Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic

rod

26-Aug-2010
1:30:48 AM

On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>0.75 & 1, I think. Based on data
>here.

thanks dave, on the chart I found it looks like another size down on each so I'm taking an omega pacific #1, 0.4 Camalot and a bunch of nuts.


Nooj

26-Aug-2010
2:56:51 AM

I'm sure there's somewhere more appropriate to debate whether Christianity is true or not...is it really appropriate *here*?

rod

26-Aug-2010
3:59:46 AM

On 26/08/2010 Nooj wrote:
>I'm sure there's somewhere more appropriate to debate whether Christianity
>is true or not...is it really appropriate *here*?

whatever keeps people awake when I need climbing gear info works for me...when all is said and done climbing gets me closer to whatever's up there; with the odd expletive thrown in it even gets close to spiritual at times.

Wendy

26-Aug-2010
7:43:50 AM

I'm not on Chocky enough to keep up this week!

On 25/08/2010 gordoste wrote:

>
>Regarding the "slippery slope to incestuous marriage" stuff... let me
>pose a question. If a sterile brother and sister wanted to have a relationship,
>would you let them? This question exposes the extremely strong nature of
>taboos. You feel it's wrong, but you cannot explain why. My question to
>anti-gay-marriage people is, how do you know that the same "gut instinct"
>isn't operating here? (BTW this question also forces pro-gay-marriage people
>to consider what they would allow!)

I'm still really concerned about this association of gay with incest/bestiality/necrophilia/whatever else has been listed so far.

With "gut instincts" around this sort of stuff, I think a lot of it has to do with things learnt and accepted throughout one's life rather than some sort or actual instinct. Royalty throughout the ages has chosen incestuous relationships by preference. If you weren't at least a cousin or a niece, you weren't good enough blood. No gut instinct going on there obviously.

>Duncan:I think most people are missing the point. Homosexual couples currently don't have the same legal rights as straight couples. So if one partner dies, the other partner doesn't have any legal claim to their stuff. This is the crux of the matter. Labor's position is that they don't support gay "marriage", but do support equal rights for gay couples. I don't think I can express it any more simply than that. Frankly I don't know that it matters whether it's called a marriage or a civil union or whatever, but I do believe that everyone should have the same legal rights.

The other missing point is that it does matter to at least some of the gay people affected. And rather obviously, it matters to those who feel affronted by it. I believe de facto law does cover same sex couples, but those laws are also different to marriage ones. And I think the crux of the matter for the gay people demanding it is that marriage is more meaningful to them in terms of society's recognition and acceptance of their relationship.

On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>1 Corinthians 6:9-10

>do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; >neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor >the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Without getting anywhere near arguments about validity of the bible, does said document provide any reason for homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom of god? Any evidence for it being problematic? If you wander through the list, you could understand the problems with drunkards, swindlers, thieves etc who are harming other people, but how does being effeminate, homosexual or indeed having sex before marriage hurt anyone?

I agree with Kieran about the curious continuity of name changing. Really, it's tedious effort just to change your address on all your paperwork/accounts/licenses etc when you move. I could sort of understand if people wanted to have a common family name, but that's not the origin of the practice and it's fairly obviously swayed almost completely towards to woman changing her name still which says rather a lot. I can't think of a single man who has taken on his partner's name. How would men around here feel about changing their name? It's actually a rather big step. And women do it when there are no children nor plans for children involved. And as I think Kieran mentioned, it's not that difficult to work out a plan for naming children that doesn't involve 64 hyphens. If a couple can't negotiate that, how do they negotiate a first name? Or the millions of other thing necessary in a relationship?

>daveh:Well that's a sophisticated argument. 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?

Considering only 1/3 of the population believe in Christianity, it's not making sense to almost 5 billion people.

>nooj:I'm sure there's somewhere more appropriate to debate whether Christianity is true or not...is it really appropriate *here*?

We've even done it all before. M9isachockydatabase will drag it up for you I suspect.

If it doesn't stop raining soon though, I'm going to need Noah to come back to rescue me.

Dave C

26-Aug-2010
8:02:59 AM

On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Well, given that being called "Jesus" in first century Palestine would
>be like being called "Joe" today, that is hardly a controversial view.
>
>

>
>We are not arguing about the hundreds of first century Palestinian Jews
>called "Jesus."

There would have been absolutely nobody called "Jesus" in first century palestine. That is a latinized version of a Greek interpretation of a hebrew name, possibly Yeshua which has come down the ages more directly as Joshua. The ways Christianity finds to avoid acknowledging that their so-called "messiah" was actually Jewish never fail to amuse me.

