did any of you see the dest buggers in town [Archive]

cammo

10th March 2005, 15:23

i got involved with some old punk mates
(of corse) who the hell would give there
own money to buy that wanker a bike
,shit something like 10% of there pay
had to put up with his bullshit for half an hour
(f**k made me wont to puke)
:angry2:

i missed it on hte news...but are you emplying that the destiny church members money got used to buy the leader dude bike? if so im guessing you dont know about the tamaki brother (one of which is destinys leader) who own a tourism company and have had harleys (if thats wha he was riding) for years and earn like a couple mill every year from their tourism business?

if not them im completly off the plot and dpont bother reading into what ive sed!

Coldkiwi

10th March 2005, 16:51

i missed it on hte news...but are you emplying that the destiny church members money got used to buy the leader dude bike? if so im guessing you dont know about the tamaki brother (one of which is destinys leader) who own a tourism company and have had harleys (if thats wha he was riding) for years and earn like a couple mill every year from their tourism business?

if not them im completly off the plot and dpont bother reading into what ive sed!

:Oi: you're not allowed to approach the issue of Destiny OR Brian Tamaki from a fair and reasonable point of view. Thats not allowed on this site :spudwhat: (apparently?)
Please follow mad max's example and offer some uninformed comment and profanity on your next post or you'll get sorted right out! :confused:

cammo

11th March 2005, 12:34

:Oi: you're not allowed to approach the issue of Destiny OR Brian Tamaki from a fair and reasonable point of view. Thats not allowed on this site :spudwhat: (apparently?)
Please follow mad max's example and offer some uninformed comment and profanity on your next post or you'll get sorted right out! :confused:

Right...ok just replace the names with ....... ull still get my point!

outlawtorn

11th March 2005, 12:56

I saw that program on telly one morning, twins on harleys cruising around with other harley riders through the south island. Never knoew that one of the is the leader of DC.

in my humble but often crazy opinion:

religion should stay the hell out of politics, it has no bearing at all on it and if DC doesn't like gay marraige, well then don't marry gay people then, they won't harm you so just leave them the fuck alone, all they want is what we take for granted, marraige!

These church leaders burn my arse. I despise any kind of organised religion. Religion is personal and should be kept that way, between you and whoever you want to believe in/love/worship!!

:done:

Paul in NZ

11th March 2005, 12:57

If Mr tamaki want to follow in the family footsteps of beguiling loads of cloth eared kitten jugglers with a well scripted show business entertainment enterprise and collect a healthy revenue for doing so, all power to the man!

When Mr tamaki tells me he intends running the country in the name of the Lord. (or a version of the Lord revealed exclusively to him, but franchise opportunities exist) Then it's time for us all to be getting a little concerned about what exactly is in that snake oil he is pedling.

If you think moving NZ from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic is a big deal, just wait until ole helmet hair moves us to a Theoracy....

There are a very few truely dangerous thoughts, but religious leaders running secular affairs would be one of them...

Paul N

Coldkiwi

11th March 2005, 15:56

religion should stay the hell out of politics,

True. But what has got Destiny's goat (and others that are less in the public view) is that the politicians are not staying the hell out of religion. The recent crop of social-orientated laws that this Govt has introduced and is talking of introducing seems to many people (some christian, some muslim, some jewish, some agnostic,atheist.. the list goes on) to be undermining the good work of churches trying to make society a more loving and healthy place. (before anyone gets offended at that, I recommend they ask their local church what community services they provide and how many different groups they donate to/ work for etc).
So I guess with that in mind, is it surprising (although not particularly desirable given Destiny's approach to some issues) that they have formed a political party to try and bring change? Its a pretty desperate measure for a church to have to set up a poltical party because thats the only way they feel they can effect change.

Religion is personal and should be kept that way, between you and whoever you want to believe in/love/worship!!
:done:

I agree fully. That way, if the government want to tell make your kids believe something you think is utterly damaging to their life (based on your families religious beliefs) then they should just butt out.

but again... thats not where this govt is aiming the nation. Petitions, submissions, letters to the editor all get ignored so whats left? Maybe marching up Queen St didn't get portrayed the way the churches involved want it to be portrayed but perhaps you guys can see how its got to the stage where it had to happen?

