesy!

And Christian Popes rode at the head of mass murdering armies to put to the sword anyone who dared disagree with their world view!

Which included a flat earth at the literal centre of the universe, which as they knew to a literal man, revolved around a six thousand year old planet earth?

Is that what passes for reverence for totally infallible views of the ancients DD?

Moreover, if your Master walked among you today, but remained incognito, with a personal predilection for the exclusive company of men and a kind and gentle nature?

You DD, would probably be first in a conga line of self confessed alleged Christians, ready to condemn him for the God given genes that made him the man he was!

It may be hard for the brainwashed from birth, fundamental fanatics to accept? That not only have the majority disagreed with them.

But aren't self appointed judges on the morals of others, but unlike DD, runner and other self identifying homophobes? Think that what the master said and condemned, holds far more weight than that of a self appointed, dark age cleric, held up as a revered Saint!

Rather than a simple man simply reflecting conventional wisdom that had so held for thousands of years!

We are entering the age of enlightenment, which the resident homophobes will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into, as they obfuscate about the one human currently being eaten every three months by a ravenous crocodile.

Arguably that one human being must be getting thoroughly sick of being repeatedly munched for lunch, by now?
Alan B.

To Everald.

You've gotten many responses from both Christian and nonchristian posters that criticize that your points aren't what Jesus would stand beside. Where you are right is that we need to love one another, where you're wrong is to support eachother's sins.

I want you to consider as Jesus as our Savior, our Lord, and the Son of God. Though I agree He is our mentor, He is much more then that. In our journeys of being Christian, there are going to be times where people will try to allievate our burden to both stand up against sin, and also love our neighbor. They do this by choosing to stand against sin and hate a sinner, or by lovingly accept a sinner and encourage them in their sins.

Don't fall into this trap. Both sucide and active homosexuality are called out as sin and wrong within the bible. Jesus does not correct these assertions, so neither should we.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The question comes to me of how do we love someone in sin, (because we all have our battles with sin), while standing against the sin? The answers will largely depend on the sitution, but one of the teachings, (as hard as it is to do) is to let the person go, and have nothing to do with them.

This is so hard to do, but many loving parents and family have been given this exact advice with regard to a family member who is hooked on drugs. Told that if they don't let the person go they are actually enabling that person to continue in the addiction.

If the sin is bad enough, and the person in it refuses to turn away from it, the hardest and last step is to stop fighting them about it and leave them in their sin. Then of course hope and pray for their sake.

I'm sure there are other ways to love eachother, and still stand against a sin. We should seek out these things instead of splitting Jesus's teachings apart and choosing to either stand against homosexuality, or to love them.

As for suicide. Even in terminally illness, we should show kindness to the person, but not to help them die.

It would appear that Everald is incapable of independent thought, as everything he says seems to be scripted directly from the latest ALP talking points.

//Both sucide and active homosexuality are called out as sin and wrong within the bible. Jesus does not correct these assertions//

A lot of things are considered sinful in the Bible that Jesus doesn't correct and Christians still do. Everybody picks and chooses the sins that they think are important and just focuses on them. Nothing wrong with that.

//we should show kindness to the person, but not to help them die.//

And what about those cases where helping them to die is showing them kindness... and unnecessarily prolonging their suffering just to make ourselves feel holier is an unkindness (not to mention deeply selfish).

Toni Lavis...

Your confused. What secular society does, regarding law-making, is shift from the old morality with a Christian ethic, towards a new and more progressive (sic) morality, or secular ethics.

Obviously there are some parallels. It's the little bits left over, causing some anxiety. With the new ethics in play, (eg the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and agreeable (sic) alternative to prohibition), the way is now clear to doze furrows through every aspect of society, the enlightened progressives believe need changing.

Where your progressive arguments come unstuck, is letting those progressive ambitions, get carried away with the reality.

There needs to be an ambit claim by the progressives, presented to the ruling class, sketching out this new path in its entirety. Something resembling the whole reworking of the penal code. That action will save everyone from all sides of the argument, much wasted time and energy.

The confusion this task will encourage, lies in identifying the power brokers?

