Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Apparantly the first vibrator was invented to treat women for hysteria.

Yes, 'hysteric' is Latin for 'from the womb'.

 

[phantom eel]

What's their problem with it anyway? Surely the religious people don't believe that the state has the power to marry people in the eyes of God?

The "religious people" - well the religious leaders, and those that "pick and choose" to follow their leaders' particular doctrine in this issue - seem to be objecting because... as always, they seek more power for their particular faith/belief system within (now secular) society.

They trot out a similar resistance when equity in school funding doesn't go their way.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

The "religious people" - well the religious leaders, and those that "pick and choose" to follow their leaders' particular doctrine in this issue - seem to be objecting because... as always, they seek more power for their particular faith/belief system within (now secular) society.

They trot out a similar resistance when equity in school funding doesn't go their way.

I agree partly with the first part but I also think that if the state marriage was called anything other than marriage this would hardly be an issue.
The schools thing is different.

 

[phantom eel]

Marriage was never religious to start with, even in teh early Christian era in Europe. The churches co-opted it. They can simply sit tight while society co-opts it back.

 

[Haynzy]

The "religious people" - well the religious leaders, and those that "pick and choose" to follow their leaders' particular doctrine in this issue - seem to be objecting because... as always, they seek more power for their particular faith/belief system within (now secular) society.

They trot out a similar resistance when equity in school funding doesn't go their way.

In my experience Christian leaders don't tell you what to believe or what doctrine to follow. They pledge to adhere to and teach the doctrines of their denomination but the laypeople have the freedom to agree or disagree on the basis of their understanding of Scripture.
Most Christians and Christian leaders understand that in interpreting an ancient text there are many nuanced ways to understand and follow what is written. It isn't a matter of picking and choosing but rather one of trying to understand how the narrative of a whole bunch of different genres of text has relevance to the life of a person living in modern times.

The central understanding of Christianity is that we cannot do anything to earn God's favour but because we believe, that in some way God is behind this thing we call life, and he has revealed himself to humanity through Jesus Christ, then we will do our best to follow his words and his example. We won't always get it right but if we are fair dinkum in our faith then we will try to acknowledge that and constantly be searching for ways to live in a way that honours God. I don't think that that means we should tell people how to live their lives.

There are unfortunately too many people who use Christianity as a means to manipulate people and to gain power, just as there are too many who use their station of birth or the colour of their skin or their success in business. These people aren't following Jesus' message and are misappropriating Christianity for their own greed and desire for power.
Jesus taught that to honour God you need to serve others, be willing to lay everything on the line for them. Some Christian leaders don't do that but I believe that the majority do. The thing is that they won't jump up and down about it because in serving others they understand that the jumping up down will only bring others down. Therefore the majority of 'Christian' voices that you hear in the public space are the ones who have forgotten this, or maybe didn't even get it in the first place.

This plebiscite isn't about the LGBTI community vs Christians, although many are trying to make it sound like it is.

 

[Suitman]

In my experience Christian leaders don't tell you what to believe or what doctrine to follow. They pledge to adhere to and teach the doctrines of their denomination but the laypeople have the freedom to agree or disagree on the basis of their understanding of Scripture.
Most Christians and Christian leaders understand that in interpreting an ancient text there are many nuanced ways to understand and follow what is written. It isn't a matter of picking and choosing but rather one of trying to understand how the narrative of a whole bunch of different genres of text has relevance to the life of a person living in modern times.

The central understanding of Christianity is that we cannot do anything to earn God's favour but because we believe, that in some way God is behind this thing we call life, and he has revealed himself to humanity through Jesus Christ, then we will do our best to follow his words and his example. We won't always get it right but if we are fair dinkum in our faith then we will try to acknowledge that and constantly be searching for ways to live in a way that honours God. I don't think that that means we should tell people how to live their lives.

There are unfortunately too many people who use Christianity as a means to manipulate people and to gain power, just as there are too many who use their station of birth or the colour of their skin or their success in business. These people aren't following Jesus' message and are misappropriating Christianity for their own greed and desire for power.
Jesus taught that to honour God you need to serve others, be willing to lay everything on the line for them. Some Christian leaders don't do that but I believe that the majority do. The thing is that they won't jump up and down about it because in serving others they understand that the jumping up down will only bring others down. Therefore the majority of 'Christian' voices that you hear in the public space are the ones who have forgotten this, or maybe didn't even get it in the first place.

This plebiscite isn't about the LGBTI community vs Christians, although many are trying to make it sound like it is.

The best post yet on this subject, and it's relationship with Christianity.
Excellent stuff Haynzy.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Marriage was never religious to start with, even in teh early Christian era in Europe. The churches co-opted it. They can simply sit tight while society co-opts it back.

It always was religious. I f**king told you that yesterday. There was religion before modern religions. Even the Bible tells of the time before Abraham when people were polytheists. There wasn't atheism before Christianity. There was just other religions. And marriage was part of all of them.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

This plebiscite isn't about the LGBTI community vs Christians, although many are trying to make it sound like it is.