Coldkiwi

11th March 2005, 16:01

There are a very few truely dangerous thoughts, but religious leaders running secular affairs would be one of them...

Paul N

Thats an interesting point Paul. On the flipside, Helen Clark (staunch Atheist) and Labour are thinking about bringing out hate speech legislation that will mean church leaders no longer have the freedom to state the activites and lifestyles that offend their God. If they do, they could potentially be imprisioned.

Make no mistake, Labour is dead keen to bring this sort of thing in. (Can't beleive I voted for them last time. Economic growth is great for sure, but its come at a price)

Paul in NZ

11th March 2005, 17:13

Thats an interesting point Paul. On the flipside, Helen Clark (staunch Atheist) and Labour are thinking about bringing out hate speech legislation that will mean church leaders no longer have the freedom to state the activites and lifestyles that offend their God. If they do, they could potentially be imprisioned.

Make no mistake, Labour is dead keen to bring this sort of thing in. (Can't beleive I voted for them last time. Economic growth is great for sure, but its come at a price)

Believe it or not...

I support the guts of a lot of what various churches say / support / believe about family values and mores. People like the Salvation Army, presbitarian support services etc etc have my full and often financial support.

What I object to, are people imposing their views and values on me by force.

I realise there must be boundaries, but it's not for me, or my gods to make choices for others.

True, society must have laws and thats where we differ, I believe religion is nothing more than a primitive legal system with the ultimate policeman. It worked once, it still works for some (hey, they may be right) but for many religions to function in a healthy society none of them can realistically impose moralistic judgements into laws.

Coldkiwi

14th March 2005, 13:52

True, society must have laws and thats where we differ, I believe religion is nothing more than a primitive legal system with the ultimate policeman.
I'm guessing you're indirectly referring to the ten commandments (?) as a list from the Ultimate Policeman saying 'don't do this or i'll punish you'. Its interesting that although I used to view them as such, once I started learning more about the God who wrote them and the behaviour of people, I have started to see that the penaltys we pay for disobeying these commandments are not from God but come directly out of our own behaviour and choices. Call it Karma or whatever but the nuts and bolts of a healthy society start to fly out and come back to bite people that disobey things like 'do not murder', 'do not commit adultery'. Show me someone who's acted like that and I'll show you the burdens they have to carry because of it.

It worked once, it still works for some (hey, they may be right) but for many religions to function in a healthy society none of them can realistically impose moralistic judgements into laws.

Again, the march and all the anti-CU/prostitution debate has been about leaving what we already have alone rather than bringing in potentially damaging laws to accomodate a very small minority. Its not about imposing a moralistic judgement into a new law at all.

But on a different tack, if NO ONE imposes a moral judgement at, where do we expect our country to go? If every type of damaging sexual behaviour is legal and society throws up its hands in politically correct despair at offending somebody and INSISTS that morals stay in the church and not in legislation than surely we are heading for a country with no moral foundation to control itself from. Like you say, we need laws but I think you're kidding yourself if you want all of our laws to be completely free of moral judegements (whether based on anyones religious beliefs or otherwise) and still have a healthy society.

Think about this: incest, peadophilia... its all morally replusive to most of us now, but we're all prepared to make a judgement on those right? To cater for the few sick individuals in this country that want to be able to legally indulge in those activities (plenty would probably argue that incest doesn't hurt anyone) is out of the question now but CU legislation is (in my view) setting a precedent for this sort of thing (or all sorts of lesser but still damaging behaviours) to be argued into legality.

ManDownUnder

14th March 2005, 14:05

For what it's worth - I can see that both church and state share the common ground of "morals". Some activites are prohibited by one and not the other...

Let's choose Bigamy. No worries to the Mormons (as I understand it - but open to correction), but a problem to the state (in NZ).