At the moment, the Christian religion still holds considerable sway: But past history dictates its propensity to quickly revert to paganism. (Viz-a-viz this author, and his fairy dance down Oxford street, as the first Christian church to represent itself in the Pagan celebration of all things debauched, the Gay Mardi Gras).

And, historically too, the difficulty of the Israelites to remain focused on their commitment to God and his ways, when trekking out of Egypt with Moses.
And the broader perspective, ( if you wish it), God eliminating all but the good and dedicated to the Lord pre-flood, with Noah.

Anyway Tone, nice talking to you!

To Toni Lavis.

[A lot of things are considered sinful in the Bible that Jesus doesn't correct and Christians still do]

You're right. There are even things that Jesus explains that Christians act against. But my point is that if we aren't following Jesus's teachings are we really Christian?

The issue with struggling with sin and striving to overcome it is one thing. On any sin, if a person is striving to do better and seeks forgiveness, then that person is doing ok. On the other hand if someone accepts their actions (even if they are wrong) and continues in those actions, those are what should be stood against.

Active homosexuality (having sex as opposed to struggling with same sex attraction) is a sin. It's not made right by the existiance of other sins. Consider other sins. Lying is not made right just because it is common enough. Nor is it made right if there are other wrongs present like adultery, violence, or disrespect to your parents. Each of those is still wrong. There is no tolerance for adultry as a lifestyle.

Now all that said. This is where we need to act wisely. To be loving to our neighbors, while also standing against sin.

[what about those cases where helping them to die is showing them kindness]

Suicide is never the solution. Find other ways to offer kindness. Make an effort. It might go farther then you expect.

//Make an effort. It might go farther then you expect.//

You really don't have a clue about the real world, do you?

Unending, unbearable agony that no drugs can relieve cannot be fixed by visiting somebody to give them a bunch of grapes and a 'get well soon' card. And given that euthanasia would only be applicable in certain cases of TERMINAL illness, a 'get well soon' card is too dark even for my sense of humour.

Look, being nice to people never did them any harm. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But it's not going to help anybody when what is ailing them is not a lack of kindness and good will, it's the cancer that is slowly and extremely painfully killing them. All the love in the world isn't going to make that go away. And if you've found a novel method of killing cancerous cells with hugs, you really should write a paper. A lot of cancer researchers will want to speak to you.

Earnest do-gooders who believe they are being somehow being compassionate by forcing some unfortunate people to endure as much torture as is medically possible before they die so that said do-gooders can give themselves a pat on the back for being so 'nice' and 'kind' really need to take a good long hard look at themselves, and ask themselves if putting their needs ahead of others is the best path.

Toni.

[You really don't have a clue about the real world, do you?]

I thought we were almost getting past the need to insult to discuss something with someone else's different view. It's ok. You did better then I expected. Try again. You'll get better at this I'm sure.

To your points on pain why just limit it to terminal illness. Instead also include painful chronic illnesses that don't end in death? Here is an article to consider nonterminal chronic pain.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/chronic-illness-vs-cancer

Another problem is that cancer isn't the only element with cancer pain. It's also the cancer treatments. If you want to support a legislative kindness without advocating suicide. Look at trying to offer pain relieving drugs to those in painful terminal illnesses. Or reasurch into effective cancer treatments that don't increase the pain. Actually try instead of going to the nearby solution of killing the people in pain.

Because when you offer one solution often times people stop looking for others. Why look for solutions for the pain when we've got the solution already. Commit suicide. If you don't see the danger in this approach then perhaps you don't know how people think in large groups. Or worse you don't realize your thinking in the same way already.

Don't be lazy. Actually try.

[forcing some unfortunate people to endure as much torture as is medically possible before they die so that said do-gooders can give themselves a pat on the back for being so 'nice' and 'kind' really need to take a good long hard look at themselves.]

This isn't about me, and I don't give myself a pat on the back while another suffers. (Whether it is terminal or not). This is about the person who is actually suffering. Putting suicide on the table will negitively affect the search for other solutions. What it will do though is get those in pain to get out of the way so you don't feel sorry for them and can get back to your life. As I see it legislated suicide is the heartless route. Not the other way around.

