Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Austrialpin: OVALO Straight Gate. Strength: 25 10 8kN (Heavy Duty) N/B Perfect for Racking wired Nuts? IMO   $12.00
45% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 8 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
simey
27/08/2010
2:22:03 AM
Sorry I haven't been around to contribute. I went surfing instead.

On 26/08/2010 Nooj wrote:
>Because Christians claim that God is good, just and unchanging - but then you hear about God ordering the Israelites to massacre this bunch of people and that bunch of people, and you start to realise what a gigantic wanker he is.

God has made some pretty weird decisions. For example, why would God only send one son to a tiny part of the globe to spread his message? What about the rest of the world? Why weren't Africa, Australia, Asia, North America, Europe worthy of a visit? I'm sure God is capable of producing more than one son. Why didn't God send down a whole family of sons and daughters to various parts of the globe to spread the word?

I would have far less trouble in believing the Aboriginal Dreamtime than God's crazy approach to things.
Wendy
27/08/2010
7:39:44 AM
On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>In reply to Sarah Gara
>
>Is it rational to believe in the miraculous?
>The answer depends on your assumptions. If the universe is a godless one
>devoid of anything which could be described as supernatural, of course
>belief in the miraculous is irrational.
>
>If you believe in the God of the Bible (IE one who created the universe
>by speaking it into being), then it requires no great leap to suppose that
>such a God could intervene if He saw fit to.
>

I think the irrational bit occurs in the first step. How can you say something is rational based on faith? Almost by definition, faith is not rational. If it was possible to rationalise it, you wouldn't need faith.

One of the ongoing problems with history is who it was written by, when, with reference to what etc etc. History has been rewritten and reinterpreted many times. The bible for that matter, has been retranslated and reinterpreted many times. People of power tend to control these things and thus we get a subjective picture of what happen from a certain invested viewpoint. A few patchy references or the absense of references can be taken to mean different things.

I did actually read through the link, and one of the things he uses substantially is the discovery of two pools that are mentioned "in passing" in the bible. This is a pretty distant link to saying this is evidence of the historical accuracy of the bible. I can make up stories in real locations. I can set those stories in a different time period when I know those locations still to be laid out in a similar manner. The article isn't really saying, look, here is heaps of evidence, it's saying, well, there's bugger all evidence but I'm going to try and make sense of that. In the comments section at the end is where the author really presents that his belief in the evidence comes from faith - he refers to the evidence in the New Testament as the main and detailed source of evidence and the existance of god being "obvious" - somehow more obvious than democracy, evolution and liberalism "Second, Godís existence is obvious and has been to almost all people throughout history and today. Itís not quite 2+2=4 but itís certainly more obvious than some of the other big ideas we hold to be true and assent-demanding Ė democracy, evolution, liberalism" and he also claims this view of the world for most people throughout history and throughout the world today - just possibly a little presumptuous.
TonyB
Online Now
27/08/2010
8:26:28 AM
On the original topic ... marriage ... 5 and a half years experience and for me it's absolutely fantastic.

On the bible. A couple of thoughts. The bible does not say that Jesus died on the cross. It was Friday night and the public didn't like guys hanging around on crosses on the Sabbath ... so they used to go around with a baseball bat (yeh, the bible doesn't mention baseball I know) and break the legs of the poor unfortunates who were still alive. This would put the weight of the crucified on their arms and they would soon suffocate, then they would be taken down. The nails by the way, went through the wrists, not the palms, for all those bleeding palmers.

Anyway, imagine yourself as Jesus, with the boys approaching. What do you do, play dead ? The boys get to Jesus and can't decide whether he's dead or alive ... I mean, wouldn't you be faking at this point ? So they stick a spear through his side to see if he bleeds. If he bleeds it means he's alive and they break his legs. You know the story, he bleeds and they cut him down !!! No wonder he "resurrected" !

The OT has some interesting stuff too. Do you know why god sent "the great" flood ? It was to get rid of the Nephilites. These guys were 450ft tall giants who were the progeny of angels who came down from heaven to score with the good looking babes on earth. Anyway, God failed because the Nephilites' kids pop up later in the bible.

Not the stuff they read to you from the bible in kindergarten and the stuff that stretches belief a tad.

The message of course, is don't just blindly accept the crap you are fed by people in control or people wanting control. Question everything. Look beneath what is commonly accepted.