Vindictive atheists like bartman are trying very much to push it as an assault on Christianity, and causing Christians to push back. If you antagonise people they will resist you.

 

[phantom eel]

It always was religious. I f**king told you that yesterday.

And you didn't convince me.

There was religion before modern religions. Even the Bible tells of the time before Abraham when people were polytheists. There wasn't atheism before Christianity. There was just other religions.

Sure.

And marriage was part of all of them.

No, it wasn't. I provided links to support my assertion, where are yours?

 

[Haynzy]

Vindictive atheists like bartman are trying very much to push it as an assault on Christianity, and causing Christians to push back. If you antagonise people they will resist you.

Sure, Bart's agendas are always pretty obvious but he's not Robinson Crusoe on this one.

 

[phantom eel]

Vindictive atheists like bartman are trying very much to push it as an assault on Christianity, and causing Christians to push back. If you antagonise people they will resist you.

I'm not a vindictive atheist. I'm an agnostic, if anything (and if labels matter).

I'm "pushing an assault" on people here who have claimed Christianity (and even the "words of Jesus") is on their side in choosing to make a no vote. Christianity/Christian faith does not mandate a vote against anything homosexual or any changes to the current (recent) ideas of marriage, so for those people claimining Christianity is their reason for voting no, something else must be at play... I'm just drawing it out.

 

[phantom eel]

There are unfortunately too many people who use Christianity as a means to manipulate people and to gain power, just as there are too many who use their station of birth or the colour of their skin or their success in business. These people aren't following Jesus' message and are misappropriating Christianity for their own greed and desire for power.

Exactly my point here Haynzy - and it applies to some Christians in how they are approaching this issue - and to some Christian leaders in their public positions seeking to influence the issue.

Therefore the majority of 'Christian' voices that you hear in the public space are the ones who have forgotten this, or maybe didn't even get it in the first place.

Agree, that's exactly what I'm talking about. To Avenger, Pou, and in reference to the Christian leaders (ACL etc) who are vocal in seeking to influence.

This plebiscite isn't about the LGBTI community vs Christians, although many are trying to make it sound like it is.

Including Christian leaders who are using it as a chance to make it sound like Christians v the LGBTI community, wouldn't you say?

 

[Haynzy]

I'm not a vindictive atheist. I'm an agnostic, if anything (and if labels matter).

I'm "pushing an assault" on people here who have claimed Christianity (and even the "words of Jesus") is on their side in choosing to make a no vote. Christianity/Christian faith does not mandate a vote against anything homosexual or any changes to the current (recent) ideas of marriage, so for those people claimining Christianity is their reason for voting no, something else must be at play... I'm just drawing it out.

That's cool, and I agree with the sentiment behind your second paragraph but I wouldn't say that it was clear in your posts.

 

[phantom eel]

If you antagonise people they will resist you.

And there's your decade-long journey on these forums, wrapped up in one sentence!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And you didn't convince me.

Sure.

No, it wasn't. I provided links to support my assertion, where are yours?

You provided f**king wikipedia you imbecile.

 

[Haynzy]

Including Christian leaders who are using it as a chance to make it sound like Christians v the LGBTI community, wouldn't you say?

Definitely but again it is my belief that they are a noisy minority and are manipulated and used by sections of the community with no religious affiliation.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And there's your decade-long journey on these forums, wrapped up in one sentence!

But I prefer if people resist me. I'm here for discussion, not shaping policy. When everyone agrees we don't get much of a conversation - I barely reply to the blokes on here whom I usually agree with. Thank f**k for the Like button.

 

[Bazal]

Vindictive atheists like bartman are trying very much to push it as an assault on Christianity, and causing Christians to push back. If you antagonise people they will resist you.

You could also say that there are Christians, for example the lunatic sending emails to parishes telling them to "activate", who are doing the same thing.

Ultimately some people will always try and make issues like this about their political or religious views (and atheism is very much a religion in the way many atheists cling to it) no matter what side they're on because they feel that their political standpoint is more important than anything else.

Look at the whole Charlottesville mess...yeah, it's about a different issue and its supercharged because Americans are much more stupid and violent than we are, but the behaviour is very much the same from both ends of the spectrum.

 

[phantom eel]

That's cool, and I agree with the sentiment behind your second paragraph but I wouldn't say that it was clear in your posts.

That's ok. I was mainly responding to Avenger and Pou - including Avenger's claim that his faith/Jesus' words were against homosexuality/marriage equality, and Pou's statement that he finds male homosexuality revolting!

When you face posting styles and generalised comments like that, there is a need to be antagonistic and generalised in the responses to break through/show up such logic. But it's good to see some balanced Christians such as yourself adding to the discussion, from what one would hope better represents true/widespread Christian values.

 

[phantom eel]

I don't care if people resist me.

I recall there have been times you did care, when you'd have a big whinge and think people were picking on you... or was that just a satirical reflection of this site's resident paranoia levels?