+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: General Discussions (/thread-4803.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
Re: General Discussions - Thryleon - 07-29-2022
(07-29-2022, 03:15 AM)Mav link Wrote:Maybe it’s a blind spot for Christians, then. I’m happy to say slavery is wrong. Why can’t you?
Perhaps it was one of the 20 commandments, but, as Mel Brooks suggested, Moses dropped the tablet containing commandments 11-20. Maybe the commandments should have read:
Maybe “You shall not be gay” made it into the top 20 as well.
I can understand why politicians back in Biblical times didn’t want to get on the wrong side of the populace (or at least the rich and powerful) by banning slavery. But should God have been so pragmatic? If the Bible represents the word of God and applies for all time, why would God temper statements of morality to fit into the practices of the day? Aren’t Good and Evil unchanging through time?
On the other hand, if we accept that what is Good and Evil changes with time and cultural values, maybe that means that any supposed Biblical view that homosexuality is an abomination can also be seen as a reflection of cultural values that are 2000 years out of date. Presumably, if Jesus returned to Earth now he’d have no difficulty stating that slavery is evil. And maybe he’d have no difficulty accepting that homosexuality is part of the human condition and is accepted in the eyes of God …
What is a slave Mav?
Re: General Discussions - Mav - 07-29-2022
A person who is not free to walk away from serving his or her master. Just in case you try to suggest that those who are contracted to, say, an employer such as a record label are therefore slaves, no they aren’t. Courts will not grant a mandatory injunction requiring someone to fulfil contracts that require personal performance. The Courts may award damages for breach of contract and they may grant injunctions to prevent the breaching party from providing the contracted services to other parties, but they won’t force a person to work out the contract.
As an example, a Court won’t grant a mandatory injunction to force Paddy Dow to play with Carlton next year. Such a mandatory injunction would carry a threat of jail if Paddy Dow refused to play in our VFL side. Carlton could regard a refusal by Paddy Dow to play as a breach of contract and terminate the contract. And the AFL and Carlton could obtain injunctions against any club that sought to list him as a player. But there’s no way the Courts would enjoin Dow from working for McDonalds next year.
Re: General Discussions - Mav - 07-29-2022
So, now that we’ve cleared that up, are you willing to say that slavery is evil?
Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves rather than just requiring slave owners to abide by codes of practice. Surely, God could have done that?
Re: General Discussions - kruddler - 07-29-2022
(07-28-2022, 11:12 PM)PaulP link Wrote:Sitting on the fence and absolving yourself from taking a position, or taking a weak, tokenistic position, is not good enough IMO.
I don't disagree with where you are coming from, but this argument doesn't work.
Simply there are too many causes that people should be vocal about. If we were as front footed as you suggest, society would crumble because everyone would be protesting 24/7 for various causes.
Obviously there are differing degrees of importance to this, but that is the point ...where do you stop
Such causes as....
Gender equality
Pride acceptance
Black lives matter
Anzac day rememberance
Indigenous appreciation....are common place.
We also have....
Earth hour
Global warming
Anti nukes
Anti war/terrorism
Starving kids in Africa
Homeless people in [insert city here]
Someone mentioned Haitian slavery
Which reminds me of the stolen generation
Save the rainforest
Save the orang-utan/Anti palm oil
Save the whales
Save the [insert one of 100s of species of animals here]
....you get the point, but there would be 100s of things I could write that people are vocal about and also silent on....which is NOT a sign that they are against (or for) but there simply isn't enough time in the day to care about all there is to care about. So people focus on something that is close to them.
Apathy does not equal opposition.
Re: General Discussions - DJC - 07-29-2022
(07-28-2022, 10:57 PM)Lods link Wrote:Where did you hear they dropped their opposition?
I understand they stayed home.
Misread the article Lods - it was early in the morning :-[
Quote:The owner of the club said the players who refused to play in tonight’s match against the Roosters have agreed to wear a pride jersey next season, as long as they are consulted.
So, they have dropped their opposition to wearing the jersey next season.
Re: General Discussions - Thryleon - 07-29-2022
(07-29-2022, 05:37 AM)Mav link Wrote:So, now that we’ve cleared that up, are you willing to say that slavery is evil?Yes, but I do recognise that what one person might label slavery, others may not agree with being a slave at all.
Perspective is the key to understanding how things can vary rather than applying blanket statements to things.