Likewise homosexuality, problem to the church (well some churches, unless you have a homosexual bishop etc) but not so to the state.

Both entites have evolving views on what is acceptable in these situations and there are going to be times of disagreement. It's not the first time it has happened - and it won't be the last.

As a general principal I think the separation of church and state is a good idea, but moral issues will continue to bridge the gap -no matter how carefully constructed. My understanding is that conscience votes were introduced to Parliament to address this and similar issues.

I don't think there is any point is worrying about the destiny church or the Govt's social engineering. I personally prefer to make informed choices based on what I know and believe.

If I want to support Brian Tamaki because of his beliefs and vision and leadership of the Destiny Church - I will.

If I want to vote Labour to support their social engineering policies, I will.

I believe that's one of the good things we have going for us in NZ.

MDU

Lou Girardin

14th March 2005, 15:42

It's "Bishop" Tamaki now thank you. He's just annointed himself.
After the killings at an evangelical church in the US, I'm waiting for some local to 'go fundamental' here. Especially when he discovers that he's been paying 10% of his income for Brian to have all those shiny new toys and God still hasn't answered his prayers with the winning Lotto numbers.
PT Barnum was never more right.

Coldkiwi

14th March 2005, 16:59

I don't think there is any point is worrying about the destiny church or the Govt's social engineering. I personally prefer to make informed choices based on what I know and believe.

MDU

Not worry about the Govt? I think National have done such a poor job in opposition that SOMEONE has to worry about the govt so it might as well be the general public.

I won't get too into the media slant on the CU debate etc. but I can assure you that the way the march was presented in the Herald and on TV, making a truly informed choice on such matters based on the cold facts is getting hard.

curious george

14th March 2005, 17:12

...who the hell would give there
own money to buy that wanker a bike
:angry2:

I've got no idea what you lot are on about, but i thought I'd add that the Harley was gifted from some evangelical friends in the states for some speaking he had done there...
anyway, back to the arguement...

Ghost Lemur

14th March 2005, 18:44

...
PT Barnum was never more right.

You may find this (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html)
interesting as far as "There's a sucker born every minute" goes.

As for the rest of this thread. All I've got to say is how the hell did the Scottish Thread escape it's confines.

StoneChucker

14th March 2005, 19:30

Man, the whole Destiny Church is a joke. It must be, I'm sure he's going to fess up oneday it was a joke that went too far. I mean come on, he can't be serious. Does he expect people to believe/buy what wafts out his "mouth"

For those of you that say:
"but thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands already do..."
Can anyone say Cult??? Brian Tamaki needs a makeover, Queer Eye... style

Watching Tamadork makes me endlessly happy that I'm not affiliated with any religion, at the moment. Ohhh, I don't know why I get so worked up over him, I don't give a shit either way on the subject... :angry2: :angry2:

If you will excuse me, I'm going to check my BP with my BP monitor
Ignorant, greasy, money grabbing, delusional, close minded, homophobic, blah blah, meh..........

MOTOXXX

14th March 2005, 19:43

ahhh never a dull moment on kb, and never a can of worms left unopened. :done: :spudbooge

Coldkiwi

14th March 2005, 19:45

there's some juicy worms in this one ya see :)

curious george

14th March 2005, 19:57

Where's Zed when ya need him?
*snigger*

Coldkiwi

14th March 2005, 20:18

now now, I can quote scripture (or other learned literature) myself if I really want to but its not that kinda debate (nor do I want it to become like that given how fast the scottish thread's wheels spin but how little progress it makes)

Timber020

14th March 2005, 20:42

Anyone who thinks that state and church can work together forgets what George Bush is like.

Gasman

14th March 2005, 21:53

i missed it on hte news...but are you emplying that the destiny church members money got used to buy the leader dude bike? if so im guessing you dont know about the tamaki brother (one of which is destinys leader) who own a tourism company and have had harleys (if thats wha he was riding) for years and earn like a couple mill every year from their tourism business?

if not them im completly off the plot and dpont bother reading into what ive sed!

