Society/Culture Margaret Court won't fly QANTAS because they support gay-marriage

[Procrastinator35]

Yeah, homosexuality would only be one symptom of the fallen creation, along with all the other evil.

We all have bodies & so we are all tempted by the flesh.....Maybe that's just the 'gotcha' guilt-complex at the heart of Christianity?

Or does an an independent existential truth lie behind it?......A bad-conscience, so to speak.

 

[Northalives]

I'm not saying she's not.

It's not about logic or illogic, it's about faith. Her faith in God, her belief in his teachings about homosexuality, are valid. You don't have to believe, but it's important that we respect the beliefs of others.

They're not valid! Her beliefs belong in an era where people were burnt at the stake. Are you suggesting that we should still retain that type of thinking in this day and age?

It wasn't so long ago when you would hear people trying to tacitly excuse some who engaged in disgraceful behaviour by saying, "times were different back then". Dead f***ing right they were different! They were shameful and somehow Margaret Court and her bunch of supremacist, dark age adherents should be tolerated? This is the same type of bullshit that those extremists who have hijacked a religion are saying and we are at war with them!

 

[Procrastinator35]

? This is the same type of bullshit that those extremists who have hijacked a religion are saying and we are at war with them!

That would be the same extremists aided & abetted; Armed, funded & enabled by Israel, the U.S govt, NATO & their sundry intel agencies.

Those one's you mean?

 

[Northalives]

That would be the same extremists aided & abetted; Armed, funded & enabled by Israel, the U.S govt, NATO & their sundry intel agencies.

Those one's you mean?

All of them and more.

 

[Seeds]

Whose logic? Logic dictates that if one believes in a personal God, then they are interested in whether or not homosexuals exist, and there are good arguments towards homosexuals being evidence of a fallen creation. Do you have any evidence that this God doesn't exist?

You dont need evidence to prove a god doesnt exist. You need evidence to prove he exists and if you cant find such evidence then you are no less a fool then a person who honours a giant unicorn in the sky that is equally difficult to prove that they dont exist.

However, in the case of a single omnipotent god that christians follow, it is actually fairly easy to realise such a being is absurd and theoretically impossible. Given we live in a universe of cause and effect then a single god that creates all cant exist cos he cant create himself. And if something else created him then he aint the one and only god. The idea of a single omnipotent god is logically absurd. Even if an omnipotent god does somehow exist then he would have to be pure evil to create a world of natural disasters, disease, pain, a world with no karma laws etc. Science can explain these things but a loving omnipotent god can not. They are all inconsistent with such a being. If the god doesnt make all the physical laws and just works with them, then it could explain how these things exist, but it would mean the god is not omnipotent and the creator of all. Which means he aint the christian god. There are hundreds of other arguments. This is just an example.

 

[Boston tiger]

You dont need evidence to prove a god doesnt exist. You need evidence to prove he exists and if you cant find such evidence then you are no less a fool then a person who honours a giant unicorn in the sky that is equally difficult to prove that they dont exist.

In the case of a single omnipotent god that christians follow, it is actually faily easy to realise such a being is absurd and theoretically impossible. Given we live in a universe of cause and effect then a single god that creates all cant exist cos he cant create himself. And if something else created him then he aint the one and only god. The idea of a single omnipotent god is logically absurd. Even if an omnipotent god does somehow exist then he would have to be pure evil to create a world of natural disasters, disease, pain, a world with no karma laws etc. Science can explain these things but a loving omnipotent god can not. They are all inconsistent with such a being. If the god doesnt make all the physical laws and just works with them, then it could explain how these things exist, but it would mean the god is not omnipotent and the creator of all. Which means he aint the christian god. There are hundreds of other arguments. This is just an example.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for sticking it to Margaret but you're just explained through cause and effect that it's theoretically impossible and logically absurd for us to exist ... it's sort of an argument for a supernatural creator .. but I digress carry on.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for sticking it to Margaret but you're just explained through cause and effect that it's theoretically impossible and logically absurd for us to exist ... it's sort of an argument for a supernatural creator .. but I digress carry on.

Right on the Court part,wrong on the second!
Sorry BT

 

[Admiral Byng]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for sticking it to Margaret but you're just explained through cause and effect that it's theoretically impossible and logically absurd for us to exist ... it's sort of an argument for a supernatural creator .. but I digress carry on.

