Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

DMM: BOA (HMS)Keylock Screwgate 25 10 8 kN Steve's favourite belay screwgate.   $20.00
20% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 10 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 235
Author
OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic
egosan
31/08/2010
11:16:55 AM
On 31/08/2010 christos wrote:
>Isnít the term Ďtreat others like you would like to be treatedí from an
>authority and in itself a directive of how to act? A healthy authority
>is protective for the common good. I need some boundaries and so do my
>kids. I'm really cool with it.

The problem is that one man's "healthy authority" is other man's "fundy puritanical nightmare." We can't avoid these boundaries you like so much. The morays that constrain our behavior are created simply by putting a mess of us in one room. They are also codified by all kinds of institutions who might claim "moral authority." I distrust those institutions and the people they are made up of on principle.

The "treating others" bit is handy in that it is pretty universal, no authority can claim it is their's, and it is hard to argue against.

>If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house
>with the conscious design of doing me good, I shouldrun for my life.
-Henry David Thoreau
christos
31/08/2010
11:47:16 AM
The good thing is you donít have to trust them. And they donít have to trust you. So lets make the most of our predicament now that weíre here. Jesusí comment of treating others (mat 7:12) will certainly help get us there.

Iím not sure your Thoreau quote would go down to well with Pakistani flood victims.
egosan
31/08/2010
12:41:53 PM
On 31/08/2010 christos wrote:

>Jesusí comment of treating others (mat 7:12) will certainly help get us
>there.

The Egyptians and the Chinese where tossing around the golden rule a thousand years before Mary had a twinkle in her eye. It is a common thread in most religions and cultures.

>Iím not sure your Thoreau quote would go down to well with Pakistani flood
>victims.

Those same people may have agreed with Thoreau when the British came to give them the gift of Civilization. What about the nice fellas that were hanging out in Sydney harbor before some nice man gave them warm blankets? History is full of example of people doing "good" and even of a few examples of people really helping others. What does the heartbreaking plight of the victims of disaster have to do with a discussion of about the morality of gay marriage?

>The good thing is you donít have to trust them. And they donít have to
>trust you. So lets make the most of our predicament now that weíre here.

On this we agree. I will not ever know how The Golden Rule set itself in my head. Was it my parents? Was it my keen observation of the the institutions I was raised in? I do know it wasn't reading Mathew 7:12. Yet here I am living my life according to the Golden Rule. Probably going to hell too. But that won't be because I have only read the bible as a text in a history of Western philosophy class. It will be for my often inappropriate sense of humor. One too many inappropriate jokes and woop straight to hell.
christos
31/08/2010
1:46:26 PM
>Those same people may have agreed with Thoreau when the British came to
>give them the gift of Civilization. What about the nice fellas that were
>hanging out in Sydney harbor before some nice man gave them warm blankets?
> History is full of example of people doing "good" and even of a few examples
>of people really helping others.

Everyone benefits from the gift of civilisation Ė health, education, warm blankets etc. That it was and is abused is unfortunate indeed.

>What does the heartbreaking plight of
>the victims of disaster have to do with a discussion of about the morality
>of gay marriage?

You initiated the quote. Iím just pointing out that running away does little to make the most of our predicament of a positive existence together.
>
>>The good thing is you donít have to trust them. And they donít have to
>>trust you. So lets make the most of our predicament now that weíre here.
>
>On this we agree. I will not ever know how The Golden Rule set itself
>in my head. Was it my parents? Was it my keen observation of the the institutions
>I was raised in? I do know it wasn't reading Mathew 7:12. Yet here I am
>living my life according to the Golden Rule. Probably going to hell too.
> But that won't be because I have only read the bible as a text in a history
>of Western philosophy class. It will be for my often inappropriate sense
>of humor. One too many inappropriate jokes and woop straight to hell.
>
My understanding is that we all deserve hell because none of us, despite how good we think we are, can or will ever live up to the golden rule, or any of his rules. And thatís exactly why it was given - or at least why Jesus gave it - to show us our failing. So how can anyone avoid hell? Thatís why God came and died on the cross.

ajfclark
31/08/2010
1:51:41 PM
On 31/08/2010 egosan wrote:
>One too many inappropriate jokes and woop straight to hell.