Different Tamaki right? There are 3 of them aren't there? 2 own the tourist bizzo and one fleeces his flock. Did you know that he owns a multi million dollar home in Maraetai and has surrounded himself with sycophants, living in houses immediately around him. Sounds vaguely familiar........The Berghof and Berchesgarten comes to mind...... BAD NEWS THIS GUY!

Timber020

14th March 2005, 22:07

Im hoping more for a waco, texas.

Madmax

14th March 2005, 23:15

Im hoping more for a waco, texas.
shit i am on your side, only problem
is we dont have any seige guns ETC

Holy Roller

14th March 2005, 23:46

Different Tamaki right? There are 3 of them aren't there? 2 own the tourist bizzo and one fleeces his flock. Did you know that he owns a multi million dollar home in Maraetai and has surrounded himself with sycophants, living in houses immediately around him. Sounds vaguely familiar........The Berghof and Berchesgarten comes to mind...... BAD NEWS THIS GUY!

Much of his wealth has come from selling his share of the tourist business. (would be interesting to see their books for the last couple of years though) I knew him when he started here in Rotorua even spoke at our church, built what he has today on strict guidelines for leaders and church attendees. (why does the 10% principle get such a hard time:spudwhat: when in reality everything a Christian has is not theirs but is God's provision to do His will.)

People follow him because he offers hope and a way to live life. May be a bit extreem for most but thats what these people are looking for.
I personally don't buy into his style though I do agree with proactive representation for family values and rights.

Lou Girardin

15th March 2005, 10:29

Much of his wealth has come from selling his share of the tourist business. (would be interesting to see their books for the last couple of years though) I knew him when he started here in Rotorua even spoke at our church, built what he has today on strict guidelines for leaders and church attendees. (why does the 10% principle get such a hard time:spudwhat: when in reality everything a Christian has is not theirs but is God's provision to do His will.)

People follow him because he offers hope and a way to live life. May be a bit extreem for most but thats what these people are looking for.
I personally don't buy into his style though I do agree with proactive representation for family values and rights.

The sale of third share of a m/cycle tour business would not fund a flash house/boat/car/harley etc. Face it, he's a conman.

Lou Girardin

15th March 2005, 10:32

I've got no idea what you lot are on about, but i thought I'd add that the Harley was gifted from some evangelical friends in the states for some speaking he had done there...
anyway, back to the arguement...

That was the SECOND Harley.

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 12:02

Im hoping more for a waco, texas.

Call this a cat amoungst the pigeons comment, but does no one else feel the irony of sinful people wailing against a guy who runs a church that may have some dodgy practices?
I'm not saying that christians or any religious group are not sinful (I don't believe that for a second, and I should know because I am one!), but what makes people think they can call down all this judgement on someone like Brian Tamaki ('there'll be a special place in hell for people like him' is one memorable line from this site) and exempt themselves from the same standards?

Food for thought anyone? :confused:

spudchucka

15th March 2005, 12:11

I believe religion is nothing more than a primitive legal system with the ultimate policeman.
I don't think it is religion exactly, I think it is churches that use religion to control people. Churches are made up of people and people lust after power. There are countless examples all throughout history and today is hardly any different.

spudchucka

15th March 2005, 12:15

surrounded himself with sycophants, living in houses immediately around him. Sounds vaguely familiar........The Berghof and Berchesgarten comes to mind...... BAD NEWS THIS GUY!
For some reason this analogy seems even more relevant when its been suggested by someone called "Gasman".

spudchucka

15th March 2005, 12:18

Im hoping more for a waco, texas.
Or a Jonestown, Guyana?

Paul in NZ

15th March 2005, 15:15

I don't think it is religion exactly, I think it is churches that use religion to control people. Churches are made up of people and people lust after power. There are countless examples all throughout history and today is hardly any different.

Dunno. I think religion in it's basic form is a code of living. In the case of some religions, like Judaeisim, it has been a way of keeping a 'race' together to ensure their survival. In other cases it's a set of rules (like the 10 commandments) that can serve as a civil code.