The good Dr
27/08/2010
9:13:09 AM
>dave.h wrote
>
>Well the fact that there's better historical evidence for the person of Jesus Christ than there >is for Julius Caesar might've helped persuade the more reasonable ones.
>
>Anyway as it turns out there is extrabiblical material which alludes to a Jesus called the >Christ, his followers, and his crucifixion. Some extra-biblical sources are:
>
>-Tacitus, who writes in Annals, book 15: "...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most >exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the >populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during >the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most >mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in >Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."
>

Tacitus wrote something that may have mentioned Christ only once (and this is based on interpretation and interpolation). He wrote large amounts about Ceasar (named directly) in a number of volumes ie the Histories, the Agricola and the Germania.

Secondly, dismissing an author as amateur is disingenuous. The rebuttal is actually quite flawed in itself in that it does not offer further evidence only excuses as to why we should accept the flimsiest of 'evidence'. To throw it in perspective, what are your thoughts on Bhudda, given that there are extensive writings based on his life and the various teachings including details of his childhood etc (and why is there almost nothing about Christ's life from childhood till about the age of 30 given the considerable details about his birth)

Eduardo Slabofvic
27/08/2010
9:52:16 AM
On 26/08/2010 Sarah Gara wrote:
>and turned water into wine.

I've turned water into beer. Therefor I must also be a God.

Further proof is that when ever I show up at a party or some other gatherring, someone always say "Oh God".

As I am now clearly a religious order, can I be exempt from income tax?

ajfclark
27/08/2010
12:40:05 PM
All this talk of religion, the bible, gay marriage and such reminded me of the work of a few comedians. Since it's Friday and the funnies thread isn't doing much today, here's a few clips:

Bill Hicks ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=936R3asa1cU )
Lewis Black ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyQAenBWSM , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFnUJ3QosVU )
George Carlin ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o )
pensionerpower
27/08/2010
12:44:41 PM
On 26/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:

>I'm still unconvinced that this topic is making Chockstone a better place for all...

My take as a gay sportsperson is this.

I decided long ago, that I wouldn't tolerate homophobic language in my presence. I've always challenged it, sometimes at significant physical risk to myself. That's the only reason I posted to the previous thread. I shouldn't have posted to this thread at all.

An encouraging thing about the previous thread, was the number of presumeably straight people who stood up to the mark and challenged the OP's prejudice. Many straight people won't do that, because (a) it doesn't affect them personally so they just don't care, or (b) they're worried that their friends will think they're gay themselves.

To that extent, the previous thread *was* useful, and *does* benfit this forum, because it shows that there *are* straight climbers who challenge ignorant prejudice. I say well done to all concerned.

I will stfu now.
simey
27/08/2010
1:38:42 PM
Dave Allen was always good for a laugh when it came to religion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0&feature=related
simey
27/08/2010
1:54:12 PM
On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Quite frankly, people have been trying to tear down Christianity for 2000 years. Demonstrating some sort of internal inconsistency or contradiction would be a pretty good way to do it, and so far no-one has succeeded. But don't let that deter you - so, what exactly is contradictory about Christianity?

The contradictory nature of Christianity is gold for comedians. That George Carlin clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o is a great example.


ajfclark
27/08/2010
1:55:08 PM
Thanks Simey. Dave Allen is gold. His mention of Gideons reminded me of another Hicks bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9hLi3Q4ttE
One Day Hero
27/08/2010
3:27:40 PM
On 25/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Well the fact that there's better historical evidence for the person of
>Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar might've helped persuade the
>more reasonable ones.
>
>But why let facts intrude upon some good uninformed slagging...

History is quite often full of shit. There are massive gaps and the historians make up best guesses to fill them. All history should be taken with a grain of salt, all historical figures should be assumed to be mostly ficticious.

Just look at recent history.....I think Steve Irwin will be remembered fondly, but while he was alive most australians thought he was a dick.

Mary Mackillop.....fuch, what a farce! Jesus was as much son of god as Mary was a saint. You can't prove or disprove any of this shit through historical argument, its too loose. If god exists he should get his arse down here, part some seas, turn water into wine, ho's into salt, other miraculous stuff. Otherwise, there is no proof, there is no point in arguing, his followers should keep their shit to themselves and let gay folk be married!
rod
27/08/2010
6:59:06 PM
On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Rod - you are most welcome... hope you got up your climb?

Yes, quite successfully thanks Dave. The nuts and link cam were the most useful but the crux pitch did necessitate the 0.4 so i'm glad it came along. Will post in the Euro thread.
devlin66
27/08/2010
11:50:18 PM
On 27/08/2010 simey wrote:
>God has made some pretty weird decisions. For example, why would God only
>send one son to a tiny part of the globe to spread his message? What about
>the rest of the world? Why weren't Africa, Australia, Asia, North America,
>Europe worthy of a visit?