Quote:Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves rather than just requiring slave owners to abide by codes of practice. Surely, God could have done that?
Again, I am not qualified to be asking or answering this question. The whole idea of a creator, or God, isnt necessarily to make everything "right".
How people view religion is deeply personal. One persons definition doesn't fit someone else's but in those circumstances we hear various teaching from the bible that states, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The lesson there isnt about throwing stones, or targeting people for their mistakes. Its about understanding that all people error along the way, and not to be too quick to judge people.
A little like judging guys who werent consulted about pride round.
Re: General Discussions - PaulP - 07-29-2022
(07-29-2022, 05:51 AM)kruddler link Wrote:I don't disagree with where you are coming from, but this argument doesn't work.
Simply there are too many causes that people should be vocal about. If we were as front footed as you suggest, society would crumble because everyone would be protesting 24/7 for various causes...
Apathy does not equal opposition.
I think there is more than enough time to do your bit, even with the plethora of causes that exist in what is IMO a broken world. You don't have to give your life to a cause, but there are plenty of things to be done, even if they're only small.
Being apathetic to, for example the Manly jumper issue, is clearly not as bad as being blatantly hostile and violent to gays, but neither does it help. And I would argue sitting on the fence does more harm than good. Think of the Germans who turned a blind, apathetic eye to the plight of the Jews during WWII. You could perhaps understand their reluctance, given that any opposition would likely result in death. But those circumstances don't exist any longer, which is why I don't understand the resistance to the Pride jumper.
There's a lot of bad theology going around, and it does a lot of harm. The various rules, beliefs, do's and don'ts have some basis in practical reason. For example the various rules in Leviticus banning sex with your mother and other family members. These strike us weird and unnecessary. But in their time and place, they made sense. People lived a very hand to mouth existence, sometimes nomadic in small isolated communities. Travel and contact with others were limited. The temptation to fulfill one's sexual desires with whomever was available (typically family or close relative) was both strong and obvious. Hence the rules.
Similarly, we need to understand that these people lived at a time of short life span and high infant mortality. The leaders and elders of the communities understood that replenishing and increasing the population was of paramount importance. Hence, not only were girls sent off to marry a man as soon as they were able to conceive, but rules and beliefs were built around this need for more "bums on seats." It should come as little surprise that things that interfered with this were actively discouraged - things like divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality all reduced reproduction potential. These rules and beliefs were not just plucked out of thin air.
I support neither the wholesale rejection of the Bible, nor its wholesale endorsement. But we must understand the why and the time and place, and not just accept things lazily and blindly.
Re: General Discussions - Mav - 07-29-2022
The “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” philosophy is a New Testament thing, no? The Old Testament Christians don’t abide by it quite so much. Their God is a vengeful God who isn’t so much into forgiveness. Wiping out the entire populations of multiple cities was part of his modus operandi.
Why don’t Christians apply the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” philosophy to how they react to gay people? Surely, they aren’t without sin themselves, so they shouldn’t be casting stones. If they think gays are sinners, leave it to God to deal with them on Judgment Day. Why usurp God’s role?
Maybe they should love the sinner but hate the sin. That would mean Christians should be happy to love the gay community and join in signalling acceptance of it even if they regard homosexuality as a sin. Am I missing something?
Re: General Discussions - Thryleon - 07-29-2022
(07-29-2022, 06:18 AM)Mav link Wrote:The “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” philosophy is a New Testament thing, no? The Old Testament Christians don’t abide by it quite so much. Their God is a vengeful God who isn’t so much into forgiveness. Wiping out the entire populations of multiple cities was part of his modus operandi.
Why don’t Christians apply the “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” philosophy to how they react to gay people? Surely, they aren’t without sin themselves, so they shouldn’t be casting stones. If they think gays are sinners, leave it to God to deal with them on Judgment Day. Why usurp God’s role?
Maybe they should love the sinner but hate the sin. That would mean Christians should be happy to love the gay community and join in signalling acceptance of it even if they regard homosexuality as a sin. Am I missing something?
In my experience, most of them do.
You keep generalising and tarring everyone with the same brush. I went to Christening of my friend and her wife's children in an Anglican church myself.
I still don't want to wear the rainbow.
Re: General Discussions - Mav - 07-29-2022
But if you wore a uniform provided by your employer and your employer had the right to put a ? on it, you’d wear it then, wouldn’t you …