God punishes those that break 'the laws'....

Churches are organised religion. They interpret the word of god for the un clever people which was required when most common folk could not read or had no access to books (a comparitively recent thing). Of course, people cannot help themselves and they start adding bits.... Then the fun starts (sigh)

I dunno - interesting thought for a tuesday afternoon...

Paul N

Lias

15th March 2005, 15:40

Not a huge fan of Brian Tamaki, or evangelical types in general, but I have to say I fully support his crusade against the homosexual law reform bill.

I'm agnostic, I'm definitly not a practising christian but even I know that marriage is a sacred RELIGIOUS ceremony between a man and a woman before their god(s), its one of the reasons I have no plans to ever marry. For Comrade Clark and her reform brigade to charge in and declare that faggots can be married is utterly wrong. Next she'll be telling us marriage between cockies and sheep is acceptable. The way shes going you'd think Mcgillicuddy serious won the election.

Sadly its very rare for legislation to be repealled in this country once in place, but one can only hope that labour loose the elections and the replacements reppeal this piece of shit law.

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 16:38

Churches are organised religion. They interpret the word of god for the un clever people which was required when most common folk could not read or had no access to books (a comparitively recent thing). Of course, people cannot help themselves and they start adding bits.... Then the fun starts (sigh)

I'm not trying to be a smart alec Paul, but how many churches have you been to, sat down in and given a fair run? To me 'religion' conjures up the trappings of very traditional ceremony based services where 'doing the trappings right' was much more important than the congregation connecting with the God they'd come to worship. By the way the word is being used here, i'm guessing others have a similar point of view (?)

I'm not going to challenge you to go to a particular church to open your eyes to the fact that most christian churches are not orientated like this anymore, but how about considering that you may not know every church's motivations intimately and that they may not all be out to brainwash you?

jrandom

15th March 2005, 16:47

I'm agnostic, I'm definitly not a practising christian but even I know that marriage is a sacred RELIGIOUS ceremony between a man and a woman before their god(s)

Agreed, depending on societal context, but...

For Comrade Clark and her reform brigade to charge in and declare that faggots can be married is utterly wrong.

We've previously (on the forum, here) covered the difference between the 'civil union' legislation, and marriage.

They're not the same thing.

Nobody's letting faggots get married.

So calm down.

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 16:53

interesting to read that there are non-christians out there that think the CU bill is pants (most seemed to stay quiet during the debate though?)

For Comrade Clark and her reform brigade to charge in and declare that faggots can be married is utterly wrong.

that said, your comments towards gays are pretty crass and unhelpful Liastz. Sort it out and gain some respect huh?

jrandom

15th March 2005, 16:54

what makes people think they can call down all this judgement on someone like Brian Tamaki ('there'll be a special place in hell for people like him' is one memorable line from this site) and exempt themselves from the same standards?

My opinion of Mr Tamaki is that he has two serious, visible flaws that disqualify him as a Christian leader: he accrues personal weath from his followers, and he is involved in politics.

I think most here that have a problem with him would agree that that's what it boils down to, when the pointless invective and vitriol is stripped away.

It's not a judgement; just informed commentary and personal opinion.

And certainly nobody should exempt themselves from the same standards they apply to others.

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 17:05

Nobody's letting faggots get married.

So calm down.

assuming we drop the derogatory terminology, hold on to your hat J, Labour will have a surprise in store for you next term!

Want to know the length of time its taken govt's overseas to bring in full blown gay marriage from the introduction of official condoning of gay relationships?
Holland: 3 years .
Massachussetts: 5 months
Ontario, British Columbia & Quebec : 3 years
The Justice Minister of Germany vows to get gay marriage legalised by the end of the German Summer. That would make the period 3 years

I somehow don't think Labours idea of a healthy society is quite what middle new zealand is expecting but I fully expect them to sneak a great deal under the radar before we all wake up and smell the rot. (mind you, people raising the alarm are getting called bigots, haters, 'fundamentalists forcing their ideals on to others' and all sorts of other colourful names so that'll probably keep a lot of concerned heads down for a long time yet)

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 17:19

My opinion of Mr Tamaki is that he has two serious, visible flaws that disqualify him as a Christian leader: he accrues personal weath from his followers, and he is involved in politics.