Wendy

26-Aug-2010
8:17:48 AM

On 24/08/2010 Hendo wrote:
> I don’t put homosexuality
>outside this for a lot of people. Though I thankfully don’t have first
>hand experience the reputations preceding prisons and the navy, they seem
>like extreme examples of people engaging in homosexual behaviour who most
>likely would otherwise not in ‘normal’ society.

I suspect that prisons are constantly dragged up to reinforce people's fear of homosexuality. It associates gay men with prisoners/violence/social outcasts. And whilst I won't disgree that sexual violence happens in prisons (although it has little to do with sexuality and a lot to do with power), as violence of all sorts does, many same sex environements result in homosexual relationships. Look at same sex schools, women's prisons, aged care facilities (in which single women outnumber single men substantially). I think it suggests that people seek relationships and connection whatever their circumstances, and that many people are able to love or be attracted to the same sex when that is what is predominantly around them.


tnd

26-Aug-2010
8:42:59 AM

On 26/08/2010 Dave C wrote:
>On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>>Well, given that being called "Jesus" in first century Palestine would
>>be like being called "Joe" today, that is hardly a controversial view.
>>
>>
>
>>
>>We are not arguing about the hundreds of first century Palestinian Jews
>>called "Jesus."
>
>
>There would have been absolutely nobody called "Jesus" in first century
>palestine. That is a latinized version of a Greek interpretation of a hebrew
>name, possibly Yeshua which has come down the ages more directly as Joshua.
>The ways Christianity finds to avoid acknowledging that their so-called
>"messiah" was actually Jewish never fail to amuse me.
>

Everybody knows Jesus is a Mexican name.


The good Dr

26-Aug-2010
8:59:47 AM

>Everybody knows Jesus is a Mexican name.

I have never met anyone in Victoria called Jesus.

kieranl

26-Aug-2010
9:29:51 AM

On 25/08/2010 simey wrote:
>What gets me is how did missionaries in foreign lands manage to convince
>locals to reject their beliefs and adopt this crazy story?
>
Obviously there are lots of answers to this and I would think that many of them don't reflect well on the missionaries and colonial powers (e.g. Spaniards in South America).
One interesting perspective on the Victorian experience is given in Robert Kenny's "The Lamb Enters The Dreaming" where he explores the circumstances surrounding the conversion of Nathaniel Pepper at Ebenezer Mission north of Arapiles.
Kenny contends that one reason for the ready acceptance of Christianity was that it manifested to the Australian population as a totem-based system akin to their own. The settlers arrived driving large flocks of sheep immediately after the Australian population had been torn apart by devastating forces (smallpox and tuberculosis) that preceded them. The settlers thrived while the Australians world had been shattered. The sheep, according to Kenny, would have appeared as the settlers' totem : the settlers cared for them and fiercely protected them and the preaching of their religion featured frequent refererences to flocks, sheep, lambs and shepherds.
This is an extremely simplistic outline of Kenny's conjectures and his book is worth a read, if a bit heavy going at times. It's further interesting in that Kenny gives a sympathetic view of the evangelical missionaries of the time despite making it clear that he is an atheist. And for light relief he debunks the missionary position.


Eduardo Slabofvic

26-Aug-2010
9:49:17 AM

On 26/08/2010 Dave C wrote:
>The ways Christianity finds to avoid acknowledging that their so-called
>"messiah" was actually Jewish never fail to amuse me.
>

Christianity is just a quirky Jewish cult.

maadness

26-Aug-2010
9:49:29 AM

On 26/08/2010 Nooj wrote:
>I'm sure there's somewhere more appropriate to debate whether Christianity
>is true or not...

Yeah the Pub. But that is another tradition dissappearing due to alcohol taxes increasing twice a year. 40cents a pot/middy in '86 - $4 now


Eduardo Slabofvic

26-Aug-2010
9:51:13 AM

On 25/08/2010 rodw wrote:
>....give me the Islam 27 virgins any day..