Well I'm screwed then.
egosan
31/08/2010
2:16:47 PM
On 31/08/2010 christos wrote:

>You initiated the quote. Iím just pointing out that running away does
>little to make the most of our predicament of a positive existence together.

You and I must be reading different quotes written by different people quoted in different contexts.

>My understanding is that we all deserve hell because none of us, despite
>how good we think we are, can or will ever live up to the golden rule,
>or any of his rules. And thatís exactly why it was given - or at least
>why Jesus gave it - to show us our failing. So how can anyone avoid hell?
>Thatís why God came and died on the cross.

Grim. In my self-delight as I revel in my cynicism, I often forget that I am just one man. No match for the combined cynicism of an institution as venerable as the church. In the end I like people too much as a humanist to join you in worshiping Christ on a cross.

Of course, I do not think you view your belief as grim.

Now back on topic.

Granted just because monkeys do it is not sufficient moral justification for anything. Is there in your view any moral sanction preventing two gay people from having a party and calling themselves married, getting a tax break, being the next of kin under the law, and raising a nice boy or girl in this rough world?

rodw
31/08/2010
2:30:55 PM
On 31/08/2010 egosan wrote:
> getting a tax break, ....

Im no accountant but what tax breaks does a married person get over a de facto relationship? (not trying to start something, I honestly dont know.)

...I do know as a pensioner your worse off on the pension as a married couple vs 2 singles living together.
christos
31/08/2010
2:33:21 PM

>Grim. In my self-delight as I revel in my cynicism, I often forget that
>I am just one man. No match for the combined cynicism of an institution
>as venerable as the church. In the end I like people too much as a humanist
>to join you in worshiping Christ on a cross.
>
>Of course, I do not think you view your belief as grim.

I agree itís grim. But it neednít be. We're free to make a choice.

>Now back on topic.
>
>Granted just because monkeys do it is not sufficient moral justification
>for anything. Is there in your view any moral sanction preventing two
>gay people from having a party and calling themselves married, getting
>a tax break, being the next of kin under the law, and raising a nice boy
>or girl in this rough world?

I donít know. Iíll leave that to the elected party to grapple with.
egosan
31/08/2010
2:46:30 PM
On 31/08/2010 rodw wrote:
>On 31/08/2010 egosan wrote:
>> getting a tax break, ....
>
>Im no accountant but what tax breaks does a married person get over a
>de facto relationship? (not trying to start something, I honestly dont
>know.)
>
>...I do know as a pensioner your worse off on the pension as a married
>couple vs 2 singles living together.

I really don't know how it is legally structured here. In the States much of the kurfuffle surrounds the legal benefits of marriage. Not just tax breaks, but inheritance law, corporate employee benefits and other things.
widewetandslippery
31/08/2010
2:48:56 PM
If you ever need legal aid do not let them know if you are in a de facto relationship as it will be means tested as a couple.

Billie W
31/08/2010
7:07:40 PM
I think pensioner power would have one of the most exsperiance with this argument. I could not imagine trying to live out and keeping my head up in say the early eighties. I think even in the nineties I would have never seen discussions like this running this long. Well done to all times are changing

dave h.
31/08/2010
8:10:57 PM
On 29/08/2010 Wendy wrote:
>I appreciate your ability to be calm and polite! I realise Dave is trying
>as nicely as possible to explain his position and apologise for those who
>take he church's positions to extremes, and I'm glad he is able to separate
>from and criticise those positions,

Thanks for saying so Wendy :)


> but I'm still disturbed that he can
>say he cannot morally condone homosexuality. That's still a pretty big
>statement! ... It's still telling people that their sexuality is somehow wrong.