And certainly nobody should exempt themselves from the same standards they apply to others.

I know the papers and media have banged on about his personal fortune but has anyone seen the IRD's audit of his finances? Again, its very hard these days to be truly informed of the real facts despite the masses of 'information' we have at our finger tips.
For the record, he's not actually part of the Destiny Party but they're obviously closely aligned. And how would being involved in politics instantly make a church leader worthy of scorn and judgement anyway? Can you explain that flaw to a simple man such as myself? :spudwhat:

Glad we agree that people should use the same measuring stick but I sense thats not always happening.

Paul in NZ

15th March 2005, 17:45

I'm not trying to be a smart alec Paul, but how many churches have you been to, sat down in and given a fair run? To me 'religion' conjures up the trappings of very traditional ceremony based services where 'doing the trappings right' was much more important than the congregation connecting with the God they'd come to worship. By the way the word is being used here, i'm guessing others have a similar point of view (?)

I'm not going to challenge you to go to a particular church to open your eyes to the fact that most christian churches are not orientated like this anymore, but how about considering that you may not know every church's motivations intimately and that they may not all be out to brainwash you?

No offence taken but none was intended.

But I think you should read my post again and add several hundred years to the times we are referring too....

I'm not refering to christian churches at all. Just using the word church where I should meant an off shoot of any organised group that follows a particular faith with their own version or interpretation of something. You get my drift...

I have studied a lot of religions superfically at one stage including Mormonisim and been to a lot of Churches in my lifetime. Nothing agaist them just trying to point out their origins in the dim dark past were a really good idea...

Still can't quite see your objection - sorry!

jazbug5

15th March 2005, 17:45

Just out of interest: who of the practising Christians feels that a marriage in a registry office qualifies as a marriage in the eyes of the Lord? Because if I were to wish to be married in the eyes and tenets of my religion, then that is where I would do it: within my religion- i.e. in a church, synagogue, whatever. Therefore there are already a great many couples out there, married in registry offices who are not married in the 'proper' sense, and yet feel as if they are.
I don't see the Church getting upset about registry office weddings. Are these people not 'living in sin'?
No-one could force a church to marry a couple they didn't feel they wanted to, either. Shotgun weddings refer to something else, surely? (Interesting image, though...) Hmmmmm.
By the way - in advance- I actually am interested in the seeming disparities between these positions.
I. Am. Not. Trying. To. Wind. Anyone. Up.

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 17:57

No offence taken but none was intended.

But I think you should read my post again and add several hundred years to the times we are referring too....

I'm not refering to christian churches at all. Just using the word church where I should meant an off shoot of any organised group that follows a particular faith with their own version or interpretation of something. You get my drift...

umm... i'm drifting somewhere but not sure its in the same direction as you!
just trying to clear up what you meant by 'churches are just organised religion' in light of my response. By adding a few hundred years, you're saying that churches are no longer just organised religion? I agree, but I didn't think thats what you'd said given the tense (or perhaps I just can't read :spudwhat: )

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 18:05

I have studied a lot of religions superfically at one stage including Mormonisim and been to a lot of Churches in my lifetime. Nothing agaist them just trying to point out their origins in the dim dark past were a really good idea...

Still can't quite see your objection - sorry!

what I was trying to get at was you seem to me to have developed a view of churches (christian or otherwise) that they are simply organisations formed to get the masses in line with what they beleive and no more. (stop me if I'm wrong)

The point of that post and my objection to your statement "God punishes those that break 'the laws'....Churches are organised religion. They interpret the word of god for the un clever people..." was to get you to consider that what you may have seen from a secular point of view as the benefits of a church may be a poofteenth of the benefits a member of the congregation may see, simply because they are truly involved.
I say this because while so many express their view that church=god='don't do fun stuff' , I have really found an amazing fulfillment from attending a church where I have been encouraged to work things out and get closer to God for myself and have a life thats free of a lot of the rubbish I used to fill it with.