I don't get this predilection with virgins. Can I have 27 hot slappers who are totally up for it?

prb

26-Aug-2010
9:56:34 AM

Another way to look at the name-changing issue is that Australian men and, for example, Chinese women are expected to keep their father's name but Australian women can choose whether to have their father's or their husband's name.

rolsen1

26-Aug-2010
9:57:22 AM

You need to consider that the Australian church is made of of white middle class people; luckily they have found (and twisted) some verses to back up their prejudices and discriminatory actions. The gospel preached by most mainstream churches in Australia is closer to Dr Phil than World Vision. By focusing on things that are irrelevant to their lives they can continue on and feel great about about their (Christian) lives without the inconvenience of changing their behaviours. Money? Give 10%, forget about the rich people not getting into heaven. Looking after the poor and disadvantaged? There is a (misquoted and taken out of context) verse for that as well "the poor will always be with us" Relationships, have as many as you want just don't shag outside of marriage and make sure if you're a bloke then its not with another bloke! Of course, for this we need to be really selectively about which verses we read so just take it on faith.

When I'm winding up my christian mates my favourite verse is from james (yes from the new testament) - "anyone who who knows the good he (or she) ought to do and doesn't do it sins" Christians just selectively quote from the bible, I don't think this is intentionally devious it just that most of them don't know it that well.

btw, most atheists are far more annoying, self righteous and use about as much logic as your typical christian.


dave h.

26-Aug-2010
10:28:16 AM

On 26/08/2010 Dave C wrote:
>There would have been absolutely nobody called "Jesus" in first century
>palestine. That is a latinized version of a Greek interpretation of a hebrew
>name, possibly Yeshua which has come down the ages more directly as Joshua.
>The ways Christianity finds to avoid acknowledging that their so-called
>"messiah" was actually Jewish never fail to amuse me.

Yes, well done Dave C. You are quite correct. Forgive me for using a rendition of his name with which more readers would be familiar. I have no problem with admitting Jesus is Jewish. Jewish Jewish Jewish. Happy?

Wendy wrote:
>Considering only 1/3 of the population believe in Christianity, it's not making sense to almost 5 billion people.

Truth is not determined by a popularity contest. And to say that everyone who doesn't believe in Christianity does not believe because it doesn't make sense is quite an assumption. I'm not going to concede any contradiction in Christianity without someone actually making the case for it - 'because Simey said so' isn't quite good enough.

On 26/08/2010 rolsen1 wrote:
>You need to consider that the Australian church is made of of white middle
>class people; luckily they have found (and twisted) some verses to back
>up their prejudices and discriminatory actions. The gospel preached by
>most mainstream churches in Australia is closer to Dr Phil than World Vision.

So your criticism of Australian christians is that they are not actually Christian enough? Fair enough.

26-Aug-2010
11:18:27 AM

On 26/08/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Truth is not determined by a popularity contest.

This coming from an aspiring lawyer... Isn't that what a jury is all about in law? :p

Duncan

26-Aug-2010
1:12:32 PM

On 25/08/2010 rodw wrote:
>What about the spelling did I get that right?

It's funny - I called you a racist and a bigot in two separate posts, and you only want to concentrate on the fact that I corrected your poor spelling as an aside.


gordoste

26-Aug-2010
1:17:25 PM

I am really enjoying this topic. A couple of thoughts

1. I applaud dave h. for presenting an interesting perspective.

2. You cannot "tear down" Christianity with logic. Faith consists of believing something without proof, and anyway you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. So don't waste your time. In some respects I envy those with faith as it seems to be very reassuring to them. However I simply do not have it. Perhaps one day some experience will inspire it in me. Currently the closest I've come is while experiencing natural beauty and perceiving elegant truths while studying number theory. Philosophers disagree on whether these experiences are artifacts of human consciousness or whether they are inherent to the universe/Creation. (i.e. Would an alien have a concept of "natural beauty" and would they have discovered Pythagoras' Theorem? And if the answers are yes, could God be the set of all abstract concepts which are shared by all consciousness?)

3. This is all a totally irrelevant to the original topic. The Bible disapproves of many types of people and we marry those people happily.

Wendy

26-Aug-2010
1:23:17 PM

On 26/08/2010 gordoste wrote:

>
>3. This is all a totally irrelevant to the original topic. The Bible disapproves
>of many types of people and we marry those people happily.
>

Good point ...

On 25/08/2010 simey wrote:

>>>1 Corinthians 6:9-10
>>
>>>do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
>>God? Do not be deceived; >neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
>>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor >the covetous, nor
>drunkards,
>>nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
>
>Things aren't looking good for me.

So it's a good thing Simey doesn't believe in marriage because there may be some debate if any priest should perform the ceremony


Hendo

26-Aug-2010
1:42:57 PM

Evidence?

In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence.

There are 235 messages in this topic.