RC & Martin
Here's what I was saying straight from a theologian. Notice Martin THEOLOGIAN [ie here's your expert].

"The inhabitants of Sodom displayed the most despicable form of sexual immorality. Nevertheless, this passage CANNOT be construed as condemning loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. The sin displayed in this story is the sin of homosexual (gang) rape, possessive lust, and sexual abuse. Homosexuality itself is NOT the focus of these cities' later notoriety within the biblical tradition--at least not in all cases. This is aptly demonstrated in Ezekiel 16:49: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." And in v. 51, Ezekiel says that in comparison with sinful Judah, Sodom and Gomorra were righteous. Some Jewish writings indicate that the sinful desire behind the Sodomites' lust for Lot's guests was because they were angels, NOT because they were men (see Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5). This story reflects the sacred value placed in Middle Eastern culture on HOSPITALITY. It is a responsibility so sacred that Lot would rather offer his virgin daughters to his ravenous neighbors than the strangers he feels obligated to protect. That sodomite has become synonymous with certain homosexual acts does not pertain to the ethical issue of the propriety of loving, committed homosexual relationships. "Sodomites" are condemned in several Old Testament texts not because the male prostitutes were having sex with other males, but because they were serving alien gods as part of the Canaanite fertility cult.
To use Genesis 19 as a means to condemn homosexuality makes as little sense as using 2 Sam. 13 as a means to condemn heterosexuality."

Another point to consider. If homosexuality were the real cause of the supposed divine destruction of the city then that would mean that if a group of women tried to gang rape the angels that would have been Ok? Obviously that's stupid. It was the rape & the violation of the rite of hospitality NOT who did the raping that made the difference.

What an extraordinary response to the article! So many points of view, so much energy, so many fragments of wisdom.
Thirty five years ago I came across a song of Sydney Carter with words that have hovered about my religious journey ever since.

Catch the bird of Heaven
Put him in a cage of gold
Look again tomorrow
And he will be gone

For the Bird of Heaven
Keeps on travelling on

The ideas behind these words have not turned me from my Christian faith , but they have seasoned it with an openness to the fact that I can never claim to have arrived or to have a total grasp of what God thinks about every thing.
In this sexuality debate, I think that the Uniting Church in Australia , through much pain and uncertainty, is beginning to discover a way of living with difference, even passionate disagreement, while still respecting the Other,
Even Jesus, according to the Gospels, changed his mind at times, as in the story of the Syro Phoenician woman

Philo

You continue to place footsies in rather large mouth. The most basic form of life on earth (and the most prolific) requires no sex what-so-ever.

All single celled life forms such as amoebas require no sex at all they simply divide into identical units. IDENTICAL, Philo.

WHile the constraints of OLO limit Biology 101 I shall attempt to put it succintly:

As a fundy you christian you conveniently ignore the results of eons of evolution.

Sex developed over years of evolution as a result of genetic diversity, thus two separate organisms were able to combine their differing DNA to create a completely unique organism. That is why your offspring aren't exactly the same as you Philo, but it is why one amoeba is exactly the same as another.

The advantage of genetic diversity is that the new unique organisms can adapt to changing conditions such as climate, whereas the advantage of genetic stability as in the all female underground moles I previouly mentioned works very well in a stable environment.

But don't take my word for it. Check out the evolution of sex at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

and asexual reproduction at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

which elegantly states; "Because it does not require male and female participation, asexual reproduction occurs faster than sexual reproduction and requires less energy."

Time to go back to school Philo, they say no one is too old to learn, however, in your case I am prepared to make an exception.

BTW your absurd attempts to justify your beliefs are simply proving the point that Richard Prendergast makes with his article and that is judgemental language alienates people from the church. That your judgemental language is as intolerant as it is ignorant is a failing on your part, Philo. You should not only be ashamed at your unchristian lack of empathy for others but hang you head in your complete ignorance of the natural world.

Scout, all the points you make are great, but have you noticed that they don’t affect Philo’s views one bit?

The point about religious beliefs is that they are not logical, nor are they amenable to logical discussion. The best we can hope for from believers is that they will learn to live and let live.

It’s not such a vain hope. Indeed ledingham and others believe that their christianity requires them to do just this. There are other hopeful signs, too. The piece of research I mentioned above shows that catholics are leading the way in their acceptance of homosexuality, and recent research reported in The Age http://snipurl.com/sc8b shows that the younger you are the more supportive you are of same-sex unions.

The bigots are dying out. For some, not fast enough, but the indications are that this argument here will be incomprehensible to future generations of Australians.

The Philos of this world are incapable of seeing how dangerous their views are, let alone changing them. I think we need to sort them into the bad stuff pile, with cyclones, taxes and Eddie Maguire, and then simply avoid them as much as (humanly and legally) possible.

Meanwhile, the huge amount of talent and energy you are putting into fighting Philo could be directed at your federal MP, who in the near future will be considering Warren Entsch’s same-sex unions bill, Nicola Roxon’s sexuality discrimination bill, and the report from the HREOC inquiry into same-sex unions.

W

I hear you and I do my share of activism on many fronts including equal rights for ALL sentient beings.

As for Philo, I couldn't resist. I just love it when Philo (all pompous and condescending) leaves himself looking just plain daft. And it is like shooting fish in a barrel - its not that hard for me as I have a very good knowledge of natural science and it is entertaining. OK maybe it IS a little childish, but oh so much fun.

Philo and his ilk are indeed a dying breed (natural selection at work), however I don't see why I can't play a little. Some levity is much needed on this forum and I am one of those people who can't remain serious for too long.

Isn't there a religion based around laughter somewhere?

Scout, I had a lot of fun, too! Thanks, Philo!

Reality Check, it can indeed be worrying to think that because public perception and the law about certain issues such as divorce have changed over time, they could change on other issues such as pedophilia as well.

But I think it is very unlikely that the child protection law would change in favour of pedophiles, because the ‘public’ are mainly made up of parents, grandparents, and non-pedophiles. Only 1% of the population is classed as pedophiles, and from this 1% a small number have offended.
There would not be enough public to support a law that favours pedophilia.

I have followed news articles a few months ago about a pedophile party (NVD) in the Netherlands. This party launched by pedophiles claiming that they were advocating for ‘more rights’ for children, such as the right to have sex at a younger age.
This party was opposed to so much by the general public that soon they no longer existed.
This all happened in the most tolerant country in where laws are very relaxed on several issues.
But there was no tolerance for this pedo-party. People are not about to put their children in danger!

One thing: There is a difference between pedophiles (who have the desire to have sex with children or an interest in child porn) and pedosexuals (who are the actual child sex offenders). We can’t criminalise pedophilia, while pedosexuality and being in possession of child porn is illegal. There are many pedophiles who will never become pedosexuals, and there was even opposition from a number of pedophiles against this NVD pedo-party.

Anyway, what is so bad about changing some language which still abuses and discriminates against a minority group; people who obviously just want to live their lives like any other person in this country, including for some, going to church without being offended or insulted?
In my eyes, changing offensive language aimed at same sex couples into non-offensive language has nothing to do with pedophilia.