Coldkiwi

15th March 2005, 18:11

[QUOTE=jazbug5]Just out of interest: who of the practising Christians feels that a marriage in a registry office qualifies as a marriage in the eyes of the Lord? Because if I were to wish to be married in the eyes and tenets of my religion, then that is where I would do it: within my religion- i.e. in a church, synagogue, whatever. Therefore there are already a great many couples out there, married in registry offices who are not married in the 'proper' sense, and yet feel as if they are.
I don't see the Church getting upset about registry office weddings. Are these people not 'living in sin'?
[QUOTE]

jaz, for me, the important part of getting married was not the church, the trappings or the flowers but the fact that I was making a public declaration to God that I wanted to make this work forever. That can take place anywhere, and you can wear togs for all it matters to me.
The two non negotiables are having people there to witness it so that they are part of the support network in years to come and having it run so that God is invited. If people want to have a prayer at the registry office, I would consider that asking God to be a part of the marriage, some people might do it in a church but only because they like the scenery so in that way, He's not invited.
I guess the churches in this country generally consider a couple married when they've got their marriage licence but for a christian marriage, I think the couple involved need to invite God to be part of it (and maybe that can happen some years after they go to a registry office).

jazbug5

15th March 2005, 18:45

Fairy nuff: that all makes sense, and sounds like a lovely way to start out in a loving marriage (togs or no!).
But how many people who do get married practise their religion? Or believe in God? I think if I were a christian it would particularly upset me when couples insisted they had a white wedding with all the trappings etc in a church, and didn't believe in God at all! It seems those sorts of weddings lose sight of what it's all about (surely) and seem to be a display for the sake of it almost.
So why not a form of non religious ceremony for those who are not actually christians: straight or gay? One way or another, let's not forget that all have one thing in common: two people are joining their lives together to show their love for one another in a way that is both personal and public.
I'd rather see that than see a punch up any day!

spudchucka

15th March 2005, 18:59

And how would being involved in politics instantly make a church leader worthy of scorn and judgement anyway? Can you explain that flaw to a simple man such as myself? :spudwhat:
Because politicians constantly lie. No body survives in that world, (politics) unless the fib their pants off.

StoneChucker

15th March 2005, 19:21

oldfart

15th March 2005, 19:25

& this all goes to prove the old saying that 2 subjects never to discuss are religion & polotics because either will just end up in sh*t fight

spudchucka

15th March 2005, 22:22

It seems to be a general (uncontested) concensus here that homosexuality is wrong? Now please, I'm not gay so no immature suggestions to that fact.

But who gives any one person the right to say what is right or wrong for another? I find it very hard to believe that the bible in it's current form, is exactly as it was when written. I have a big problem with alot of aspects of religion. Some ideas which have been thought of as fact, have over time been proved otherwise (medical, scientific, archeological, whatever).

If you don't like something, or are close minded and insecure, don't try to impose and force your feelings onto other people.

Lets not forget what currently causes all the trouble in the world, religion and money.
I'm only replying to this because I'm on my second day off after night shift and I've drunk the best part of a bottle of wine, (in other word its against my better judgement and I'm a bit pissed).

I have nothing against homosexuals of either sex unless they try and hit on me, (I'm very happily married). So long as they don't bug me then I won't bug them.

I don't have too much of a problem with religion, (I actually have pretty firm beliefs that I consider to be very private and I am not at all demonstrative about)

I do however have big problems with churches of all denominations that lie to their followers, which seems, (from my perspective) to be most of them and the Destiny outfit is right up ther amongst the worst offenders, (as are all the evangalistic church outfits that extract "holy tax" out of their followers).

I agree with you about the current cause of the worlds major problems, (in terms of violence and genocide) religion is the primary culprit and does the minimum to address the issue.