Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

DMM: Viper Size L (2013 model)- Dark Blue piping... Padded Adjustable Harness, 5 Gear Loops Fits: Waist 87-104cm Legs: 55-70cm   $89.00
36% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 11 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

gordoste
1/09/2010
12:45:20 PM
>On 31/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
> I am not convinced that it is an appropriate Christian response to deny recognition to civil unions and all the corresponding rights.

This was very interesting to me... I would like to clarify your position. It seems like you think that homosexual couples should have all the same legal rights as married couples. That's great as it draws a clear line between what the government controls and what the Church controls.
Here are some questions:
1. Do you see marriage as a religious or a civil institution?
2. If religious, then should we be following Christian guidance on who can get married?
- If yes, then why should other religions be able to get married?
- If no, then homosexuals should be able to get married as some religions allow it.
3. If it's a civil institution, should society make this kind of decision based on theological arguments or secular ones?
- If theological ones, why? We don't for anything else and our law is supposed to be secular. An exception should really have some justification.
- If secular ones, then all of the religious discussion is irrelevant and should be disregarded when deciding whether gay marriage should be legalised.

D.Lodge
1/09/2010
8:12:05 PM
Has anyone else noticed the slant of the google ads now? HAHAHA :)








EDIT: Bugger now they have changed back, must have heard me talking about them.

P.S Let the Gays be wed if they want, it's noone else issue but theirs!
christos
2/09/2010
12:21:07 AM
On 1/09/2010 TonyB wrote:
>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.
>
Sorry mate, I donít quite get / make sense of your comment. Maybe Iím a bit thick but believe me, Iíve been trying. I only know it hurts my frontal cortext.
>
christos
2/09/2010
12:29:14 AM
On 1/09/2010 gordoste wrote:
>1. Do you see marriage as a religious or a civil institution?

Hope you don't mind me having a stab at this. I can't pretend to offer you David H's apparent sharpness of mind but here goes...

Today in Australia itís a civil thing. Whether its relevant that its origins are from God and that it is done in his sight and with his blessing is up to the beliefs of the couple involved. The fact that its origin is from God is what makes it difficult to separate it as entirely secular and remove God from it altogether. (A start might be to give it a different name than that which God gave it).

I think now I can go straight to #3...

>2. If religious, then should we be following Christian guidance on who
>can get married?
>- If yes, then why should other religions be able to get married?
>- If no, then homosexuals should be able to get married as some religions
>allow it.
>3. If it's a civil institution, should society make this kind of decision
>based on theological arguments or secular ones?
>- If theological ones, why? We don't for anything else and our law is
>supposed to be secular. An exception should really have some justification.
>- If secular ones, then all of the religious discussion is irrelevant
>and should be disregarded when deciding whether gay marriage should be
>legalised.

I would have thought that as long as society is made up of both the religious and the secular then both camps should have input to the decision.
>

dave h.
2/09/2010
2:07:20 AM
On 31/08/2010 Sarah Gara wrote:

>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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it was the view you personally held, just that it was an idea you were proposing. It's not the reason for my position (& I think my Christian mates would agree with me on this).

>
>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,

No, I didn't mean to suggest that.

>Dave H - can I ask what you do?
I'm a 5th year uni student :)

>or what your actual branch of xianity is
Well I go to an Anglican church (but Anglican in Sydney is sometimes different to Anglican in Melbourne). We're "low church" - low church and high church are different streams of Anglicanism, and I can't really tell you what the difference is - you're more likely to get robed ministers, etc at a high church service.

My church is also evangelical, in that we hold the Bible's teaching to be authoritative. While this probably sounds whacky it doesn't entail believing in a young Earth, rejecting evolution, etc. (Some US social commentators sometimes use "Evangelical Christians" as code for "the Christian Right/far-Right" - it's a misuse of the word.)

So if you had to label me, I'm an evangelical.

>
> - your arguments are thoughtful and to keep up with you I'd either have
>to do some reading or some serious remembering.
You're very kind. Thanks :)


>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.

Yeah it's a tricky one. I may be at Buffalo in November with friends if you want a chat :)

Maybe suffering is a tangent too far even for this thread? :P

Briefly though - I'd emphasise different things depending on whether you were asking because you see suffering as an intellectual problem (i.e. [:P] how can an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God allow natural disasters which kill innocent people), or whether it was something more personal (i.e. you just lost a parent or close friend, and the universe seems like a cold harsh place right now).

Sorry to palm you off (for the moment at least) on something which is of particular interest to you. Quite tired right now, need to sleep. I quite like this guy's response
to the problem of suffering. Not that he answers all objections that people have, but he makes a couple of really good points quite well.


>
>I wonder about the
>civialiation in 2000 years finding the hary potter books or similar and
>thinking that we were all wizards...

lol.