Yes it is a big statement. This is one of the reasons Christianity practised as the New Testament teaches it should be practised is offensive - there's a claim to absolute morality (IE not a consequentialist morality, which is a moral system in which the rightness of actions depends upon their consequences). Mind you, the brand of Christianity I subscribe to teaches that everyone is corrupt and falls short of the standard God expects of us. That said, I take your point, which is that sexuality is one of the cornerstones of an individual's identity, and so to be told your desires are wrong is at best confronting and at worst shattering.

I'm not sure "morally condone" exactly captures what I mean. Hopefully it'll become clear.


>...but there
>still hasn't been any reasoning about why homosexuality is morally uncondonable
>other than the bible says so. Why does the bible say so? ....

Ultimately I think this comes down to the Bible and you having a different understanding of morality. It seems like you are, to some extent, a consequentialist - you evaluate the morality of an action based on its consequences. Utilitarianism, alluded to by TonyB, is a sub-species of consequentialism. (I don't mean to imply any criticism of this position, I'm just saying that's where I think you're coming from based on your posts).

The point I want to make is that this is not how the Bible treats morality or ethics. To try and generalise massively (yet accurately and truthfully), "the good life", to the extent that it's taught by the Bible is to live your life with God as your ruler/first priority/king/you get the idea. This means that I should be trying to submit every aspect of my life to God, and to let His will be done in it (I suck at it, btw). Human rebellion against this ideal is sin (contrary to what some suggested on page 10, IE that sin is 'naughty stuff we do').

So to reason about "why the Bible says homosexuality is wrong" doesn't really make sense to me. If you are happy for me to rephrase the question as "Why is homosexual sex contrary to God's will?" then that makes more sense. (Apologies if this feels like mere semantics, it probably is.) If you're happy with this rephrasing of your question I'll take a shot at answering it.


Sarah suggested
>(offline) it was becasue sex is for reproduction and gay sex can't repoduce,
>but that would write off most sex and I can't imagine outside of some traditional
>Catholics, recreational sex, sex as bonding, sex as an expression of love
>etc is abandonned as morally uncondonable.

I don't agree with Sarah's view. The moral value of homosexual sex is not determined on a consequentialist basis. Similarly, I don't agree with evaluating the morality of sexual conduct by referring to natural law. The teaching of the Bible is the basis on which I try to make moral judgements. And Song of Songs / Song of Solomon makes it clear that sex is a gift from God, and that it's to be enjoyed without shame in marriage - IE just for fun, bonding, expression of love etc. My understanding of the Catholic teaching on sex is that it's based on the story of Onan, and I think their teaching stems from a failure to read the story properly - but I could be wrong on both of those points.



>That quote from Corintians listed a few things which i can't be bothered
>looking up now, but memory tells me that homsexuality and fornication were
>the only things on the list that were basically personal choices with no
>harm to others.

Here is 1 Corinthians 6. Could quibble over whether drunkenness is another choice which only affects the individual, but that's beside the point. I'd say that assessing morality on the basis of "harm to others" is consequentialism. Sin is not dependent on the consequences of actions, but is (almost definitionally) rejecting God's will or replacing God with something else.

It's also interesting to read 1 Corinthians 5. For those who don't read it, Paul talks about not associating with sexually immoral people. BUT, he then goes on to make it very clear that he's talking about sexually immoral CHRISTIANS. (This is done as a rebuke - to make sexually immoral Christians 'wake up to themselves' and turn back from their sin.) Paul is NOT saying that Christians are to segregate themselves from non-believers who might be considered sexually immoral. Christians are elsewhere commanded "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." There's more that could be said along these lines, but I think this starts to show that no matter how we Christians regard homosexuality morally, we are acting unbiblically if we fail to show love and kindness to homosexual people.


>It appears to me that many modern christians have relaxed
>their position of fornication and some have relaxed their position on homosexuality
>and surely this suggests that the word of the bible is not always final.

You are correct in that some denominations take a more relaxed view on extramarital sex and homosexuality. My conclusion (as a 'theologically conservative, socially progressive' Christian - feel free to take issue with the label and say I'm not progressive if you like) is the opposite: the contemporary practise of churches is weighed against the standard established for the church in the New Testament. Not that contemporary practice indicates that the standards in the Bible no longer apply.

