Non Footy Chat Thread II

[I bleed blue & gold]

A Toorak Tractor.

Toorak?

Picked up a pretty good set of gates from there one night

 

[phantom eel]

Here's one for Pou, who I think attempted to claim that marriage was always religious rather thanarising from society's views and needs - and also attempted to claim that church leadership reflects the view of the poeple who follow it..

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/archi...c-community-and-the-pope-20170820-gy03xk.html

The "reality" here is that opinion polls show consistently that 60 to 70 per cent of Australian Catholics support marriage equality. They see it as no threat to their families or to the sacramental ideal of marriage to which many of them aspire. They are the ones with a grounded, implicit understanding of the role marriage plays in the reality of people's lives, not just in societies where their church has some influence, but worldwide.

Indeed, for 1500 years of its history, Catholic marriage operated in exactly this way, according to societal norms and laws, not church ones. The great scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas argued explicitly that "[as to marriage's] other [non-theological] advantages…such as the friendship and mutual services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law". This respected view reflects the common sense that puts the archbishops out of step with the majority of Australian Catholics.

0-2...

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

As Gronk said, it goes like a shower of shit..

Back to the 'Two Gary's One Cup' theme again.

Hasn't anyone here actually had a shower of shit? Was it fast? Or good? Or both?

 

[Gary Gutful]

Depends on the consistency and viscosity of the shit.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Here's one for Pou, who I think attempted to claim that marriage was always religious rather thanarising from society's views and needs - and also attempted to claim that church leadership reflects the view of the poeple who follow it..

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/archi...c-community-and-the-pope-20170820-gy03xk.html

The "reality" here is that opinion polls show consistently that 60 to 70 per cent of Australian Catholics support marriage equality. They see it as no threat to their families or to the sacramental ideal of marriage to which many of them aspire. They are the ones with a grounded, implicit understanding of the role marriage plays in the reality of people's lives, not just in societies where their church has some influence, but worldwide.

Indeed, for 1500 years of its history, Catholic marriage operated in exactly this way, according to societal norms and laws, not church ones. The great scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas argued explicitly that "[as to marriage's] other [non-theological] advantages…such as the friendship and mutual services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law". This respected view reflects the common sense that puts the archbishops out of step with the majority of Australian Catholics.

0-2...

That just shows it came from older religions. Everyone knows the Catholics co-opt folk spirituality. It's probably the same for all Christian sects but the Catholics are famous for it.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I would say that marriage co-opted religion, not the other way around.

Back in the day, it was important to have absolute certainty that the child coming out of the womb belonged to the male partner. He was, after all, about to work his short lifespan to pass on whatever he could and give his limited resources to keep the child alive.

So, how do you absolutely ensure that the woman only breeds with that one specific man? You make them swear an oath before the highest power - the gods - and attach retribution from those gods to breaking that oath.

As such, marriage (and thus society) needed to appropriate the power of the gods into unions, so they co-opted religion as made it the core part of marriage.

Seems logical to me.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I would say that marriage co-opted religion, not the other way around.

Back in the day, it was important to have absolute certainty that the child coming out of the womb belonged to the male partner. He was, after all, about to work his short lifespan to pass on whatever he could and give his limited resources to keep the child alive.

So, how do you absolutely ensure that the woman only breeds with that one specific man? You make them swear an oath before the highest power - the gods - and attach retribution from those gods to breaking that oath.

As such, marriage (and thus society) needed to appropriate the power of the gods into unions, so they co-opted religion as made it the core part of marriage.

Seems logical to me.

Cool story, but it needs more lizard people.

 

[phantom eel]

That just shows it came from older religions. Everyone knows the Catholics co-opt folk spirituality. It's probably the same for all Christian sects but the Catholics are famous for it.

Lol, laughable logic. And again no supporting links.

Thanks for coming.

 

[phantom eel]

Seems logical to me.

At least more logical than Pou's unfounded absolutist assertion.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Gronk]

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Sounds a bit like the 1960s Domino Theory.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Lol, laughable logic. And again no supporting links.

Thanks for coming.

There's plenty of supporting links, but just like your sources they are all politicised and therefore easy to discredit. The fact is history is a soft 'science' and therefore vulnerable to political influence and lacking in the controls (such as reproducibility) that make the hard sciences reliable.

Humans invented religions (and still do) to enforce social norms. Marriage has always been one of those norms, and for the entirety of human history the norm has been marriage between a man and a woman only. Because anything else has never made sense.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I would say that marriage co-opted religion, not the other way around.

Back in the day, it was important to have absolute certainty that the child coming out of the womb belonged to the male partner. He was, after all, about to work his short lifespan to pass on whatever he could and give his limited resources to keep the child alive.

So, how do you absolutely ensure that the woman only breeds with that one specific man? You make them swear an oath before the highest power - the gods - and attach retribution from those gods to breaking that oath.

As such, marriage (and thus society) needed to appropriate the power of the gods into unions, so they co-opted religion as made it the core part of marriage.

Seems logical to me.

Exactly. Supernatural authority has always been used to enforce norms. It didn't start with Christianity (or its precursor Judaism).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Marriage has nothing to do with love either. This is why people who love each other don't have to get married.

It's just another stupid emotive argument to cloud the facts.

 

[Gronk]

This must be part of the sensible debate.

 

[Twizzle]

Marriage has nothing to do with love either.

one of your best Poo

 

[T.S Quint]

This must be part of the sensible debate.

Wow.
What a f**king disgrace.

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[Avenger]

This must be part of the sensible debate.

Wow.
What a f**king disgrace.

x2.