Stop!
> pedant time

They say it takes a pedant to catch a pedant... I do mean i.e.




Egosan wrote:


>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.

>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.

Well I'll give it a shot. I imagine there are a couple of things you might consider grim.

Are we talking about the ideas of hell & divine judgment? If so, I imagine it'd go something like this:

"What gives God the right to judge us? Just who does He think He is?
How can God, having given humans free will (to whatever extent you accept free will), and having left no definitive objective proof of His existence or not, presume to punish people - for eternity, no less! - who fail to come to the correct conclusion regarding His identity and the manner in which He wants people to respond to Him?
How is it fair or just for God to eternally punish people who live decent lives (~not harming others, paying their taxes, etc) for the mere 'sin' of failing to accept Jesus as Lord?
And if you accept the Biblical premise that God "knit each of us together" before birth, IE 'made' us, how is it fair that He saves some and condemns others? Presumably both groups of people are only acting in accordance with the way they've been made."


Or am I meant to be reacting as an atheist/humanist to the idea that atonement & reconciliation with God comes through the 'human sacrifice' of Jesus on the cross?

"What kind of petty god needs humans to do things for him in order to forgive them their transgressions? Any omnipotent God worth His salt should surely be able to forgive wrongdoing at His absolute discretion.
What kind of a God is it that is so perturbed by human wrongdoing that He reacts to it in such an extreme way?
And then what kind of revolting god allows an innocent person to be punished for the crimes of others? This is certainly fundamentally unjust and unfair.
And what kind of person would I be to accept the sacrifice of an innocent person in my own place?"

Or is the grim thing simply the idea that ~4-5 billion people are going to hell because they're not "good enough for God"?


How'd I go?


Re the sociopath.

My view of his conduct is irrelevant to what circle of hell he ends up in (to borrow an unbiblical image from Dante).

You're right, our sociopath probably wouldn't accept such a morality. The point, as I understand it, is not that a morality which is built upon the foundation of God will be accepted by everyone, but that it is logically defensible as applicable to everyone even if they reject it.



Re Leff
I am referring to Leff's article, Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law. If you want to read it I'll email you a copy. The Wikipedia page does not *begin* to summarise the arguments he makes there. The quote you have given us is a remark he makes in critiquing Posner's work, which posits a normative morality and assumes atheism. Leff's comment about "slipping things in early" is a reference to Posner's insertion of the premise "economic behaviour is to be preferred to all other behaviour" into his theory. Your view, that Leff's quote condemns the law of the Old Testament is misconceived - Leff's view is that the power of Old Testament law is that it is of divine origin.

In Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law, one thing Leff attempts to show (you decide if he succeeds) is that accepting the morality of an "ultimate rule-maker"/divine law-giver as binding (i.e. normative) does not involve inserting an 'early' premise along the lines of 'divine laws should be obeyed.' (as Posner does with his economic premise).


>There is no rigorous proof to be made. No way to deduce moral action.
Yes, as Hume says, you can't infer an "ought" from an "is".


Your solution is to reject the need for 'moral authority' (I assume you mean God), and, as a substitute, accept:

> 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.

This is not an answer to the problem at all!

While your answer allows you to get a "positive morality" (a set of moral beliefs, in this case those accepted by society), it does not get you a *critical morality*, which is the "general moral principles used in the criticism of actual social institutions including positive morality."

Leff (@p1233 of Duke Law Journal 1979 (6)):
"Thus, once it is accepted that
(a) all normative statements are evaluations of actions and other states of the world;
(b) an evaluation entails an evaluator; and
(c) in the presumed absence of God, the only

gordoste
2/09/2010
4:07:11 PM
> christos wrote:
>I would have thought that as long as society is made up of both the religious and the secular then both camps should have input to the decision.

Yes, however the weighting of their input should be determined according to society's values, not the values of a subgroup. We don't have any official bill of rights, however I would hope that we agree that all Australian citizens should be treated equally by the law unless it has a negative effect on someone else. I fail to see how legalising gay marriage has a tangible negative effect on anybody. (Getting upset is not tangible). Therefore it should be legalised.

> dave h. wrote a lot

dave - I agree everybody should have a right to civil unions, but that is not the issue. Should everybody have a right to marriage? And if marriage is a civil institution, why should religious arguments be used to justify excluding a section of society from it?


dave h.
2/09/2010
5:32:11 PM
On 2/09/2010 gordoste wrote:
>dave - I agree everybody should have a right to civil unions, but that
>is not the issue. Should everybody have a right to marriage? And if marriage
>is a civil institution, why should religious arguments be used to justify
>excluding a section of society from it?

When I say "civil union" I mean a non-religious, legally effective marriage ceremony.

The distinction I was trying to make is that between a religious marriage and a legal marriage. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Some (most) religious marriages are also legal marriages (IE recognised by law as being legally valid).