Not really. Any thing is possible with really long periods of time. It took billions of years and at least one supernova cycle just to start forming our current solar system with rocky planets. Then another billions years for simple life to arise, then another couple of billion for complex life.

 

[Boston tiger]

Not really. Any thing is possible with really long periods of time. It took billions of years and at least one supernova cycle just to start forming our current solar system with rocky planets. Then another billions years for simple life to arise, then another couple of billion for complex life.

But you need something

 

[Seeds]

Don't get me wrong I'm all for sticking it to Margaret but you're just explained through cause and effect that it's theoretically impossible and logically absurd for us to exist ... it's sort of an argument for a supernatural creator .. but I digress carry on.

You have seen evidence where cause and effect doesn't exist? Please show me?

 

[Boston tiger]

You have seen evidence where cause and effect doesn't exist? Please show me?

No I haven't .. that is the conundrum

 

[Admiral Byng]

But you need something

Well this is the thing, it seems you don't.

 

[Father Jack]

But you need something

And then you need something for the something to form out of ... and thus and so forth and ever onwards

 

[Jibroni]

And then you need something for the something to form out of ... and thus and so forth and ever onwards

I would tend to agree. It not unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause or an Intelligent Designer to make this happen, regardless of how long it took.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I would tend to agree. It not unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause or an Intelligent Designer to make this happen, regardless of how long it took.

There are many things in science which upon closer examination are counter-intuitive.

 

[Boston tiger]

And then you need something for the something to form out of ... and thus and so forth and ever onwards

Exactly .. are you saying this did not happen ?

 

[Boston tiger]

I would tend to agree. It not unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause or an Intelligent Designer to make this happen, regardless of how long it took.

Would you agree if there was an effect without a cause that you would be describing the super natural?

 

[Frank Bunn]

But you need something

You don't really. It's about probability. Given the number of number of stars and planets in the universe, chances are that life would be created and evolve on one of them, and more likely that life would evolve on many of them.

 

[Boston tiger]

You don't really. It's about probability. Given the number of number of stars and planets in the universe, chances are that life would be created and evolve on one of them, and more likely that life would evolve on many of them.

You're just said we don't need something and then you give me all these moving stars and planets. I would say moving planets etc is something . We aren't on the same page at the moment which is easy to happen on this subject. There is a ripper thread The God Question where all this gets discussed .

 

[Father Jack]

Exactly .. are you saying this did not happen ?

What, that it's turtles all the way down?

 

[JackOutback]

And then you need something for the something to form out of ... and thus and so forth and ever onwards

And scientists, after understanding what they can of the Big Bang, are trying to determine what caused it. But that leads to discussions of negative matter, or universes forming out of bubbles of other universes and other theories that are frankly beyond us.

 

[medusala]

They're not valid! Her beliefs belong in an era where people were burnt at the stake. Are you suggesting that we should still retain that type of thinking in this day and age?

People still believe in socialism as ridiculous as it is. One assumes that belief is not valid also.

 

[Procrastinator35]

What, that it's turtles all the way down?

Yes.....I believe it is....Old Father Time as the grounds of metaphorical Being.

And scientists, after understanding what they can of the Big Bang, are trying to determine what caused it. But that leads to discussions of negative matter, or universes forming out of bubbles of other universes and other theories that are frankly beyond us.

Just the old infinite regress argument re-jigged.....Once you posit a Prime Mover or first cause, then it's the inevitable logical consequence.

 

[Lethality]

They're not valid! Her beliefs belong in an era where people were burnt at the stake. Are you suggesting that we should still retain that type of thinking in this day and age?

Her beliefs are quite common in this era too. Who's to say where they belong?

This is the same type of bullshit that those extremists who have hijacked a religion are saying and we are at war with them!

Hijacked how? Unfortunate choice of words, too.

Fundamentalism isn't hijacking, it's just taking the religion seriously. That seems to be what Margaret Court is doing. That's what the jihadists you are referring to are doing also.

I disagree with them, but I'm an atheist. I can't really say that they have hijacked their religions.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

People still believe in socialism as ridiculous as it is. One assumes that belief is not valid also.

The idea behind socialism - that we all deserve to live in a far more equitable society - is a seriously noble one. The devil within the details makes s**t harder than it ought to be, however.

There is nothing noble about denying subsets of society their equal share in humanity.