SA Footy

Religion can be handled civilly.
I have a close friend who is a practising Christian, and while we were discussing some social/philosophical issues over coffee the other day he kept stopping to put it into non-religious terms. I appreciated his making the effort to do that, and took the pressure off him by suggesting he could use the religious terms and I'd interpret them more broadly for myself. That made it easier for both of us.

Psyber wrote:Religion can be handled civilly.
I have a close friend who is a practising Christian, and while we were discussing some social/philosophical issues over coffee the other day he kept stopping to put it into non-religious terms. I appreciated his making the effort to do that, and took the pressure off him by suggesting he could use the religious terms and I'd interpret them more broadly for myself. That made it easier for both of us.

I think a good 80% of religious people are like this. At the same time, I think around the same number of non-believers can understand and accept that others have their own beliefs.

I was primarily brought up in Christian schools, and my lack of beliefs only became a problem when i got to high school. I believe I was treated differently to the others, and the judgemental nature of a lot of the staff and students at this school made me never want to put someone in my position.

My personal opinion is that I think everyone has a right to believe in someone or something, as long as they're respectful of those around them and not hurting others by doing so. I think the Adelaide Street Church violates these two principles, and are essentially (at a stretch, too) a milder, tamer, less organised version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The latter have basically taken all the readings from The Bible, twisted the meanings and turned them into a hateful, corrupt and evil version of their 'truth'. They even ******* picket soldiers' funerals. Say what you want about America's involvement in foreign wars, but these soldiers go to war in the belief that they're doing so to protect the country they love. It's at this stage where I believe there should be a tangible limit to free speech in the sense that it should not be used to incite intolerance, hatred, fear and prejudice against any class, sexual orientation, race and belief systems. Groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and the Adelaide Street Church are clearly abusing their fundamental right to free speech.

Why can't we all learn to accept one another's beliefs, if they aren't hurting anyone?

^

Not sure fc2. Why can't the LNP allow gay marriage in the act? Is it because of their Christian values?

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Not sure fc2. Why can't the LNP allow gay marriage in the act? Is it because of their Christian values?

That's an interesting thought. I'm sure values would have a little to do with it, but I don't know the full story, so I won't speculate any further.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of religious people are for gay marriage, compared to non-religious people too.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I'm sure the majority overall would be for it, and as the Government at all levels should represent the people, I think a referendum should settle that debate.

Trust me. It is because of their Christian values.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Not sure fc2. Why can't the LNP allow gay marriage in the act? Is it because of their Christian values?

It may be because of the values of some in the LNP - even maybe the majority at present - but not necessarily the values of the LNP as a whole.
I'm an LNP member but support gay marriage.

I've argued the case for it to people within the LNP, including opponents of it like Cory Bernardi, who is at least civil about being disagreed with.

So if it is not their religious values (at least a vocal and powerful minority but maybe a majority) then why does LNP oppose gay marriage?

All I have heard is it will erode family values and the notion of family which is man and woman, which is code for religious values

bennymacca wrote:So if it is not their religious values (at least a vocal and powerful minority but maybe a majority) then why does LNP oppose gay marriage?
All I have heard is it will erode family values and the notion of family which is man and woman, which is code for religious values

Even non-proselytizing Atheists like me are subtly influenced in childhood by the influences of the age in which they grow up and Christian values are some of those influences. So I, for example, have hang ups about killing people, or stealing - or even "coveting" to some degree.
(And an ambivalence about adultery.)

A lot of those "Christian values" align strongly with "being a good person" except for these cases where it is specifically the opposite of that. Equating stealing to homosexuality implies you think it is wrong but you should learn to live with it rather than being accepting of it

bennymacca wrote:A lot of those "Christian values" align strongly with "being a good person" except for these cases where it is specifically the opposite of that. Equating stealing to homosexuality implies you think it is wrong but you should learn to live with it rather than being accepting of it

I wasn't equating stealing and homosexuality but hinting that others may.

Fair enough.

What a surprise he'd get involved here.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertain ... 6840096777

GWW wrote:What a surprise he'd get involved here.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertain ... 6840096777

This bloke and his cronies are a waste of semen...

bennymacca wrote:So if it is not their religious values (at least a vocal and powerful minority but maybe a majority) then why does LNP oppose gay marriage?

All I have heard is it will erode family values and the notion of family which is man and woman, which is code for religious values

The reason they oppose it because of the so called christian values of the people who vote for them

None of those conservatives will switch sides even if they vote to do the right thing. The fact they tony Abbott is effectively looking her sister in the eye and saying fk you I am better than you is deplorable

I really think people are missing the point with 'Come heckle Christ'.

The man was heckled, he carried a burden. His dying day was spent being heckled, spat upon, etc as he carried a cross and then was hung from it.
In some ways, it's a modern re-enactment. In other ways, at a deeper level, this show could make people realise what Jesus experienced on that fateful day as the mob closed in on him. Could we handle it? Would we have been involved? How would we have acted?

I think the protestors have been stupid enough to draw attention to his show, but they have also missed the chance to go inside and ask serious questions of the man - questions that may have got their point across without looking like Corenloup - a douche.

Dogwatcher wrote:I really think people are missing the point with 'Come heckle Christ'.

The man was heckled, he carried a burden. His dying day was spent being heckled, spat upon, etc as he carried a cross and then was hung from it.
In some ways, it's a modern re-enactment. In other ways, at a deeper level, this show could make people realise what Jesus experienced on that fateful day as the mob closed in on him. Could we handle it? Would we have been involved? How would we have acted?

I think the protestors have been stupid enough to draw attention to his show, but they have also missed the chance to go inside and ask serious questions of the man - questions that may have got their point across without looking like Corenloup - a douche.

The show had sold few tickets until the controversy about the show hit the headlines then they sold like the proverbial hot cakes.

bennymacca wrote:None of those conservatives will switch sides even if they vote to do the right thing. The fact they tony Abbott is effectively looking her sister in the eye and saying fk you I am better than you is deplorable

I'm glad everything in life is so simple for you, your values never get challenged?

I daresay that Abbott is questioning his views on this issue, given what his sister has confirmed. Whether he changes his stance on the issue remains to be seen.
I think it's bulldust to pretend that it's goodies on one side, baddies on the other, regarding attitudes to gay marriage. Barely twenty years ago the idea was a joke, it wasn't spoken of in the 50's, 60's etc. Are we better Australians than the generations that grew up in those era's? I highly doubt it, but a large body of people seem to think, with a fair degree of moral vanity, that the fashionable, 2014 version is all so superior, and if you dare worry about the traditional family unit your some kind of dinosaur, or far worse. Sometimes, decent people exist on both sides of a debate, believe it or not.