Everald shows that he is substantially misinformed as usual.

If he were to take the trouble to ascertain what transpired in Canada after legalisation of SSM some 12 years ago, he would find that Canadians naively thought originally that there would be no consequences apart from same-sex couples being given the opportunity to marry. How wrong they were. The homosexual activists have succeeded in attaining substantial suppression of the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, conscience and parental guidance. Favourable comment on heterosexual marriage is outlawed.

Now that the Parliamentary phase to legislate SSM has begun, it is clear that the Yes side has no intention of allowing freedom of speech, adequate protection for freedom of religion and freedom for parents to absent their children from radical LGBTIQ sex education in schools.

The unstated aim of SSM activists is to destroy heterosexual marriage.

//To your points on pain why just limit it to terminal illness.//

Because that was the substance of the Bill before the NSW Parliament. You know, NSW... the state where I live, and thus have an active interest in the laws of... and you don't.

//Look at trying to offer pain relieving drugs//

"Unending, unbearable agony that no drugs can relieve"

What part of that sentence did you not understand?

//Or reasurch into effective cancer treatments that don't increase the pain.//

Seriously? You don't think that there are currently millions and possibly billions of dollars currently being poured into cancer research to try and find better treatments? The research is happening... but in the meantime, we still have a problem.

//Actually try instead of going to the nearby solution of killing the people in pain.//

Yeah, because the problem is that doctors just aren't trying hard enough. Lazy, good-for-nothing layabouts. (sarcasm)

//Because when you offer one solution often times people stop looking for others.//

You might, because you seem to think ignorance is bliss. But some people never stop searching for more answers.

//Why look for solutions for the pain when we've got the solution already.//

It's called curiosity, mate. Some of us consider it one of highest of virtues.

//Commit suicide.//

Piss off.

//If you don't see the danger in this approach then perhaps you don't know how people think in large groups.//

Because people are secretly lemmings?

Actually, the whole lemming mass suicide thing is fake news. Disney (company, not Nazi sympathiser after whom company is named) invented it for narrative purposes.

And I will admit there have been a few cases of mass suicides within cults... but people who are attracted to cults are already seriously messed up, and not a representative sample of the sort of people to whom euthanasia legislation would apply.

//Don't be lazy. Actually try.//

Everybody already is, as hard as they possibly can. Don't be a tosser.

//Putting suicide on the table will negitively affect the search for other solutions//

You really don't get it. Sometimes, there are no solutions. Not every story has a happy ending. Sometimes, there are only two options, and they're both shite.

1) Unending and unbearable pain and death that comes later rather than sooner.
2) Unending and unbearable pain and death that comes sooner rather than later.

And that's it. Those are the options. And I don't think it's OK to force somebody to choose option 1 over option 2 just because you think that forcing that choice will make you a better Christian.

Toni Lavis, all pain can be relieved with heroin.
There's your law reform to champion.

In an attempt to not go down the path of Canada, Massachusetts and other places where the queers have infected the minds of the pollies and the public there, I have contacted about a dozen or so pollies and emailed the extracts I have regarding the humanitarian disaster that is Massachusetts. I can only hope that there is still some semblance of common sense and decency and that they will allow people to carry on with their lives, as close to what it was before we had all this queer crap rammed down our throats. I don't get how a handful of bent and twisted minds have been able to take over the World. I cannot find the reasoning and sense of it all. It is just too bizarre. In answer to the question, 'The future of marriage'. I see a World where marriage will not be the norm. Men and women will live apart and only come together for social events and of course sexual intercourse. Then they retire back to their own places and get on with their own individual lives. This will not be the norm, but I see it becoming a 'lifestyle of choice' in the future. As for children. I feel they will not be entertained by this society and it will fall back on the traditional mother/father/marriage followers. Marriage has been under threat for some time with divorces slowly increasing yearly. As we are talking about the Muslim problem, it must be mentioned that they are a problem as they are on a campaign of procreation. That is to have as many children as they can. The eventual goal is to become the major race, thereby making it easy to take control by our own democratic means. Using our own system to beat us.