Of course, if churches relax some standards set out for the New Testament church while strictly maintaining others, then their position is hardly consistent.



On 31/8/10 Egosan wrote:

>The Egyptians and the Chinese where tossing around the golden
>rule a thousand years before Mary had a twinkle in her eye. It is
>a common thread in most religions and cultures.

Fortunately Christianity does not stand or fall on whether Jesus' utterance of the rule was original or not.


>Grim. In my self-delight as I revel in my cynicism, I often forget
>that I am just one man. No match for the combined cynicism of
>an institution as venerable as the church. In the end I like people
> too much as a humanist to join you in worshiping Christ on a cross.

>Of course, I do not think you view your belief as grim.

I'm confused as to why you think it is grim. Could you elaborate?


>Is there in your view any moral sanction preventing two gay people
>from having a party and calling themselves married, getting a tax
> break, being the next of kin under the law, and raising a nice boy
> or girl in this rough world?

Well I don't think I'm called on to impose Christian morality on the world via legislation. So while I might personally regard it as sinful, I am not convinced that it is an appropriate Christian response to deny recognition to civil unions and all the corresponding rights re succession, tax, etc. Re adoption/IVF/AI - I'm still trying to think it through. If it was a choice between heterosexual parents who were going to be abusive and homosexual parents who were going to be loving I know who I'd choose.


>The "treating others" bit is handy in that it is pretty universal, no
>authority can claim it is their's, and it is hard to argue against.

I think you may be overstating how useful the golden rule is.

The golden rule doesn't help you make moral arguments when, for instance, you are confronted with a 'sociopath' (for want of a better word) - someone who rejects this idea of mutual respect for other people, and whose "morality" is "As long as I am being gratified in some way, it doesn't matter if I hurt or kill other people." Arguing the Golden Rule with this individual, it emerges that he does not accept it.

The rule is useful because it is prudent in the sense that it requires we extend the same respect/charity/etc to others that we would wish them to extend to us. It is useful so long as everyone is accepts that kind of reciprocal arrangement - I respect you, you respect me. But the rule (beyond being 'wise', 'objective', 'useful for a neutral definition of public morality') does not have any property which compels our sociopath to accept it as morally binding.

I cringe whenever religious people argue "atheists can't be moral." The better argument is that it's hard to construct a normative morality without God. Some have taken the view that it is impossible (I refer you to "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law" - Duke Law Journal 1979 by Arthur Allen Leff - there's a bit of info on Wikipedia too on Leff's page).


BTW - isn't your Thoreau quote just making the point that an individual is the best judge of what is good for herself/himself? The same point is made repeatedly by JS Mill in "On Liberty" (although Mill is criticised by some for assuming too much of people).


On 31/8/10, TheGoodDr wrote:
>So, if authority figures in these religious controlling
> bodies engage in homosexual acts, molest children, steal,
>sanction murders etc then it must be OK!?!

Don't be absurd. No-one here has suggested that any of this conduct is excused, justified, or is acceptable on the basis that the responsible person holds church office. The fact that the person responsible holds church office makes their conduct worse in my view.
Blah
31/08/2010
8:57:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL5WVecNdhk

Nuff said, the man is a genius.
egosan
31/08/2010
10:33:42 PM
On 31/08/2010 dave h. wrote:

>Fortunately Christianity does not stand or fall on whether Jesus' utterance
>of the rule was original or not.

Wouldn't suggest that it did. Might just be running the flag up on how I see the Bible.

>>Grim. In my self-delight as I revel in my cynicism, I often forget
>>that I am just one man. No match for the combined cynicism of
>>an institution as venerable as the church. In the end I like people
>> too much as a humanist to join you in worshiping Christ on a cross.

>I'm confused as to why you think it is grim. Could you elaborate?

Not the nice part of the story where the earnest man sacrificed himself for all of us. The part of the story where people in christo's words, deserve hell.

>My understanding is that we all deserve hell because none of us, despite
>how good we think we are, can or will ever live up to the golden rule,
>or any of his rules.

