Mnemonic pretty much just school Longy and Quantum.

I guess now they know how the pastor feels.

And just to ice it off, you know that politifact all conservatives love to quote when it says Labors lying

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/kevin-rudd/doe...

Verge wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:17am:


Except for the fact that mnemonic is talking to himself. Several times I have replied to him explaining that I'm not talking about homosexual marriage, yet every posts he writes to me comes back to "that's because you disagree about homosexuals" or something like that. How many times do I have to say I am not taking about something before people stop quoting posts that have nothing to do with their reply.

Don't be too taken in by his long posts. N T Wright and his new perspective work on Paul doesn't focus on oral tradition of Jews. In fact most of mnemonics posts come back to Jewish oral tradition which has little to do with anything in the New Testament times. 

Mnemonic wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:



One Saturday morning in Canberra, some weeks ago, a former political staffer asked to have a coffee. This bloke, who shall remain nameless, is one of those rare finds among political staffers who combines intelligence, integrity, a prodigious work ethic, and, importantly, an unfailing sense of humour in the various positions he has worked in around Parliament House. Necessary in contemporary politics, otherwise you simply go stark raving mad.

And like myself, this bloke is a bit of a god-botherer (aka Christian). Although a little unlike myself, he is more of a capital G God-Botherer. In fact, he's long been active in his local Pentecostal Church.

Over coffee, and after the mandatory depressing discussion about the state of politics, he tells me that he's gay, he's told his pastor (who he says is pretty cool with it all, although the same cannot be said of the rest of the church leadership team) and he then tells me that one day he'd like to get married to another bloke. And by the way, "had my views on same sex marriage changed?”.

As most folks know, in our family I have long been regarded as the last of the Mohicans on this one. The kids have long thought I'm an unreconstructed dinosaur for not supporting marriage equality legislation. And Thérèse just looks at me with that slightly weary, slightly exasperated, slightly pitying "there, there darling, you'll get over it one day" sort of look, that wives can be particularly good at giving to their antediluvian husbands.

Very few things surprise me in life and politics anymore. But I must confess the Pentecostal staffer guy threw me a bit. And so the re-think began, once again taking me back to first principles. First, given that I profess to be a Christian (albeit not a particularly virtuous one) and given that this belief informs a number of my basic views; and given that I am given a conscience vote on these issues; then what constitutes for me a credible Christian view of same sex marriage, and is such a view amenable to change? Second, irrespective of what that view might be, do such views have a proper place in a secular state, in a secular definition of marriage, or in a country where the census tells us that while 70% of the population profess a religious belief, some 70% of marriages no longer occur in religious institutions, Christian or otherwise.

The Christian tradition since Aquinas is one based on a combination of faith informed by reason. If the latter is diminished, then we are reduced to varying forms of theocratic terrorisms where the stoning of heretics and the burning of witches would still be commonplace. In fact if we were today to adhere to a literalist rendition of the Christian scriptures, the 21st century would be a deeply troubling place, and the list of legitimized social oppressions would be disturbingly long.



http://www.kevinrudd.org.au/marriage_equality

John Smith wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:25pm:


wow news flash... as if we didn't already know that.  this is the argument being used that Jeuss supposedly supported gay marriage.  you just demonstrated why He DIDNT.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 12:15am:


you answered not a single objection raised but merely return to your anti-religion rant.  why could you not answer the question?

Mnemonic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 2:53am:


of course it is a BEHAVIOUR!  it is also an orientation but it remains a BEHAVIOUR.