Simey, You're on drugs! We all know that North America was only discovered some 400 years ago and Australia 200 years. God wouldn't have known it was there at the time.


dave h.
28/08/2010
12:10:48 AM
Is there any reason a 7 page response I wrote wouldn't be accepted by the Forum...?

Edit: apparently not...


pensionerpower,

thanks for your contributions to this thread. I hope you keep challenging homophobia wherever you find it. For my part I apologise for the way some groups within the 'Christian' church place a disproportionate emphasis on homosexuality and act in other ways which encourage people to hate gays (I'm sure we can all think of plenty of examples). The behaviour of a large proportion of Christians in this regard is frequently not Christ-like. I hope it's apparent from my contributions to these threads that, while I may not be able to morally condone homosexuality, I don't harbour any ill-will or animosity to people who are gay. And if that hasn't been apparent then I apologise for that too.

Also I'd like it if you kept contributing - my impression is that Neil is uncomfortable because he thinks religion is private and shouldn't be the subject of public discussion. Sorry if my perception is off-piste there neil.



Wendy -

my point was not that the existence of God can be assumed, but that it's a separate question. And quite frankly one that deserves more attention than I can give it here, with Simey throwing half-baked accusations around.

On the question of the bible being rewritten - with respect I think you're being a little disingenuous. It's not as though we have source documents in Koine Greek, which were then translated into Bulgarian, then German, then French, and then from those French documents we derive an English translation. For instance, the English Standard Version, a recent and well regarded translation, is based on the Masoretic text and the Novum Testamentum Graece - I particularly recommend the text at the heading "Accuracy of the New Testament" on the subject of consistency of documentation. Consistency of documentation is important because it is evidence that individuals reproducing manuscripts have not been making their own changes. The point I'm trying to make is that, as I understand it, modern translations are based on collations of the source documents (IE fragment A, B, C, D, E all overlap and, together are the complete gospel of John, for instance).

Yes, the author did focus on the two pools a fair bit. No, that does not prove that everything documented in the Gospels is accurate. The reason I quoted that article was to respond directly to the Good Dr's link.

The guy on the Good Dr's page said:

"Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts."


The author on my page notes, in response to similar remarks made by one Chris Gaffney:

"The statement is misleading on a number of levels. By Ďcontemporary referencesí Gaffney means documents written during Jesusí public ministry (AD 28-30). The assumption here is that only evidence written on the spot should count as real evidence. This would pretty much debunk the entire historiographical enterprise in one fell swoop. If contemporaneous record were the test of historicity, we would have to dismiss the existence of most of the people of the ancient world, including most kings, senators and generals, whom we generally only know about through accounts written after the fact."


That was the point I wished to make. I think it's inconsistent for people who question the existence of Jesus to accept the rest of ancient history at face value. If you want to deny the historicity of Jesus, then at least be consistent and get rid of any other historical figure who is attested to by less evidence. At least One Day Hero is consistent. Yes, there's only so much that can be inferred from those two bath-houses. That said that article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of corroborating archaeological evidence.



TonyB -

glad to hear you've had a good 5 years, I hope the next 50 get better :)


Totally agree with your comments about nails through wrists not palms, and legs being broken.

Have to take issue with you about Jesus not dying - first off, the guys who stabbed him were Roman soldiers. Pretty sure everyone agrees Roman Legionnaires knew how to stab a guy - and let's face it, if you're a Roman footsoldier tasked with executing people, and you don't do your job, you're probably going to get in trouble for it. And then let's not forget that he's been flogged (Matt 27:26) and beaten (Matt 27:30) by the Romans several times prior to this. Bearing in mind what we know about Roman floggings (scourges with multiple tails and metal fragments), Jesus is already hurting quite a bit by the time he's on the cross. Then there's the reference in John's gospel to blood and water flowing out of Jesus' body once he's stabbed, which is at least suggestive of pericardial effusion. Overall I have little difficulty in believing that Jesus was dead as a doornail when He was taken off the cross.

On the OT. I think you're overstating what Genesis 6 says about the Nephilim. Gen 6:2 says "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and married any of them they chose." Gen 6:4 says "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Nowhere does it say they're 450 feet tall (although Noah's ark is mentioned as being 450 feet long, if that's a possible source of confusion...). Furthermore the reason for the flood is given in Genesis 6:5 - "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of his heart was only evil all the time."