Everyone should have the right to legal marriages. Arguments which are primarily religious should not be too much weight in determining who is entitled to legal marriages.
Each religion should be able to determine, based on its own religious arguments, who is entitled to a religious ceremony celebrating marriage.

gordoste
2/09/2010
10:16:27 PM
OK so you're for legalising gay marriage. Glad we agree.
simey
2/09/2010
10:56:30 PM
On 2/09/2010 simey. wrote:
>The thread is complete. Intrigue has many uses. Now if only I can get
>it to work consistently then I could drop the crimson spankneck accusations.

???????

IdratherbeclimbingM9
3/09/2010
9:00:40 AM
On 2/09/2010 simey wrote:
>On 2/09/2010 simey. wrote:
>>The thread is complete. Intrigue has many uses. Now if only I can get
>>it to work consistently then I could drop the crimson spankneck accusations.
>
>???????

Thanks christos, you have summed it up for me when you wrote on 2/9/10...
>Sorry mate, I donít quite get / make sense of your comment. Maybe Iím a bit thick but believe me, Iíve been trying. I only know it hurts my frontal cortext.

... Is your frontal cortext hurting also simey?

~> Yeah, another post that goes nowhere, but this time you started it!
Hehx ???

evanbb
3/09/2010
9:47:14 AM
I've been away for a while, but clearly nothing has changed. This pleases me.

Remember though, if this thread gets close to the same number of views, I'm going to revive the Submarine thread.

ajfclark
3/09/2010
9:52:49 AM
On 3/09/2010 evanbb wrote:
>Remember though, if this thread gets close to the same number of views, I'm going to revive the Submarine thread.

A submarine popped up in some other threads while you were away...
widewetandslippery
3/09/2010
10:09:25 AM
Is submariner sex like gaol sex or is it GAY?

Do submariners marry each other?

IdratherbeclimbingM9
3/09/2010
10:28:55 AM
On 3/09/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Is submariner sex like gaol sex or is it GAY?
>
>Do submariners marry each other?

Under sea (heh, heh, heh) law, the Captain has that power invested in them?

Is this considered secular as opposed to some military having a zealousness that rivals religiosity?

Back off-topic ... Going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes them a car.
widewetandslippery
3/09/2010
10:35:24 AM
seamans law hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehhehe

IdratherbeclimbingM9
3/09/2010
10:57:13 AM
Back in your box ww&s! ☺
Where is Phil when he is needed? ... since this thread started as a spinoff of-
widewetandslippery
3/09/2010
10:59:46 AM
Point taken M9 this is getting very "Journal of the Thief".

IdratherbeclimbingM9
3/09/2010
12:09:50 PM
On 25/08/2010 simey wrote:
>Have people found that the older they have got, the weirder and whackier religion seems?
>
On one level yes; but I have also noticed / observed in others, that in the latter years i.e. maybe older than the 'old' context you are using, that some people go back to religion with a questioning attitude. This may be related directly to their sense of frailty/mortality?

>I'm amazed I didn't question such fairy tale nonsense during all those years I went to church as a youngster.

Many people do question religion in their younger days, and still make their leaps of faith!

One Day Hero
3/09/2010
3:10:54 PM
On 2/09/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Everyone should have the right to legal marriages. Arguments which are
>primarily religious should not be too much weight in determining who is
>entitled to legal marriages.
>Each religion should be able to determine, based on its own religious
>arguments, who is entitled to a religious ceremony celebrating marriage.

Yay, debate over! If only the pollies could be convinced that there won't be a backlash from christian voters on this issue.

Now seriously Dave, you're a rational, deep thinking sort of dude. Does the lack of proof not bother you at all?
christos
7/09/2010
1:17:50 AM
On 2/09/2010 gordoste wrote:

>Yes, however the weighting of their input should be determined according
>to society's values, not the values of a subgroup. We don't have any official
>bill of rights, however I would hope that we agree that all Australian
>citizens should be treated equally by the law unless it has a negative
>effect on someone else. I fail to see how legalising gay marriage has a
>tangible negative effect on anybody. (Getting upset is not tangible). Therefore
>it should be legalised.
>
Iíve continued to abuse my frontal cortext (and now the rear one) in trying to find a tangible negative effect. I think I can say that everyone knows itís a pretty safe bet not much will be forthcoming here. And we also all know thatís exactly why weíre in this situation.

But Iím confident that societyís values (which happens to include those of all the subgroups) will prevail in retaining the definition of marriage as a union between a male and a female as it has for thousands of years. To state the obvious, this union is unique and evidenced by the fact that it is only a male and female that can procreate. To honour and preserve this isnít discriminatory; itís the domain of the human family; its just how it is. And being the best and most natural environment to continue the future generations (its how we all got here remember), it should be protected as such.

 Page 11 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