Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond: Camelot X4 - Size 0.2 (Yellow) Strength: 6kN Range: 9.9 to 16.5mm   $75.00
25% 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 available evaluators are people,
then only a determinate, and reasonably small, number of kinds of ethical and legal systems can be generated."

The system that you describe is either descriptivism (what is good is what society thinks is good) or personalism (each individual gets to decide what is good for themselves, and their judgement is unquestionable). The problem with descriptivism is that it has no *critical* capacity - it accepts all prevailing societies. It doesn't give you the intellectual framework you need to be able to criticise the Nazis. In a personalist ethical system, the idea of critical morality is impossible because, axiomatically, we have assigned moral evaluations to each individual and therefore there is no basis for criticising A's choice as being morally inferior to B's choice.

You have not gotten us off the horns. As I understand your suggestion, you put society in God's place as the authority on what is good.

But you do not give us the framework required to criticise society's views on what is good.
How do you respond if society says that napalming babies is morally acceptable?



On 1/09/2010 gordoste wrote:

glad you found it interesting :)

I liked your comment about number theory. It reminded me of something from last Sunday's sermon (part of it was subtitled 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics').

>Here are some questions:

>1. Do you see marriage as a religious or a civil institution?

I think that back in English history when the Church of England was much more a part of the state, the Christian idea of marriage became part of English law. Other areas of English law were also informed by Christian thinking - for instance, that area of the law known as Equity was informed by church/canon law. So I think that is how marriage came to be regulated by the state - because historically the state was more interested in enforcing Christian standards.

For people today, it can be both religious & secular, or just secular. It can also be purely religious but then such marriages may not be recognised by Australian law (IE a polygamous marriage, whilst permissible in some religions, would not be a legally valid marriage).

When I, as a Christian, get married then there are implications for my faith. There are also legal implications relating to wills, etc. So for me it would be both, I guess.

When someone who is atheist or agnostic gets married I imagine it is primarily 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.

Well the origins of marriage, as recognised in English law, are Christian. I don't think that means that religious notions should necessarily regulate secular marriage. Parliament shouldn't stop proceedings and summon a panel of clergymen before amending the Marriage Act. Listen to what people (including Christians) have to say, and judge their remarks on their merits not their source (possible exception for giving extra weight to academic experts, etc).

So if it's originally religious institution which has been given legal recognition, why allow homosexuals or other religions to marry?

Basically because in a western democracy the law shouldn't discriminate between religions or sexualities which are equally harmless. Equality of treatment, fairness, and impartiality of the law are all notions that I think can be invoked by anyone in support of legalising homosexual civil union. This is so especially given the different meanings that marriage has, today, for different people (as in my answer to question 1).

More generally, I support the liberty that people have to make other choices I morally disagree with. And the idea that a religion's view of my 'goodness' or sinfulness should determine my legal rights is troubling.


>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.

Yes the law is meant to be secular, and exceptions should be justified.


I think theological arguments may have some influence on politicians' personal morality. So if I was elected to Parliament, and a law legalising civil unions for gays was being voted on, my personal view on the morality of it, as a Christian, would be influenced by theological arguments. But I think my role as a legislator would be to have regard to more than my personal morality and those theological arguments when considering how to vote. For example, two additional considerations are:
1) the idea that civil unions should, in the interests of fairness, be available to everyone
2) the idea that religious positions which differ significantly from the prevailing milieu should not be enforced by legislation.

To me, a fair compromise seems to be to let churches decide their own theology and who they will marry in a religious ceremony (and legally regulate religious ceremonies so there's adequate documentation of the marriage, etc), but let homosexuals who want to marry have full civil rights.

Interestingly, in some countries (eg Italy), you have very little freedom as to *how* your marriage is celebrated. For instance, in Australia, 2 people can get married on top of the harbour bridge, and that's legally valid provided the legal standards (relatively small) are met. In Italy, 2 Italian Roman Catholics can get married by the Pope in the heart of Rome, and Italian law will not recognise their marriage as valid - they need to go and have a separate civil ceremony. Perhaps this is an example of me as a Christian wanting to have my cake and eat it too, but I much prefer our position.

>- If secular ones, then all of the religious discussion is irrelevant
>and should be disregarded when deciding whether gay marriage should be
>legalised.

I think this point is addressed by the above answers. Broadly agree - religious discussion informs my own moral framework, by which I judge the actions of others. But I'm not justified in legislating such that everyone has to do what my moral framework says is good / has to abstain from wrong.

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
Online Now
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