Every inclination only evil all the time - a pretty dire state of affairs.


The Good Dr -
your person is an amateur. Apologies for calling a spade a spade. Despite looking on the wider web, and on the NoBeliefs website, I haven't been able to find any information about Mr Walker and whether or not he has a qualification relevant to the discussion. This is not to suggest that only those with degrees in the field can have relevant insights, but merely that he advances a radical thesis, which if accepted would result in us losing a lot of ancient history.

My page was written by someone with a PhD in ancient history and who is affiliated with Macquarie University's department of ancient history. Therefore I think he is more qualified to comment on what is an appropriate methodology for historical study.

Glancing over what wikipedia says about the evidence for Bhudda, IE that it was not written down until 300-400 years after his death, I think I'm justified in concluding that the evidence for Jesus is better, given that the gospels were written within a century of his death (at the latest).

Why is there no evidence of Jesus from after his birth until he was 30? Well for a start you're wrong, because there's a vignette in Luke 2 which details a family trip to Jerusalem for the passover. Well, let's consider this:
- In the ancient world, your writing materials are expensive and limited.
- You want to make multiple copies so each community of believers can have their own copy.
- You have more material than you can realistically put down (the Gospels record Jesus public ministry and say it was 3 years - clearly each of the Gospels are already omitting parts of that 3 year ministry, otherwise each of them would be substantially longer).
- Therefore you do not record everything that happened. You have to make choices.
- You therefore select the things which you consider to be most important.

Given that this is the case, I think it's hardly surprising that the authors of the Gospels didn't feel it was that important to focus on Jesus' life as a child. His birth is significant because He is the Son of God and in his birth prophecy is fulfilled, but his childhood and early adulthood prior to his public ministry are not that theologically important.

Does that make sense?


One Day Hero -

good to see you're making your usual moderate contributions. Feel free to erase all of ancient history if you like.
I agree with you that the whole Mary MacKillop thing is dubious at best.


Simey -

Re: why did God only reveal himself to this small tribe in the Middle East. That's a fair question. In the Old Testament the entire point of Israel as a nation was that they would live in way that was different to all the other nations around them, and that other people would look at them and see God. Israel was God's "city on the hill", if you will. (Gen 12:3, 1 Kings 8:41-43 support this proposition, as does one reading of the book of Jonah). Despite Israel's unfaithfulness to God, for a time this occurred (cf 1 Kings 10:1-9).

Why did God send one Son to the Jews? Because He promised them a Messiah and a new covenant of salvation and grace. He then sent the Jews to share that message with the rest of the world. I suspect your next move is to ask what happens to all those people who die without being told about Jesus - IE the tribes of Outer Wajikistan before Christian missionaries get there.

In short, I don't know. There are Christian apologists who may be able to give you a more satisfactory answer. The New Testament offers hints (maybe like Romans 3:25), but nothing certain - and you know what, that's what we'd expect. Because the New Testament isn't written as a textbook of systematic theology. It's historical accounts (IE that is the genre of the Gospels and the book of Acts) and letters to various churches. It's *applied* theology - IE how do you deal with issue X, Y, or Z in a Christian fashion.
The question "do the Goths who die before the Gospel reaches them go to hell?" had no practical relevance whatsoever to the early church and therefore it's unsurprising that the New Testament fails to address it in an explicit way.


Why didn't he send multiple sons/daughters to other people groups? One pragmatic answer is that this would lead to confusion when these people groups finally came into contact with each other. Atheists love to point to the number of Christian denominations which exist and ridicule us (to some extent it's justified) for not being able to get our theology straight. I can't imagine that having more historical Jesus-like figures would help with that. My theological answer is two-fold: first, God judges the heart of people. If anyone is qualified to judge people, it's an omniscient God. Second, God is capable of revealing himself to people in ways other than through the person of Jesus.

Re: the Aboriginal dreamtime. I haven't revisited those stories since school, so perhaps I am ignorant. However my recollection is that they would be a lot harder to reconcile with modern scientific knowledge of cosmology than the Christian account in Genesis (if read metaphorically - which I believe is how it should be read).


I'm listening to your George Carlin clip. Sigh... So he says religion (or Christianity) is BS a number of times. Ah repetition, that most devastatingly persuasive weapon in the philosopher's arsenal...

1) I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God (IE one who looks like an old man with a beard). Nor is such a God described in the Bible. Biblical images of God on a throne are just that - images used to convey the idea of God's majesty to our pathetic little human minds.