This I can see as making perfect sense to someone who believes in the Supreme Authority of God.

I am wondering if you as a believer can put yourself in to my shoes and look at this as an atheist, as a humanist. Grim.

>The golden rule doesn't help you make moral arguments when, for instance,
>you are confronted with a 'sociopath' (for want of a better word) - someone
>who rejects this idea of mutual respect for other people, and whose "morality"
>is "As long as I am being gratified in some way, it doesn't matter if I
>hurt or kill other people." Arguing the Golden Rule with this individual,
>it emerges that he does not accept it.

>The rule is useful because it is prudent in the sense that it requires
>we extend the same respect/charity/etc to others that we would wish them
>to extend to us. It is useful so long as everyone is accepts that kind
>of reciprocal arrangement - I respect you, you respect me. But the rule
>(beyond being 'wise', 'objective', 'useful for a neutral definition of
>public morality') does not have any property which compels our sociopath
>to accept it as morally binding.

The same sociopath doesn't care about the Word either. If he says he does, then he falls into the category of people who kill and rape in the name of God. I believe you have a special place in Hell for them.
>The fact that the person responsible holds church office makes their conduct worse in my view.

The Golden Rule is a simple and universal idea that many people could work out for themselves. Many don't. Meh. For those there is an eye for an eye. Same reciprocity.

>I cringe whenever religious people argue "atheists can't be moral." The
>better argument is that it's hard to construct a normative morality without
>God. Some have taken the view that it is impossible (I refer you to "Unspeakable
>Ethics, Unnatural Law" - Duke Law Journal 1979 by Arthur Allen Leff - there's
>a bit of info on Wikipedia too on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Allen_Leff"

The "Napalming Babies" guy. Yea he is probably right. There is no rigorous proof to be made. No way to deduce moral action.

The full quote:
"I will put the current situation as sharply as possible: there is today no way of Ďprovingí that napalming babies is bad except by asserting it (in a louder and louder voice), or by defining it as so, early in oneís game, and then later slipping it through, in a whisper, as a conclusion."

In this discussion it cuts both ways. This is the power of Old Testament morality. Defined early.

I will suggest that the way off the horns of this one is to reject the need for authority in morality. Whether that authority be in the Word or some empiricist's model. I realize that all those sociologists out there are not "real" scientists, however; they did give us the third horn for this dilemma. Folkways and mores evolving naturally in cultures. Mores like the Golden Rule. Institutions codifying them. Most of us agreeing implicitly to play nicely with this set of customs. Not as neat and tidy as obeying the Word. I like it this way much dirtier, much more interesting and much more human.

>BTW - isn't your Thoreau quote just making the point that an individual
>is the best judge of what is good for herself/himself? The same point is
>made repeatedly by JS Mill in "On Liberty" (although Mill is criticised
>by some for assuming too much of people).

Keeping in mind that I grew up in the rural American West, read Heinlein as a teenager and was taught civics by the most constitutionally conservative of history teachers it should not come as a surprise that I have great sympathy for John Stuart Mill's views on government. Coming full circle now. Government should be secular. Adding any adjectives to the phrase "union between two people" isn't.


Sarah Gara
31/08/2010
11:25:18 PM
dave h wrote:
that wendy wrote:
Sarah suggested
>(offline) it was becasue sex is for reproduction and gay sex can't repoduce,
>but that would write off most sex and I can't imagine outside of some traditional
>Catholics, recreational sex, sex as bonding, sex as an expression of love
>etc is abandonned as morally uncondonable.

>I don't agree with Sarah's view. The moral value of homosexual sex is not determined on a >consequentialist basis. Similarly, I don't agree with evaluating the morality of sexual >conduct by referring to natural law. The teaching of the Bible is the basis on which I try to >make moral judgements. And Song of Songs / Song of Solomon makes it clear that sex is >a gift from God, and that it's to be enjoyed without shame in marriage - IE just for fun, >bonding, expression of love etc. My understanding of the Catholic teaching on sex is that >it's based on the story of Onan, and I think their teaching stems from a failure to read the >story properly - but I could be wrong on both of those points.