2) 'God loves people, but He'll send them to hell' (whatever that may be). Yes. God is both loving and just. His justice requires him to punish wrongdoing. Would you rather that God refrain from judging paedophiles, terrorists, mass murderers? God is willing to forgive all who turn to Him in repentance, but He will judge all of us.

3) George Carlin is correct when he says "something is f**ked up" in the world. The Bible teaches us that the world is screwed up (for instance Romans 8:22). Read David Bentley Hart on Theodicy and Tsunamis if you would like a response to what philosophers refer to as "the problem of suffering" (IE how can an all-powerful, loving God allow terrible natural disasters to befall innocent people).

4) Prayer and "the divine plan." In a way it's a fair point, as Carlin *almost* says that people should pray in accordance with God's will (which I agree with). He's right to criticise Christians who use God as a divine Santa Claus.

5) "If there is a God, may He strike this audience dead" and so on. Hilarious. What does it actually prove? Not much. God does not respond to human manipulation in that way.

6) The church and money. Fair call - some churches do financially exploit their members in various ways and preach rubbish. Again it proves nothing, except that some churches are unbiblical and imperfect.

The point is, Carlin criticises Christians. That's his prerogative. What he fails to do is to advance a case for why *Christianity* is contradictory. If you would like to, be my guest. But if you can't produce something better than the ravings of an American stand-up comic then I'm going to say "Ni" to you. Repeatedly.
Wendy
28/08/2010
8:18:20 AM
On 28/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Is there any reason a 7 page response I wrote wouldn't be accepted by the
>Forum...?
>

The server is revolting against the continutation of the topic. It will be self locking soon.

>Edit: apparently not...
>
>
I'm amazed you got all that on one post! Normally there's a size limit and you have to split them up. The server may revolt against me letting you in on how to get around it and lock me out next.

I may not believe in God or marriage, but I do believe in sleep. It's a wonderful thing. With all these posts in the wee hours of the morning I'm beginning to think people are loosing sleep over this thread. Or maybe it's having a soporforic affect for insomniacs.
TonyB
Online Now
28/08/2010
9:00:28 AM
On 28/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>glad to hear you've had a good 5 years, I hope the next 50 get better :)
Thank you. 50 years would put me at 112 ... as long as it lasts another 30 and as long as I can keep climbing for the next 20 I'll be happy.

>Have to take issue with you about Jesus not dying - first off, the guys
>who stabbed him were Roman soldiers. Pretty sure everyone agrees Roman
>Legionnaires knew how to stab a guy - and let's face it, if you're a Roman
>footsoldier tasked with executing people, and you don't do your job, you're
>probably going to get in trouble for it. And then let's not forget that
>he's been flogged (Matt 27:26) and beaten (Matt 27:30) by the Romans several
>times prior to this. Bearing in mind what we know about Roman floggings
>(scourges with multiple tails and metal fragments), Jesus is already hurting
>quite a bit by the time he's on the cross.

I assume you are saying he was so stuffed he must have died ? Have you read the book (not the movie) The Killing Fields ? In the book, the doctor was starving and near death when he was crucified. Three days on the cross with a fire burning beneath him ... and he survived !


>Then there's the reference in
>John's gospel to blood and water flowing out of Jesus' body once he's stabbed,
>which is at least suggestive of pericardial effusion. Overall I have little
>difficulty in believing that Jesus was dead as a doornail when He was taken
>off the cross.

Why did the soldiers stab him ? One reason ... to see if he was faking. Wouldn't you be faking if you were up there ? He bled, indicating he was faking. "There flowed forth blood ..." He was alive when they cut him down.


>On the OT. I think you're overstating what Genesis 6 says about the Nephilim.

It very much depends on which version of the bible you read. Successive versions, starting in about 400AD modified the text to make it fit with the church's needs. eg 2nd : "Though shalt not make to thine self any graven image, nor of the likeness of anything ..." ... which includes crosses, statues of women and babies, etc etc

>Nowhere does it say they're 450 feet tall (although Noah's ark is mentioned
>as being 450 feet long,

Correct the bible doesn't mention 450ft tall but other ancient documents do. The bible does take about lots of 1000 year old men though. Perhaps this is more credible than being 450ft tall ?

Read more closely and with earlier versions of the bible. Look for the progeny of the Nephalim after the flood.

" ... We are told that these Nephilim became giants because they were the product of sexual relations between humans and what are called the sons of God, thus accounting for their great size. With the blood line of the Nephilim wiped out in the flood, one wonders why suddenly the giants reappear in the Bible. The Nephilim reappear again in the book of Numbers, and once again this disparate tradition is unique to this book. (It would appear that the books of Samuel are following the Numbers tradition in telling the tale of Goliath, the giant.) ... "
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/giant.html
Blah
28/08/2010
5:42:31 PM
On 24/08/2010 GravityHound wrote:
>I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between same sex partners marrying
>and hetro- couples divorcing (remember the death till you part bit in
>front of God himself). They both impinge on the supposedly holy institution
>of marriage. So if hetro's can divorce, two men or women in love can marry.
>or is it only the right of hetro couples to divorce and disgrace the wonderful
>institution of marriage?


I laughed so hard at this! Thanks for brightening my day!




pensionerpower
28/08/2010
7:18:16 PM
Hi dave

On 28/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>pensionerpower,
>thanks for your contributions to this thread. I hope you keep challenging
>homophobia wherever you find it. For my part I apologise for the way some
>groups within the 'Christian' church place a disproportionate emphasis
>on homosexuality and act in other ways which encourage people to hate gays
>(I'm sure we can all think of plenty of examples). The behaviour of a large
>proportion of Christians in this regard is frequently not Christ-like.
>I hope it's apparent from my contributions to these threads that, while
>I may not be able to morally condone homosexuality, I don't harbour any
>ill-will or animosity to people who are gay. And if that hasn't been apparent
>then I apologise for that too.

I appreciate your honest and candid response.

>Also I'd like it if you kept contributing

I probably won't. The whole thing started with an anti-gay slur. But no-one (apart from you) has responded directly to the only gay climber - ie. me - who has bothered to respond!

I don't really understand that. But at least the whole issue has had a good airing.

Cheers,
PP
martym
29/08/2010
8:27:47 AM
On 24/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>The current Australian legal definition of marriage as being between a
>man and woman is actually a new thing. It was put in place by the Howard
>government in the last 10 years.

So does anyone think Katter, Windsor or Oakshott are going to press this issue on top of their 7 covenants? Cause otherwise, neither Julia nor Crazy T are going to take this issue to referendum!
Prepare for another 3 years of "will you civil union me"
Wendy
29/08/2010
8:31:05 AM
On 28/08/2010 pensionerpower wrote:
>Hi dave
>
>On 28/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>>pensionerpower,
>>thanks for your contributions to this thread. I hope you keep challenging
>>homophobia wherever you find it. For my part I apologise for the way
>some
>>groups within the 'Christian' church place a disproportionate emphasis
>>on homosexuality and act in other ways which encourage people to hate
>gays
>>(I'm sure we can all think of plenty of examples). The behaviour of a
>large
>>proportion of Christians in this regard is frequently not Christ-like.
>>I hope it's apparent from my contributions to these threads that, while
>>I may not be able to morally condone homosexuality, I don't harbour any
>>ill-will or animosity to people who are gay. And if that hasn't been
>apparent
>>then I apologise for that too.
>
>I appreciate your honest and candid response.

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, but I'm still disturbed that he can say he cannot morally condone homosexuality. That's still a pretty big statement! It's like saying that's a dirty little habit but as long as you keep it to yourself, I won't jump up and down about it. It's still telling people that their sexuality is somehow wrong.

This whole thread jumped into whether the bible is true or not, 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? If the bible said the moon was made of blue cheese, would that make it so? 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.

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. 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.


>
>>Also I'd like it if you kept contributing
>
>I probably won't. The whole thing started with an anti-gay slur. But no-one
>(apart from you) has responded directly to the only gay climber - ie. me
>- who has bothered to respond!
>
>I don't really understand that. But at least the whole issue has had a
>good airing.
>
>Cheers,
>PP

Sorry about that! I think we are basically in agreement about the thread had a positive outcome in that the majority of people, and there were quite a large number of them, responding were prepared to stand up against homophobia. I am still concerned however by what i see as more insidiuous homophobia. It's politely and calmly worded and defended, tries to use academia to justify it, but it is nevertheless justifying a position of judgement based on a randomly chosen characteristic.

I can't imagine it's nice to be told your sexuality is morally uncondonable or that on a values basis, someone can't support you marrying your partner or that they will show you love dispite disapproving of your sexuality or place your sexuality on a slippery slope with paedophilia. Bloody hell, now I put it all together like that, I'm amazed you haven't thrown your computer out the window! I imagine you've had to develop a pretty tough skin to that sort of stuff over the years, but I hope you have a community around you that shows you unconditional love and acceptence as well.

 Page 8 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