Can I first clarify. that that was not my view it was mearly a suggestion that may be why Xians can't get around the gay issue.

from your statement above if Gay people were allowed to marry than you wouldn't have an issue with them having sex. ??? I somehow don't think that is what you mean. If so then why can't they get married and the world would be ok,

Dave H - can I ask what you do? or what your actual branch of xianity you believe is. (Don't feel pressurised to answer -or PM me just currious) As you certainly know your stuff -more so I'd say than a Jehovah's witness (and I don't mean disrespect there-Just I always find I can't argue with them as I don't know the subject matter to the same level - however if I did I reckon eventually it would all come down to faith.)

- your arguments are thoughtful and to keep up with you I'd either have to do some reading or some serious remembering. Also you are very patient to keep this going - I don't have the time or the inclination - possibly if we ever meet I'd be interested for a short time to discuss. particularly I'd be interested to hear about your view on why there is still evil in the world if there is a God? -those arguments always intrigued me.


Thanks to wendy for responding to the annals issue -I wonder about the civialiation in 2000 years finding the hary potter books or similar and thinking that we were all wizards...

In terms of marriage in law and what egosan said about tax break in the USA etc -same in UK

Right bed time but first pedant time is it not i.e. not IE ?? You've had me wondering and annoying me every time you write it. you do mean i.e. or IE as in "that is" x
egosan
31/08/2010
11:48:01 PM
On 31/08/2010 Sarah Gara wrote:
>Right bed time but first pedant time is it not i.e. not IE ?? You've
>had me wondering and annoying me every time you write it. you do mean
> i.e. or IE as in "that is" x

Come on, Sarah. You rag on the guy for skipping two characters all the while using SMS speak to shorten Christians to Xians?

Pot. Kettle.

Sarah Gara
31/08/2010
11:53:00 PM
I'm not ragging I'm asking for self improvement purposes. and I was using Xian well before I had a mob phone x

phillipivan
1/09/2010
12:08:12 AM
On 31/08/2010 egosan wrote:
>blah blah blah... blah blah blah, blah blah

whilst he should have been cooking dinner.

Goodnight.
TonyB
1/09/2010
9:02:52 AM
On 31/08/2010 christos wrote:
>Many animals are also known to rape, murder, steal, and cannibalize their
>own kind. If it is okay for humans to engage in homosexual acts because
>some animals do it, then by that same reasoning, it should be okay for
>humans to rape, murder, steal, and cannibalize. The question becomes, what
>authority do we choose to be a guide for our morality?

One must be careful comparing human and animal behaviour when considering morality. For example sexual dimorphism (difference in size, shape) in animals is an indicator of the degree of promiscuity of the male, whereas relative testes weight in the male is an indicator of the degree of promiscuity of the female of the species ... with human females around the centre of the range for apes. It's not just animal behaviour. Man has by far the most highly a developed frontal cortext, from whence our moral judgements derive.


Hendo
1/09/2010
11:57:14 AM
On 31/08/2010 dave h. wrote:

>On 31/8/10 Egosan wrote:

>>The "treating others" bit is handy in that it is pretty universal, no
>
>>authority can claim it is their's, and it is hard to argue against.
>
>I think you may be overstating how useful the golden rule is.

I also think such things are overstated and easily argued against. Trying to live according to such golden rules leads to tying yourself into a knot and an unworkable position. Ok, it's a nice thought and you might take it as a rule of thumb, but you are kidding yourself if you actually think you live by it. You might think that if you see things as isolated events, but to me everything is linked together in such a complex way that it makes all this stuff garbage. There are so many instances where it impossible to apply it universally or it just makes sense not to use it, that it makes it is hard to pay too much attention to it. There are so many things that cannot be made good for all.

Having said that, it is seductive, desirable and necessary to oversimplify much of life and the world. The alternative is to live in a state of endless uncertainty. The price is to live with the pains of contradictions.

 Page 10 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 235
There are 235 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints