# Christmas



## MrBurns (16 November 2012)

Ever noticed how disasters happen around Christmas time, storms extreme weather usually, fiscal cliff ?


----------



## dead trader (16 November 2012)

So true. I still remember the Boxing Day Tsunami - anyone here believe in weather engineering?

One of many conspiracy theories...


----------



## pixel (16 November 2012)

Has it occurred to you that Christmas happens to be at the Solstice? 
Winter in the Northern Hemisphere, Summer Down Under.

The Romans celebrated the Saturnalia in anticipation of the rebirth of light.
The early Christians used the festivities as a cover to celebrate another birth - quite clever really, when anyone not toeing the party line is threatened with persecution


----------



## Miss Hale (16 November 2012)

The one that sticks in my mind is cyclone Tracy.


----------



## MrBurns (16 November 2012)

And........



> Granville rail disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_rail_disaster
> 
> The Granville rail disaster occurred on 18 January 1977


----------



## MrBurns (16 November 2012)

Dec - Jan 2010 Queensland floods


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2012)

Tasman Bridge disaster, 5 January 1975. Not really weather related but still around Christmas.

Also an unfortunate coincidence of dates for fires in February. Two big ones on the 7th Feb but 42 years apart, and another one on a similar date also.

7 February 1967 - 62 people killed, 900 injured, 1293 homes destroyed as well as 1700 other buildings in Tasmanian fires.

16 February 1983 - 75 people killed, 2676 injured, 2545 homes destroyed in Victoria and SA fires.

7 February 2009 - 173 people killed, 5000 injured, 2029 homes destroyed (so about 5000 people homeless) in Victorian fires.


----------



## pixel (16 November 2012)

September 11, 2001
Ash Wednesday 1983
Krakatoa, May 1883
Hiroshima, Nagasaki in August 1945
Christchurch, September 2010 and February 2011

It would be interesting to find a statistical distribution of catastrophes by date and time of year.
My gut feeling says that there may not be much of a correlation between events and Christmas at all.


----------



## MrBurns (16 November 2012)

pixel said:


> September 11, 2001
> It would be interesting to find a statistical distribution of catastrophes by date and time of year.
> My gut feeling says that there may not be much of a correlation between events and Christmas at all.




You may be right but the memorable ones seem to be in the Nov Feb range, probably because everyone is on holidays I'm not sure but every year it seems to happen,

We can test it soon.


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2012)

A lot of family disasters seem to happen at christmas get togethers. LOL


----------



## MrBurns (16 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> A lot of family disasters seem to happen at christmas get togethers. LOL




and suicides as lonliness is front and center , familty problems alcohol related quite common, but thats not what we are talking about.


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> and suicides as lonliness is front and center , familty problems alcohol related quite common, but thats not what we are talking about.




That's true, you seem to be focusing on mass deaths and or mass destruction, not a very uplifting discussion. Then again, trying to link disasters to a human generated calender is a bit out there.


----------



## MrBurns (16 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> That's true, you seem to be focusing on mass deaths and or mass destruction, not a very uplifting discussion. Then again, trying to link disasters to a human generated calender is a bit out there.




Just been aware for a while now that the festive season always seems to ne interrupted by a disaster of some kind.


----------



## Miss Hale (16 November 2012)

The bushfires thing is not surprising.  February is one of the hottest months in the southern states and by then the grass is usually tinder dry.


----------



## sptrawler (16 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Just been aware for a while now that the festive season always seems to ne interrupted by a disaster of some kind.




That's probably added to by the fact that parliament is on summer holidays and the local press have to look overseas to find news.
Added to that the local news people are probably on holidays, so they just pull the news off the internet.


----------



## IFocus (17 November 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Ever noticed how disasters happen around Christmas time, storms extreme weather usually, fiscal cliff ?





When is the world end..... Mayan Calendar.......sounds like a sure thing.


----------



## MrBurns (6 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Ever noticed how disasters happen around Christmas time, storms extreme weather usually, fiscal cliff ?




Dame Elisabeth Murdoch dead at 103

Jazz great Dave Brubeck dead at 91


----------



## tech/a (6 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> When is the world end..... Mayan Calendar.......sounds like a sure thing.




Evidently its been tweeked to 21/12/12
Im having an Armeggedon Party all invited.
Playing golf the day after so wont be drinking much.


----------



## MrBurns (6 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Evidently its been tweeked to 21/12/12
> Im having an Armeggedon Party all invited.
> Playing golf the day after so wont be drinking much.




You think Armeggedon will spare the golf course ?


----------



## Logique (6 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> When is the world end..... Mayan Calendar.......sounds like a sure thing.



21 Dec 2012 is the date I've heard, so it will be a frenzy of bucket-listing over the next two weeks.


----------



## burglar (6 December 2012)

Logique said:


> 21 Dec 2012 is the date I've heard, so it will be a frenzy of bucket-listing over the next two weeks.




I hope it's in the afternoon.

I've got the plumber coming in the morning!!


----------



## MrBurns (7 December 2012)

> Powerful quake strikes Japan
> 
> A tsunami alert has been issued following a powerful earthquake off the east coast of Japan.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/powerful-quake-strikes-japan/4415904


----------



## IFocus (7 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> You think Armeggedon will spare the golf course ?






tech/a said:


> Evidently its been tweeked to 21/12/12
> Im having an Armeggedon Party all invited.
> Playing golf the day after so wont be drinking much.




No point being sober if its the end


----------



## MrBurns (7 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> No point being sober if its the end




Darn toot'n


----------



## pixel (7 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Evidently its been tweeked to 21/12/12
> Im having an Armeggedon Party all invited.
> Playing golf the day after so wont be drinking much.




and our Prime-Ministerial Julia has promised she'll keep working for us till the bitter end.
I'll bet there are a few people here hoping she's got the timing right and indeed quit working on the 21st.

... and then: WHAT?


----------



## cynic (7 December 2012)

Darn it! 

I'd forgotten about the Mayans!

I wish someone had reminded me sooner!

I've already finished my Chrissy shopping for this year. Looks like I've wasted money that could have been better utilised in an armageddon eve binge!


----------



## MrBurns (12 December 2012)

Sitar master Ravi Shankar dead at 92

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-12/ravi-shankar-reportedly-dead/4424116


----------



## MrBurns (17 December 2012)

Newtown, Connecticut massacre............

and - 

Tony Charlton dies -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-17/veteran-broadcaster-charlton-dies/4431358


----------



## CanOz (17 December 2012)

ITs Christmas time, I've got a 7kg turkey to cook....and my gall bladder is giving me grief , its not stones so I'm hoping it clears up before the big cook up....

CanOz


----------



## cynic (22 December 2012)

Logique said:


> 21 Dec 2012 is the date I've heard, so it will be a frenzy of bucket-listing over the next two weeks.




I stayed up all night to watch it end! 

What a disappointment -the darned planet's still here!

(Then again, it wouldn't quite be the end of the 21st yet where the Mayan's were located, so with a bit of luck we might still see it! We should know within the next few hours.)


----------



## MrBurns (25 December 2012)

> Odd Couple star Jack Klugman dies
> 
> Emmy-winning actor Jack Klugman, a versatile, raspy-voiced mainstay of US television during the 1970s and early '80s, has died aged 90.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-25/odd-couple-star-jack-klugman-dies/4443320


----------



## CanOz (25 December 2012)

That's too bad about Jack, he put in some good innings though...good on ya mate

Got the Chrissy music on!

Turkey is in the oven, we got a small one this year 6.8kg. My first Christmas in China without my team, but my first with my new bride.:remybussi For four years when i was with them i cooked them Christmas dinner. We had a long table, from work trestles, and it fed 26 comfortably. Good times.

This year I've got turnips and carrots cooking, plus potatoes which i will divide into thirds and dose one with a generous helping of summer savory then bake.:emp:

Then its onto the gravy before we take the bird and trimmings to our neighbors from Michigan down the street. She's doing the Coleslaw.

Uncork a red and a white and woo hoo, get stuck into it!:drink:

Hope everyone is having a great day!

CanOz


----------



## MrBurns (25 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> Uncork a red and a white and woo hoo, get stuck into it!:drink:
> 
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> 
> CanOz




Great CanOz live life, enjoy what you have and be thankful like the rest of us.


----------



## CanOz (25 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Great CanOz live life, enjoy what you have and be thankful like the rest of us.




You know Burnsy, there are not too many days that I let go by when i don't wake up and think "I'm alive, I've got another day!". I really try and make the most of every day and i am truly so grateful to have that ability....


Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## MrBurns (25 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> You know Burnsy, there are not too many days that I let go by when i don't wake up and think "I'm alive, I've got another day!". I really try and make the most of every day and i am truly so grateful to have that ability....
> Cheers,
> CanOz




Merry Christmas mate


----------



## sptrawler (25 December 2012)

Well christmas family get together, 10 adults and 5 kids under 5. 
38 deg c day, no blues, what a great day. Yeh
Thank god, they've all left. Put the feet up and pour a red, ahhh


----------



## DocK (25 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well christmas family get together, 10 adults and 5 kids under 5.
> 38 deg c day, no blues, what a great day. Yeh
> Thank god, they've all left. Put the feet up and pour a red, ahhh




Righto, that's another year's Christmas spread of BBQ prawns, leg of ham, roast turkey, plum puddings and all the trimmings shopped for, prepared, cooked, eaten and leftovers dealt with.  I'm not going to look at food for a week and the family can damn well feed themselves from whatever they can find in the fridge  It was a lovely day of family, food and fun and I'm counting my blessings.

Hope everyone had a lovely day!


----------



## MrBurns (25 December 2012)

....


----------



## sptrawler (25 December 2012)

MrBurns, that looks like pork crackle to die for. Hope the family enjoyed Mrs Burns cooking, my mouth is watering looking at it.
Hope everyone had a wonderfull day, it makes you realise what lifes about. 
Spending quality time with people you love and watching kids faces lite up with joy, even if it is only the wrapping paper.LOL


----------



## MrBurns (25 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> MrBurns, that looks like pork crackle to die for. Hope the family enjoyed Mrs Burns cooking, my mouth is watering looking at it.
> Hope everyone had a wonderfull day, it makes you realise what lifes about.
> Spending quality time with people you love and watching kids faces lite up with joy, even if it is only the wrapping paper.LOL




Yes it means even more than money......... Best to you sptrawler


----------



## Tink (11 December 2015)

From the Racism thread ...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14057&page=9&p=892309#post892309


Just some history --

_“The earliest historical source that exists which places a pagan holiday on December 25 is the proclamation by Roman Emperor Aurelian of a celebration of Sol Invictus on that day in 274 CE. 
The earliest Christian reference to December 25 as the birth of Christ, however, dates from 202 CE.”

“There is no doubt that Santa Claus in its present form is a fairy tale or myth. However, there really was a Santa Claus. 
The name ‘Santa Claus’ is an Anglicized form of the Dutch Sinter Klaas, which in turn meant ‘Saint Nicholas.’

“Nicholas was a Christian bishop in the fourth century about whom we know little for sure. 

He apparently attended the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, and a very strong tradition suggests that he did show unusual kindness toward children. While the red-suited old man in a sled pulled by flying reindeer is a myth, the story of a children-loving old man who brought them gifts probably is not ”” and in many countries, that is all there is to ‘Santa Claus.’

http://www.biography.com/news/st-nicholas-santa-claus-origin-story_


----------



## Tisme (11 December 2015)

Somebody has done some homework to produce his tome:


http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

Tink said:


> The earliest historical source that exists which places a pagan holiday on December 25 is the proclamation by Roman Emperor Aurelian of a celebration of Sol Invictus on that day in 274 CE.
> ]




No Tink, winter solstice is any event marked by cultures all around the world dating back to prehistory.

The Bible itself even mention people celebrating it, by bringing in a tree.




> The earliest Christian reference to December 25 as the birth of Christ, however, dates from 202 CE.”




Yeah, don't you find that weird?

that the earliest reference to the birth date of Jesus comes 202 years after said birth, the fact that there is zero documentation or artwork etc that was made during the life of jesus is in my opinion evidence that the Jesus story may be a myth.

I mean I know the supernatural stuff is a myth, just like the super natural stuff about santa is a myth, but as you mentioned the santa character is based on a real person, but its possible that the Jesus story is actually a complete fabrication.




> “There is no doubt that Santa Claus in its present form is a fairy tale or myth. However, there really was a Santa Claus.
> The name ‘Santa Claus’ is an Anglicized form of the Dutch Sinter Klaas, which in turn meant ‘Saint Nicholas.’




Even if there was a Jesus, the bible character with all the supernatural stories is a fabrication with no real relation to the real person, much like the santa character and st Nick


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> Somebody has done some homework to produce his tome:
> 
> 
> http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm




So that shows that Tink is wrong, and the pagen celebration did exist before Christmas.


----------



## Tisme (11 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So that shows that Tink is wrong, and the pagen celebration did exist before Christmas.




I doubt Tink would be wrong, merely putting out the argument for discussion. My mum is a weekly church goer and we kids were all Sundayschoolised & Churchafied; there was never any doubt that Jesus didn't look like an Italian with paper thin skin and that his age is a side issue and that it's commonsense to have celebrations when there isn't pressing jobs to do like sowing, ploughing, copulating and harvesting. The Queen herself has a myriad of birth dates.


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I doubt Tink would be wrong, merely putting out the argument for discussion. My mum is a weekly church goer and we kids were all Sundayschoolised & Churchafied; there was never any doubt that Jesus didn't look like an Italian with paper thin skin and that his age is a side issue and that it's commonsense to have celebrations when there isn't pressing jobs to do like sowing, ploughing, copulating and harvesting. The Queen herself has a myriad of birth dates.




I mean she is wrong with her claim that that the Christian celebration predates the pagan one.


----------



## Tisme (11 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I mean she is wrong with her claim that that the Christian celebration predates the pagan one.




I didn't notice that bit, but yeah whatever reference she is quoting seems to be rather optimistic that the foreboding of winter wouldn't spawn some kind of festival before the challenges of making it out the other side thawed out, pliable and breathing. Even more important when you consider living past your thirties was an achievement back then ...


----------



## Value Collector (11 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I didn't notice that bit, but yeah whatever reference she is quoting seems to be rather optimistic that the foreboding of winter wouldn't spawn some kind of festival before the challenges of making it out the other side thawed out, pliable and breathing. Even more important when you consider living past your thirties was an achievement back then ...




And if we didn't have something to celebrate, we would just have to make something up, we all need to drink, eat, be merry and let people know we love them, those are what Christmas is to most.







Here is a great song that wraps up the meaning of Christmas perfectly in my view.


----------



## Tisme (14 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And if we didn't have something to celebrate, we would just have to make something up, we all need to drink, eat, be merry and let people know we love them, those are what Christmas is to most.




Perhaps, but if you believe what is said about pagans, they tended to celebrate nature rather than the science behind the wonder of food, water and life. But then again you see the need for the spiritual in the Oz aboriginal culture and they are the last remnants of the first wave out of Africa, albeit carrying some genetic traits from across the straights.

It's almost as if there's a correlation between organised religion and progressive society; as that society stalls so too does the complexities of the religious dogma.

Don't forget that Jesus wasn't averse to drink and food either, he even got his mate Judas sh1tfaced and double dared him to dob on him before the roosters had finished their daily ritual...... someone should have taken his car keys!


----------



## Value Collector (17 December 2015)

Turns out the St Nick story is weirder than I thought, lol


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2015)

Would you say that the story of Mohammed and therefore Islam is just as mythical as the story of Jesus and Christianity ?


----------



## luutzu (17 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you say that the story of Mohammed and therefore Islam is just as mythical as the story of Jesus and Christianity ?




I think Mohammed was a real person. From what little I do know it seem there's a lot of evidence that he the person existed.

As to hearing God's words and ascend to Heaven on that rock where his followers later build the tomb around it... that's all fiction and myth. At least that's how I see it.

Then of course generations later his live and deeds are romanticised and mythologised. He's probably just one of those warrior king who managed to established both a religion, a people and an empire.


As an aside... throughout Eastern/Chinese history, there's a few characters who were real people but due to "god-like" ability, popular culture and act of the state, they became god and have temples built after them. With people worshiping, praying to them as a literal God. 

So if you go to any Chinese Temple you'll see a red-faced, long bearded guy with a a long sabre... He was Guang Chung - a famous general during the Three Kingdom period (collapse of latter Han). 

People worship and pray to him for courage, loyalty and martial ability. All Chinese Triads and Police pray to the same dude for the same reason - just different aims. 


The Romans did that too.. where the emperor can decree some special people as a god. or made themselve into a god to be worshipped in those far flung colonies.


----------



## pixel (17 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you say that the story of Mohammed and therefore Islam is just as mythical as the story of Jesus and Christianity ?




Definitely not.
Mohammed is a historical figure, well documented by contemporary sources. He wrote the Quran in the middle of the 7th century AD for a variety of purposes. In general, I'd credit him with good intentions, such as rules for healthy living, domestic peace, but the pox on outsiders, etc. In order to solidify his authority and acceptance by "the unwashed masses", he cloaked his teachings into religious jargon, threatening sinners with eternal damnation and promising believers eternal paradise with free enjoyment of everything forbidden before one's death.

As a historic person, Jesus is far less documented - at least from independent contemporary sources. None of the Gospels has been written by himself; legends around his teachings were passed around orally. While biblical scholars will claim that in those days, legends were recounted far more reliably because the oral tradition took the role of written records, one need only compare the four main Gospels to find inconsistencies incompatible with such assurances. For Centuries, at least up until the Council of Nicaea, legends were altered, edited, and amended - all with the best intentions, of course, in order to solidify the authority of the church hierarchy.

Long story short: Mohammad wrote the Quran in one  piece as a religio-political manifesto. Jesus didn't write any of the Gospels; His teachings - if in fact any survived in their original form - were written and edited by a great number of followers over centuries, adding myths and legends to the basic tenet.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 December 2015)

pixel said:


> Definitely not.
> 
> Long story short: Mohammad wrote the Quran in one  piece as a religio-political manifesto. Jesus didn't write any of the Gospels; His teachings - if in fact any survived in their original form - were written and edited by a great number of followers over centuries, adding myths and legends to the basic tenet.




Interesting that the Muslims recognise Jesus's existence and regard him as a prophet of Allah.


----------



## pixel (17 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting that the Muslims recognise Jesus's existence and regard him as a prophet of Allah.




They recognise other mythical figures too: Moses, Abraham, Satan, and a number of Archangels.
But so do Mormons and, I believe, Latter-Day Saints as well.

The only truly original, as far as I can think of, is L.Ron Hubbard's Science Fictionology. He really invented a brand new Fantasia, without reference to any earlier ones. Which probably explains why all followers of those older creeds feel spurned, ignored, and are therefor especially vehement in objecting to his piece of fiction. 
(All, with the exception of Hollywood make-believers, of course. But we all know what a gullible bunch they are.)


----------



## Value Collector (18 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you say that the story of Mohammed and therefore Islam is just as mythical as the story of Jesus and Christianity ?




Well there is a lot more evidence of Mohammed "The Man" existing.

But the stories about him such as flying a winged horse to heaven, being visited by angels, talking to allah etc would be mythical.

The Evidence I was asking for about Jesus eg. writtings about him from during his life ect actually exist for mohammed, But offcourse the religious stories and supernatural stuff is Mythical.


----------



## Value Collector (18 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting that the Muslims recognise Jesus's existence and regard him as a prophet of Allah.




Its called Fan fiction Buddy, Islam came about hundreds of years after the stories of Jesus had made the rounds.

Allah is just the Arabic would for god, and Allah is the god of Abraham, the same god from the Old and new testament, So they kept a lot of the same characters and just wrote a new updated book to suit themselves, Much like the Christians did.


----------



## luutzu (18 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting that the Muslims recognise Jesus's existence and regard him as a prophet of Allah.




Maybe Christians don't like that - taking their Lord down a notch and stuff. 

Oi, Christ is the son of God, not one of his top lieutenants.


----------



## luutzu (18 December 2015)

pixel said:


> They recognise other mythical figures too: Moses, Abraham, Satan, and a number of Archangels.
> But so do Mormons and, I believe, Latter-Day Saints as well.
> 
> The only truly original, as far as I can think of, is L.Ron Hubbard's Science Fictionology. He really invented a brand new Fantasia, without reference to any earlier ones. Which probably explains why all followers of those older creeds feel spurned, ignored, and are therefor especially vehement in objecting to his piece of fiction.
> (All, with the exception of Hollywood make-believers, of course. But we all know what a gullible bunch they are.)




All religion have a common aim though - legally avoiding tax  

Kinda like big corporations nowadays.


----------



## luutzu (18 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Its called Fan fiction Buddy, Islam came about hundreds of years after the stories of Jesus had made the rounds.
> 
> Allah is just the Arabic would for god, and Allah is the god of Abraham, the same god from the Old and new testament, So the kept a lot of the same characters and just wrote a new book to suit themselves, Much like the Christians did.




So when are you going to start your own one VC?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Its called Fan fiction Buddy, Islam came about hundreds of years after the stories of Jesus had made the rounds.
> 
> Allah is just the Arabic would for god, and Allah is the god of Abraham, the same god from the Old and new testament, So the kept a lot of the same characters and just wrote a new book to suit themselves, Much like the Christians did.




So logically speaking, Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same god, so why should Jews and Christians be seen as "infidels" by Muslims ?

This is a pretty important point imo, because all the religious wars being fought appear to be based on a false premise i.e. that Allah is only for Muslims and everyone else are unbelievers.


----------



## Value Collector (18 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So logically speaking, Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same god, so why should Jews and Christians be seen as "infidels" by Muslims ?
> 
> This is a pretty important point imo, because all the religious wars being fought appear to be based on a false premise i.e. that Allah is only for Muslims and everyone else are unbelievers.




Some of the conflict is because they are fighting over some of the same religious sites and holy lands.

The Jews and the chrisitians deny Mohammed is a prophet at all, and that pisses off a lot of Muslims, they also deny the teachings of the quran, eg women don't cover up, drink alcohol, eat pork (Though only Christians ignore the bible and quran commands about pork)

The Qu'ran does talk about "the people of the book", Being the bible followers, and I think it puts them higher in the pecking order than non believers, but they are still pretty lowly because they have been "fooled and corrupted" into believeing Jesus was a god.


----------



## pixel (18 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So logically speaking, Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same god, so why should Jews and Christians be seen as "infidels" by Muslims ?
> 
> This is a pretty important point imo, because all the religious wars being fought appear to be based on a false premise i.e. that Allah is only for Muslims and everyone else are unbelievers.




The "Religions of The Book" - you mentioned the major three - are tribal by nature:
*We are right, the only Tribe loved by The Boss, and all other Tribes must be damned!*
It originated when resources were scarce and tribes had to defend their turf or lose it to the mob next-door. Much like bikies and triads battling it out in today's suburbs. Primitive atavism.

You'll be far less surprised about the Islamic "Us vs Them" attitude when you think back to the Crusades. Or even the strife in Northern Ireland. Those combatants even claim to be Christian on both sides!

It seems we're back to the other topic, "Religious Nutters Are Crazy"


----------



## McLovin (18 December 2015)

pixel said:


> The "Religions of The Book" - you mentioned the major three - are tribal by nature:
> *We are right, the only Tribe loved by The Boss, and all other Tribes must be damned!*
> It originated when resources were scarce and tribes had to defend their turf or lose it to the mob next-door. Much like bikies and triads battling it out in today's suburbs. Primitive atavism.
> 
> ...




+1

Just look at how the sunnis butcher the shiites and vice-versa. All the Abrahamic religions have the same base they just change the icing. Muslim, Jew, Christian are more similar than they're not. Each built on the last. The Christians took the Torah and adopted it as the Old Testament and added the New Testament. The Muslims took both and added the Koran.


----------



## Value Collector (18 December 2015)

pixel said:


> It seems we're back to the other topic, "Religious Nutters Are Crazy"




lol, its such fertile ground for discussion.

the worst thing is each of the 3 religions call for the world to end, and growing numbers of each side believe its happening soon and are even pushing for it to happen.

very scary when leaders believe it.


----------



## Tink (19 December 2015)

So I presume you are including atheism (extremists) and their religion, their belief and rage against God.
Making money off the back of non believers, and their political correctness.

Christmas -- Christ's Mass.

You can try and change history all you like, VC, but it is there.

Christmas is a Christian holiday.

holiday

Origin
Old English hāligdÃ¦g ‘holy day’.

Old English hāligdÃ¦g ‘holy day’.

holy
[hoh-lee]  -- specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated: 

Our history, our tradition, and our Christian culture.


----------



## Logique (19 December 2015)

Not to trample on anyone's sensibilities at this time of year, but just wanted to mention the ancient Roman _Saturnalia_ and ancient Greek _Kronia_, which are similar in theme. 

Also the prevailing view is that Stonehenge was orientated towards, and spawned celebrations around, the mid-winter solstice - praying for the sun to return.

With the Christian festival, I wish some thought had been given to southern hemisphere worshippers, slogging it out in the summer heat.  Mid winter would be such a better time for this festival.


----------



## Tisme (19 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So logically speaking, Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same god, so why should Jews and Christians be seen as "infidels" by Muslims ?
> 
> This is a pretty important point imo, because all the religious wars being fought appear to be based on a false premise i.e. that Allah is only for Muslims and everyone else are unbelievers.




It seems to be the subsets that cause a lot of the grief. Remember Ireland?


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> It seems to be the subsets that cause a lot of the grief. Remember Ireland?




Not to mention the internecine Muslim wars, Sunni vs Shia


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> It seems to be the subsets that cause a lot of the grief. Remember Ireland?




Sometime it could just be the drunken red heads. haha


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not to mention the internecine Muslim wars, Sunni vs Shia




When people go to war, they'll find some differences that make them better than their enemies.

WW1 was pretty much a Christian kingdom on Christian kingdom thing. Their kings/czar were all cousins (thanks Victoria) who were pretty good friends before the German one got gunboat envy... Not sure what each side see as the cause of that war.


----------



## Tisme (19 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> When people go to war, they'll find some differences that make them better than their enemies.
> 
> WW1 was pretty much a Christian kingdom on Christian kingdom thing. Their kings/czar were all cousins (thanks Victoria) who were pretty good friends before the German one got gunboat envy... Not sure what each side see as the cause of that war.





First industrial war = expansion of empires for labour and resources


----------



## Bill M (19 December 2015)

This is the one time of the year I hate very much. The sooner it's over and the kids are back at school the quicker we resume our happy normal lives. 

We just hunker down, go nowhere and get out of the way of others who only have this time for shopping, family and the travels they want to do. 

You should see the deranged morons on Christmas eve, you would think the shops were closing for weeks the way they all queue for everything the same time, same areas, going around in circles in the 38 degree heat in the carpark looking for a space.  Like there isn't 363 other days in the year to stock up.

My fridge was full of beer and wine a while ago. Air con will be on, smoked salmon and poached eggs for brekkie and no bickering family idiots to put up with. A quiet day at home eating all the goodies and having a few drinkies with the wife and that is it for us.

To the rest of you all, Merry Christmas and enjoy it, cheers. :alcohol:


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2015)

Bill M said:


> This is the one time of the year I hate very much. The sooner it's over and the kids are back at school the quicker we resume our happy normal lives.
> 
> We just hunker down, go nowhere and get out of the way of others who only have this time for shopping, family and the travels they want to do.
> 
> ...




It all seems a bit too obligatory these days. Of course it's commercialised to the limit and probably causes more problems than it solves.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2015)

Tink said:


> So I presume you are including atheism (extremists) and their religion, their belief and rage against God.
> Making money off the back of non believers, and their political correctness.
> 
> Christmas -- Christ's Mass.
> ...



i

So which extremists are doing bad things because of atheism tink?

Atheists don't "hate god", we don't believe in God, to the point we get angry, we are angry at religious folk forcing their imaginary friends on us, and trying to infringe on our rights.

Christmas was a pagan holiday before it was renamed, then it was Christian for a long time, now it's mostly celebrated in a secular fashion, not many people attend "Christs mass" any more, but you are free to.

Ask the average person in the street what they love about Christmas and how they are celebrating, I doubt you will get a high percentage stating religious things.


----------



## Bill M (19 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Atheists don't "hate god", we don't believe in God, to the point we get angry, we are angry at religious folk forcing their imaginary friends on us, and trying to infringe on our rights.




I have a DO NOT KNOCK sticker next to my front door. The other day some Jehovah Witlessness came and knocked on my door. Maybe they can't read or didn't see the sticker.

I told them I don't believe in any religion. I was polite at all times but the second guy then said, "look at this beautiful flower, only a higher being is responsible for this, this isn't a freak of nature." I told him, I cut it, I planted it and grew it myself. No freaking God gave it to me. He said maybe they could call back sometime in the future and I told them not to worry about it. I wish they would all piss off and leave me alone.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Our history, our tradition, and our Christian culture.




and you are free to have what ever traditions you want, but why do you ant to force your traditions on others, other people have other traditions.

Why can't you just be happy with your own traditions, Why is it that Christians are never really happy until they believe society at large is following their traditions.

I have a tradition of sitting on my Dads verandah eating mussels and drinking rum, that makes me happy, but I am not going to try and make you do it, who are you to try and tell everyone else what they should be celebrating.


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> and you are free to have what ever traditions you want, but why do you ant to force your traditions on others, other people have other traditions.
> 
> Why can't you just be happy with your own traditions, Why is it that Christians are never really happy until they believe society at large is following their traditions.
> 
> I have a tradition of sitting on my Dads verandah eating mussels and drinking rum, that makes me happy, but I am not going to try and make you do it, who are you to try and tell everyone else what they should be celebrating.




yea. but maybe that's because your Dad wouldn't want us on that verandah drinking his rum


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2015)

Bill M said:


> I have a DO NOT KNOCK sticker next to my front door. The other day some Jehovah Witlessness came and knocked on my door. Maybe they can't read or didn't see the sticker.
> 
> I told them I don't believe in any religion. I was polite at all times but the second guy then said, "look at this beautiful flower, only a higher being is responsible for this, this isn't a freak of nature." I told him, I cut it, I planted it and grew it myself. No freaking God gave it to me. He said maybe they could call back sometime in the future and I told them not to worry about it. I wish they would all piss off and leave me alone.




God always take credit for the good stuff.

And Xmas... the parents buy the presents, but for some reason the kids have to believe some fat dude gave it to them. Where's our credit when it's earned and paid for?


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> First industrial war = expansion of empires for labour and resources




ah see. 

So no clash of civilisation... just last man standing get to keep what's left then?


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> yea. but maybe that's because your Dad wouldn't want us on that verandah drinking his rum




I am sure you would be welcome if you brought some Rum and mussels to share, lol.


----------



## Value Collector (19 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> ah see.
> 
> So no clash of civilisation... just last man standing get to keep what's left then?




Ww1 explained if you are interested.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd2ch4XV84s[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2015)

WWI, a great example of why not to believe politicians and why you should never volunteer for anything.


----------



## Tisme (19 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> and you are free to have what ever traditions you want, but why do you ant to force your traditions on others, other people have other traditions.
> 
> Why can't you just be happy with your own traditions, Why is it that Christians are never really happy until they believe society at large is following their traditions.
> 
> I have a tradition of sitting on my Dads verandah eating mussels and drinking rum, that makes me happy, but I am not going to try and make you do it, who are you to try and tell everyone else what they should be celebrating.





I'm starting to think you would be fertile material for a Dickensian novella about bah humbug.


----------



## pixel (19 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm starting to think you would be fertile material for a Dickensian novella about bah humbug.




Ebenezer's "bah, humbug" was only objectionable at the time when Dickens wrote it. Society in Victorian England was much stricter than it is today. Ideas and expressions that failed to conform to the strict interpretation of Judaeo-Christian morals were suppressed - even well into the 20th century. 
In that kind of restrictive environment, a novelist could only get away with Scrooge's utterings as a precursor to a conversion with the aid of nightmares and moralising sky-fairies. 

Intellectuals capable of independent thought would have been well aware that Scrooge's thinking was indeed very widespread; they would have seen his conversion as sugar-coating used to keep the poor at bay, hoping for a better time in an imaginary afterlife. And the longer they were forbidden to express their thoughts in public, the stronger the pressure became, until a single far more antithetic manifesto broke the dam of suppression.

Isn't it ironic that Marx and Engels lived and shaped their ideas in London, but published "Das Kapital" in Germany. (Bakunin translated it into Russian, and it was in Russia where it found the weakest spot.)

At this day and age, nobody in their right mind will get upset about an outspoken Ebenezer Scrooge. Nor will they get upset about somebody expressing Victorian morals. The overriding theme today is *Tolerance of Differences.* Only a small minority of extremists continue to take offense if they don't have it all their way.


----------



## Tink (20 December 2015)

VC, it was you that said Christmas songs should be banned in public.
It is your mob trying to remove nativity scenes.
What threat do you have with a baby in a manger?

Who is trying to control people and how they think?
Your totalitarian mob.
They even try to tell us how to speak.

Christmas has been here longer than your politically correct rubbish.
The problem with these progressives, they go along trying to destroy the good things in this country, that have been here for many years.


----------



## Plan B (20 December 2015)

Tink said:


>





Love it Tink! Best Christmas song ever!


----------



## Tisme (20 December 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, it was you that said Christmas songs should be banned in public.
> It is your mob trying to remove nativity scenes.
> What threat do you have with a baby in a manger?
> 
> ...





Vandals you reckon Tink? Doing to our foundations what ISIS did to Palmyra?


----------



## Tisme (20 December 2015)

pixel said:


> Ebenezer's "bah, humbug" was only objectionable at the time when Dickens wrote it. Society in Victorian England was much stricter than it is today. Ideas and expressions that failed to conform to the strict interpretation of Judaeo-Christian morals were suppressed - even well into the 20th century.
> In that kind of restrictive environment, a novelist could only get away with Scrooge's utterings as a precursor to a conversion with the aid of nightmares and moralising sky-fairies.
> 
> Intellectuals capable of independent thought would have been well aware that Scrooge's thinking was indeed very widespread; they would have seen his conversion as sugar-coating used to keep the poor at bay, hoping for a better time in an imaginary afterlife. And the longer they were forbidden to express their thoughts in public, the stronger the pressure became, until a single far more antithetic manifesto broke the dam of suppression.
> ...




I'm not too sure if that was a sermon for my benefit Pixel, but from extensive observation and with great modesty, I have no doubt I would be the most progressive thinking person on this board. And as the doyen of all things important to me, I would say that to know your future you must embrace the past, not kill it, not deny it and certainly not make it a jigsaw piece that is vague recollection of its original shape.

Nobody likes a grump and if that's what you get when you wipe away parts of your social tolerance/respect then the exercise is an abject failure.

My credentials are well aired here and while I have a hard time with phantom gods and the like, I do not believe for one moment that the human psyche will ever rid itself of the need to believe in some deity to fill a void that the brain seems to have reserved for such things. While I can comfortably divorce myself from the skyfairy notion, others seem to have to work hard at it and put great effort into learning how not to believe ... they are the bah humbugs I was referring to (like welded on  Lib/Lab/Grn party faithful).

Remember Jesus loves you (but Daesh hates your guts)


----------



## luutzu (20 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> I'm not too sure if that was a sermon for my benefit Pixel, but from extensive observation and with great modesty, I have no doubt I would be the most progressive thinking person on this board. And as the doyen of all things important to me, I would say that to know your future you must embrace the past, not kill it, not deny it and certainly not make it a jigsaw piece that is vague recollection of its original shape.
> 
> Nobody likes a grump and if that's what you get when you wipe away parts of your social tolerance/respect then the exercise is an abject failure.
> 
> ...




Yes. Very modest, and deep too.


----------



## luutzu (20 December 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, it was you that said Christmas songs should be banned in public.
> It is your mob trying to remove nativity scenes.
> What threat do you have with a baby in a manger?
> 
> ...





He probably mean Public/Government places - not public as in public public, say a park or your front yard or your Church.

I think such separation of Church and State is what build great nations such as ours.

The founding fathers here were smart enough to recognise that the Church and its priesthoods have way too much power and influence, and they can't be reasoned with because their boss is the Man upstairs and no one can climb that stairs and come back to Earth. So that's no good.

So when they saw their chance, the separate Church and its high priests from free and able men just like themselves to make rational, free market decisions that benefit all men (like themselves).

So technically, Public buildings and gov't institution should not celebrate and promote one religion over another. But since most in power are Christian, and most voters are also Christians... went off a tangent somewhere 

Merry Christmas Tink.


----------



## luutzu (20 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am sure you would be welcome if you brought some Rum and mussels to share, lol.




Ah yes, sharing. I'm not very good at that 

Have a good one VC. I'm taking mine to see Star Wars.


----------



## pixel (20 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> He probably mean Public/Government places - not public as in public public, say a park or your front yard or your Church.
> 
> I think such separation of Church and State is what build great nations such as ours.



+1, luutzu
That's precisely my idea of Tolerance.



> So technically, Public buildings and gov't institution should not celebrate and promote one religion over another. But since most in power are Christian, and most voters are also Christians... went off a tangent somewhere



Slight modification: I'd say "most in power are Scrooge, pretending to have been led back to Christian values" and a great many politicians believe that more of their constituents will vote for them if they maintain a Christian facade.

I also don't believe that "Merry Christmas" is offensive to anyone (except possibly some extreme nutters like ISIL). The calendar displays the upcoming holidays as "Christmas". That's the proper English name, and I'm all in favour of retaining English as Australia's official language. As to why some social engineers tried to replace the reference, I can only think of PC gone mad: Someone must have spent a lot of time trying to find a situation and alien mindset where a hypothetical offense might be perceived. In order to find an excuse for their drawing money from the Public Purse, they then suggested "Let's drop this and that *just in case a non-Australian, non-English speaking person might feel uncomfortable hearing it.*" That's the kind of thinking that even led to the removal of Christian icons from wards in St John of God Hospitals. How stupid is that?!? In order to avoid an imaginary hypothetical patient feeling uncomfortable, they deprive thousands of the comfort they may derive from the familiar cross or icon.

I exchange Christmas and New Year's greetings with friends around the world, regardless whether they belong to any faith or none. Not a single one has objected, everyone keeps responding in kind, be they Hindu, Chinese, Jewish, or Muslim. They might, however, and I certainly would, object if someone took the friendly salutation as an excuse to proselytise and stuff their own brand of religious zeal down the recipient's throat. Think Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons knocking at the door offering "Merry Christmas". 
 That's no longer a friendly salutation.


----------



## Value Collector (20 December 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, it was you that said Christmas songs should be banned in public.
> It is your mob trying to remove nativity scenes.
> What threat do you have with a baby in a manger?
> 
> ...





Nope, I never said ban carols in public, I said if public schools want to sing them they should choose the secular ones though, and not use the event to preach to children.

Have all the nativity scenes you want at your home, your church, your business, I just don't want the government funding them unless they are prepared to fund all religious things including the satanic temples and church of the flying spaghetti monsters, also keep them out of schools unless you are using it as part of a broad based religious history thing and you are not preaching.

I am not controlling you, just sticking up for the separation of church and state.


----------



## Value Collector (20 December 2015)

Merry Christmas isn't offensive, but it's exclusive, by all means say merry Christmas, even I say merry Christmas when talking to people I know who celebrate it.

but the further away from the actual date, and the less I know some one, the more likely I am to say a more broad greeting, because not everyone celebrates Christmas, not even all Christians, so I don't want to limit my cheer to a portion of the crowd, if I am sending out correspondence to a wide range of people I don't know, or putting up a sign for public viewing etc, I will make it a "happy holidays" or " seasons greetings" type thing.

how ever if I some one is openly celebrating Christmas, I will say merry Christmas, especially if Christmas is pretty close.

This time of year is a great time, I don't want to leave people out, and in my opinion if I wish a customer happy holidays, and they glare back and say in an aggressive tone "it's Merry Christmas" then they are the ones being anti holiday spirit, not me.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 December 2015)

> This time of year is a great time, I don't want to leave people out,




Everyone gets a holiday over Christmas so nobody gets left out, but it seems that a lot of conscientious objectors are still joining the army.

Should we also have public holidays for Ramadin and Passover and any other religious festivals ?

Why not ? Bring it on ! 

What holidays do satanists observe VC ? Saturnalia ? Let's have a public holiday for that.

Otherwise I wouldn't mind abolishing all public holidays and just let people take their leave when they want to. Christians could observe Christmas and Easter if they like, same with other religions observing their holy days. 

The problem  I have with Christmas holidays is that the country closes down between Christmas and New Year because most people take that time off due to the short space between the public holidays. Getting rid of public holidays altogether would reduce that stasis period and let people organise their own holidays to suit themselves.


----------



## Tink (21 December 2015)

Thanks, Plan B. One of my favourite Christmas songs too, and the true essence of Christmas, in my view.

Thanks, Luutzu, Merry Christmas to you too.
I enjoy reading your posts, whether we agree or don't agree, it is good that we live in a free country, and we can express how we feel.

Agree, Tisme, our history and our past, in my view, are just as important as our future.

_And as the doyen of all things important to me, I would say that to know your future you must embrace the past, not kill it, not deny it and certainly not make it a jigsaw piece that is vague recollection of its original shape._


----------



## pixel (21 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, I never said ban carols in public, I said if public schools want to sing them they should choose the secular ones though, and not use the event to preach to children.
> 
> Have all the nativity scenes you want at your home, your church, your business, I just don't want the government funding them unless they are prepared to fund all religious things including the satanic temples and church of the flying spaghetti monsters, also keep them out of schools unless you are using it as part of a broad based religious history thing and you are not preaching.
> 
> I am not controlling you, just sticking up for the separation of church and state.




+100%


----------



## Value Collector (21 December 2015)

Plan B said:


> Love it Tink! Best Christmas song ever!




I think I prefer Jingle bells Rock, especially if there are some girls in sexy cute xmas outfits dancing to it, lol.


----------



## Tink (21 December 2015)

Good to see our Vic Liberals standing up for our history and our traditions.

_The State Government's assault on our mainstream values at Christmas is appalling. 
This ban on Christmas Carols in State schools is yet another absurd example of political correctness weakening important traditions that our society have embraced for generations. 
Post-modernist claims that their hollow ideology will create tolerance and a stronger society are false promises. 
They offer no narrative or identity to bring people together. 
The harmony of our society is held together by our traditions and history. 
We forget our traditions at our own peril._


----------



## Value Collector (21 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Good to see our Vic Liberals standing up for our history and our traditions.
> 
> _The State Government's assault on our mainstream values at Christmas is appalling.
> This ban on Christmas Carols in State schools is yet another absurd example of political correctness weakening important traditions that our society have embraced for generations.
> ...




They should just Ban religious songs, there is plenty of secular Christmas carols to choose from, and they are the most fun to sing. most of the religious ones are not very good, unless you are religious I guess.

I also like john lennons Christmas song, I think its got a great message.


----------



## Value Collector (21 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> . I'm taking mine to see Star Wars.




So am I, lol. not till Thursday though, So I am currently trying to avoid spoilers like the plague.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So am I, lol. not till Thursday though, So I am currently trying to avoid spoilers like the plague.




The good guys won.

:


----------



## Tink (22 December 2015)

As I said to Luutzu, it is good that we live in a free country, but comments like yours are not what a free country is, VC.
It is people like you that are destroying this country.

How dare you tell children what they can sing, that happens in North Korea.

Those are Christmas Carols that have been here way before your political correctness, and Daniel Andrews, this pathetic Victorian Premier we have, is the biggest hypocrite, when he talks about diversity. 

Well I am glad to see that people have come out and had their say.
He has received a backlash, and petitions around Australia to show their disgust, and how important our traditions, our values and our history are

What is the matter with these Communists, yes you, VC, that they feel they need to silence people.


----------



## nickg198 (22 December 2015)

Hey Everyone

Marry Christmas to all.

My name is Neil Gaiman from Queensland. I am new here in this forum.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 December 2015)

nickg198 said:


> Hey Everyone
> 
> Marry Christmas to all.
> 
> My name is Neil Gaiman from Queensland. I am new here in this forum.




Welcome to you Neil. Lots of good discussions here and we need some new blood.


----------



## Value Collector (23 December 2015)

Tink said:


> As I said to Luutzu, it is good that we live in a free country, but comments like yours are not what a free country is, VC.
> It is people like you that are destroying this country.
> 
> How dare you tell children what they can sing, that happens in North Korea.
> ...




How is me saying "you are free to practice what ever religion you want, but you are not free to force that religion on others" not exactly what a free country should be about?

See, you are only concerned with getting your own way, you are not concerned if you are infringing on the rights of others to have freedom from religion.

In a free country you are free to live a life without having religion forced on you, but you seem to think you are above that, and can force your religion, even though you would hate another religion being forced on you.

You are blind Tink, you seem to think me saying you can't preach to other people's kids at a public school is infringing your rights, that's crazy, those kids have the right to not be preached to, if you want kids preached to, send them to a faith school.


----------



## Tink (23 December 2015)

There is plenty of religion being pushed in state schools, and it is not Christianity. 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851
Belief comes in many forms, as I have said before.

You are blind to the left agenda being pushed through schools, and your political correctness closing down conversations.
The Left trying to dismantle Christmas, and what is important in this country, is what I am standing up for.

As Rumpole said, are you going to dismantle our Christian public holidays, since it seems you don't agree with them.
The new name being pushed through is, Holiday Festival.

Conservatives try to preserve the important things in society, while you go around trying to destroy them, with nothing to show, but off the back of what Christianity created.

Our pathetic Victorian Premier has signed off for change next year.
His words of 'freedom and diversity' are rubbish.

------------
This was the article in the The Australian.

*Christmas carol ban is out of tune with society.*
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...y/news-story/3065c467b3c77fc54cd7a6fab03982fa

_Victoria's public schools are the frontline in the war on Christmas.

In an extraordinary decision of the Andrews government, Education Minister James Merlino issued a diktat to state government schools that has the effect of banning Christmas carols.

You may need to read that sentence one more time.

In an attempt to secularise public schools, a directive was issued last month to the principal of every Victorian public school. These new rules restrict the way in which teachers, parents and volunteers talk about religious ideas in our state schools. The most shocking aspect of the rules is that the teaching and singing of traditional Christmas carols will now be banished from the classroom.

"Praise music", defined as "any type of music that glorifies God or a particular religious figure or deity" will be banned from music classes beginning in January. This is the last year parents will be allowed to volunteer their lunchtimes to teach kids Christmas carols for the end-of-year concert.

Most children aren't even aware there's a religious dimension to Christmas carols. It's Christmas, and singing carols is just what people do. Silent Night has taken on its own significance beyond anything that may be characterised by some government bureaucrat as "praise music". Christmas carols now form a unique genre of music, and removing them from schools has the same effect banning any other genre of music would have; it ignores an important part of the complex tapestry of musical history.

In fact, the motivation behind a ban on Christmas carols today is remarkably similar to that which parents and teachers of children growing up in the 1950s and 60s shared in relation to rock 'n' roll. Sixty years ago, older generations worried Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry would lead a generation to juvenile delinquency. Today, the concern is that Christmas carols may lead to alarming ideas about religion and the meaning of Christmas. Christmas carols are the new subversive influence on youth that parents and teachers should be concerned about - a nonsense idea ironically given life by the fact the elite are attempting to ban them.

Of course, the government hasn't banned all Christmas carols, just those that refer to God. So while drab, contemporary Christmas songs such as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer will be spared, the traditional carols - those that drip with a rich Christmas spirit - such as Once in Royal David's City, Hark! The Herald Angels Sing and O Come, All Ye Faithful are verboten in Victorian public schools.

But it's far bigger than all that. This is a cultural turning point. The Victorian government isn't just banning Christmas carols; this is an attempt to strip away the meaning of Christmas. It's an overt attack on one of the most significant events in the Christian calendar.

The decision goes to the heart of good education. Christmas, and all the ceremony and custom associated with it, has been a significant religious and cultural ritual for 1700 years. A ban on these traditions is a denial of our history. Suppressing aspects of the Christmas celebration denies a cultural heritage that has formed the basis of Western civilisation and that underpins our understanding of life and liberty.

A well-rounded education should include lessons on Christianity and its contribution to who we are today. We can't expect the next generation to defend the values of Western civilisation if they don't know what they are.

The inflammatory decision of the Andrews government to ban Christmas carols in Victoria's public schools must be reversed immediately. Former Victorian attorney-general Robert Clark is to be congratulated for taking a stand on the issue. In parliament Clark called on the government to "withdraw this appalling edict and make clear that students at government schools are entitled to learn, sing and enjoy Christmas carols as they have for generations". In the meantime, and while I'm still able to say it - merry Christmas!
_
----------

_- The betrayal foretold by Orwell, which came into being by force in the Soviet Empire, is coming into being by consent, in the West_


----------



## Tisme (23 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> How is me saying "you are free to practice what ever religion you want, but you are not free to force that religion on others" not exactly what a free country should be about?
> 
> See, you are only concerned with getting your own way, you are not concerned if you are infringing on the rights of others to have freedom from religion.
> 
> ...




So you are saying children should be able to make their own choices from cradle to grave? What role do parents have and which parts of child instruction are they allowed to cherry pick in this free country?

Why would we allow govt to ban religious songs, but allow secular songs to celebrate the birth of a religious icon?

On a side note, doesn't the notion that religion creates all sorts of woes sound vaguely familiar with the same logic used by the gun lobby in the USA?


----------



## Ves (23 December 2015)

*Christmas carol ban*

Does anyone have any source for this that is not a paper or website owned by the Murdoch corporations?

I haven't found anything saying christmas carols are banned, in fact I understand that it's a ban on praise music and religious hymns,  but christmas carols are excluded....

Beat up?


----------



## Tink (23 December 2015)

Ves said:


> *Christmas carol ban*
> 
> Does anyone have any source for this that is not a paper or website owned by the Murdoch corporations?
> 
> ...




Christmas Carols in Schools: the directive given to Principals

http://murraycampbell.net/2015/12/17/christmas-carols-in-schools-the-directive-given-to-principals/


----------



## Tink (23 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> So you are saying children should be able to make their own choices from cradle to grave? What role do parents have and which parts of child instruction are they allowed to cherry pick in this free country?
> 
> Why would we allow govt to ban religious songs, but allow secular songs to celebrate the birth of a religious icon?
> 
> On a side note, doesn't the notion that religion creates all sorts of woes sound vaguely familiar with the same logic used by the gun lobby in the USA?




Agree, Tisme.

It is all a part of trashing our heritage.


----------



## Ves (23 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Christmas Carols in Schools: the directive given to Principals
> 
> http://murraycampbell.net/2015/12/17/christmas-carols-in-schools-the-directive-given-to-principals/




So,  if as that blog post seems to say,  they're not actually banned,  why are you and the Australian newspaper claiming they are?

I'm a bit confused.

I've also found that The Age newspaper seems to have figured it out on 24 November (close to the date of the directive).

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/p...but-not-christmas-carols-20151124-gl6svm.html

The problem with Murdoch papers is that you have to spend time investigating their wild claims.


----------



## Value Collector (23 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> So you are saying children should be able to make their own choices from cradle to grave? What role do parents have and which parts of child instruction are they allowed to cherry pick in this free country?
> 
> Why would we allow govt to ban religious songs, but allow secular songs to celebrate the birth of a religious icon?
> 
> On a side note, doesn't the notion that religion creates all sorts of woes sound vaguely familiar with the same logic used by the gun lobby in the USA?




I didn't say anything about that, obviously parents make decisions for their kids to a point, and it's the parents decision which religion the child is raised in or not to be raised in, it is not the job of a public school to pick a religion.

if you want to raise your kids in a religion send them to a faith school or just take them to church on weekends.

Try walking in some one else's shoes, would you want your kids to receive a Muslim educaton 

If. If you should under stand why many parents don't want a Christian one


----------



## Tink (23 December 2015)

Ves said:


> So,  if as that blog post seems to say,  they're not actually banned,  why are you and the Australian newspaper claiming they are?
> 
> I'm a bit confused.
> 
> ...




But they are still banned, Ves, going by the directive, unless it gets changed.

Words are cheap, and as I said, they received a backlash.

'Silent Night' is a Christmas song, so is 'Away in a Manger', as are many others.

So you want it called a Holiday Festival then, or the public holiday removed?

Christmas is Christ's Mass.


----------



## Ves (23 December 2015)

Tink said:


> But they are still banned, Ves, going by the directive, unless it gets changed.



Here's a statement from the responsible MP's website:



> Access Ministries is currently running a campaign on the Government’s changes to Special Religious Instruction (SRI) in schools for 2016.
> 
> As a part of this campaign they are claiming that the singing of Christmas carols has been banned in schools. Christmas carols are not banned.  *Traditional Christmas carols have been and will continue to be sung at our government schools.*




http://www.jamesmerlino.com.au/news/governments-changes-to-special-religious-instruction-sri/


----------



## Tink (23 December 2015)

Thanks, Ves, but it is not religious, it is a part of our culture and our history, as I wrote above.

Merlino says ---
_
"The guidelines exist to make it clear that there is no proselytizing in Victorian government schools._

That has got to be the biggest joke coming out of the left, and their school curriculum.


----------



## Tisme (23 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't say anything about that, obviously parents make decisions for their kids to a point, and it's the parents decision which religion the child is raised in or not to be raised in, it is not the job of a public school to pick a religion.
> 
> if you want to raise your kids in a religion send them to a faith school or just take them to church on weekends.
> 
> ...




But it seems you are advocating govt interference in our freedoms of choice, which is counter intuitive to me. We pay for both state and private schools through our taxation, so why would one school be treated differently to another?


----------



## Tisme (23 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Ves, but it is not religious, it is a part of our culture and our history, as I wrote above.
> 
> Merlino says ---
> _
> ...




Didn't they pass the buck to principals to decide (at their own career peril) ?  Can you imagine someone like Tanya Plib. giving you the pursed lips and rolling eyes that most female Labor pollies in particular have ... it would be dreadful and hurts feelings for the poor old head master.

I'm fairly sure it would be a very brave school head who offended our future Islamic masters by playing xmas carols and displaying overt Jesus themes. That's the way unhealthy memes like Christianity start.... it just takes one talking head plus a necklace cross and away they go spreading bible texts like a virus, threatening the peaceful acquiescence of our great multicultural halal nation. 

At least with believers like yourself Tink, I know you would face up to any bad things you would do when God tells you to, not like the other mob who suicide rather than accept the consequences of their own selfish behaviours. The good thing about the Aussie X to now gens is that when it comes to defending the preservation of our lacklustre past, we can be happy knowing they will put in the good fight on their playstations and facebook likes emojis.


----------



## Value Collector (23 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> But it seems you are advocating govt interference in our freedoms of choice, which is counter intuitive to me. We pay for both state and private schools through our taxation, so why would one school be treated differently to another?




Because a non religious state school, should not be preaching a religion and it shouldn't be favoring one religion.

I am not in favor of the government funding religious schools either.


----------



## Tink (24 December 2015)

It is the values you live by, VC --- our Christian values, our Christian nation, and our Christian public holiday.
What this country was built on.


----------



## bellenuit (24 December 2015)

Some Prominent Atheists Express Their Views on Christmas

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...mas-richard-dawkins_n_8860248.html?1450942995


----------



## Value Collector (24 December 2015)

Tink said:


> It is the values you live by, VC --- our Christian values, our Christian nation, and our Christian public holiday.
> What this country was built on.
> 
> View attachment 65395




Which "Christian values" do I live by? any values I live by are secular, and can be noted in many cultures not just Christian.

This is a secular nation, look at the constitution.

And again, it's a national public holiday, nothing says it's only for Christians.


----------



## Tink (26 December 2015)

You may not be Christian, VC, but our country and our history, is a Christian culture.

I see Richard Dawkins doesn't deny his past ....

_"I have no problem with Christmas and no desire to rain on the Christian parade," says Richard Dawkins, who loves carols, but only "real carols about Jesus... NOT fake carols about Santa or reindeer or the loathsome Jingle Bells".

Yes. I am happy to live in a Christian country and I was brought up in a Christian culture.

_


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> if you want to raise your kids in a religion send them to a faith school or just take them to church on weekends.




I've always considered religion (any of them) to be something that adults should make their own decisions about and not something that should be forced on children.

Let kids be kids I say. No need to force religion or politics on them at an early age.


----------



## luutzu (26 December 2015)

Tink said:


> You may not be Christian, VC, but our country and our history, is a Christian culture.
> 
> I see Richard Dawkins doesn't deny his past ....
> 
> ...




I think maybe you're being a bit unfair on VC.

Maybe should thank him for testing your faith in Christ; bringing you closer to God's teaching about not throttling people's neck or speak the Lord's name in vain 

---
I think we all want Australia to be a free, fair, strong, peaceful, innovative [?]... To have an Australia with all that is good mean it should not be a "Christian" country. Nothing wrong with Christianity in that aspect. But it shouldn't be "Christian" because to be a Christian state mean it must exclude or lower the status of other Faith and other culture and people; and it put God above Law - and as it has been ever since, if God is above the Law we'll have High Priests and son of Heaven standing between Man and God, and rule with absolute power.

So any Theocratic State will necessarily be weaker than a multi-cultural, a democratic one.

One, a Theocratic state will mean policies are made by lying fools who make decisions based on ideology rather than rationality... wait, that's the same as the current Free Market mob.

OK, one... to put one religion above another mean certain policies will discriminate - discriminate against those non-believers, or believers of false prophets and weirdo "gods". Discriminate against their own people because the good book told them it's cool to discriminate...

So a state will then extinguish the potentials of its homosexuals, its women, its non-standard skin colour folks.

So the potentials and contributions of many of its citizens are ignored. Then effort must be put in to make sure such laws are adhered to. So you'd create propaganda, you encourage differences... then you have to police and secure the public against retaliation and hatred... and when taken too far, you'll get idiots cheering at the death of a toddler from act of terrorism. 

So in advocating that separation of state from Church... it's not to destroy Australia or its culture, it's to preserve and promote what is good about it: Sun, Surf, babes in bikinis, Lebs stopping their cars literally in the middle of the road to catch up on old friends and Asians get to call them bloody aholes.


----------



## bellenuit (26 December 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've always considered religion (any of them) to be something that adults should make their own decisions about and not something that should be forced on children.
> 
> Let kids be kids I say. No need to force religion or politics on them at an early age.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 December 2015)

FuÃ±ny how people who rail against religion don't seem to approve of abolishing religious holidays. Easter is not a holiday in the US , so why should it be here ? It and Christmas are simply a marketing opportunity for some businesses but cause a lot of disruption for other businesses. Ban the holidays, bah humbug. ☺


----------



## bellenuit (27 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> FuÃ±ny how people who rail against religion don't seem to approve of abolishing religious holidays. Easter is not a holiday in the US , so why should it be here ? It and Christmas are simply a marketing opportunity for some businesses but cause a lot of disruption for other businesses. Ban the holidays, bah humbug. ☺




There is another way to look at it. We should be all entitled to the same amount of public holidays. In a secular society, one could say that all public holidays should only be associated with secular events; Labour Day, etc. However, Christians who wish to partake in religious ceremonies and festivities would be inconvenienced as they would need to take additional days off work to observe those rituals. By matching some public holidays with major Christian religious events, Christians are been afforded the opportunity to observe their rituals without needing to take additional days off work. Although this came about historically because when public holidays were initially decided upon, we were a predominantly Christian "observing" country, we are now predominantly a secular society.

So rather than Christians complaining that non-Christians and secularists also get public holidays that are based on Christian events, they should be thankful that non-Christians and secularists are willing to accomodate their religious observances when they could demand that as we have become a secular society, all holidays should only have secular associations.

It is similar to the Queens Birthday. Royalists complain that republicans are willing to take a holiday on that day rather than be appreciative that Australia still allocates a day to honour the Queen, even though a (possible) majority may have republican sympathies.


----------



## luutzu (27 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> FuÃ±ny how people who rail against religion don't seem to approve of abolishing religious holidays. Easter is not a holiday in the US , so why should it be here ? It and Christmas are simply a marketing opportunity for some businesses but cause a lot of disruption for other businesses. Ban the holidays, bah humbug. ☺




They don't celebrate Easter there? Is there some sports or sales event already taking its place?


----------



## luutzu (27 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> There is another way to look at it. We should be all entitled to the same amount of public holidays. In a secular society, one could say that all public holidays should only be associated with secular events; Labour Day, etc. However, Christians who wish to partake in religious ceremonies and festivities would be inconvenienced as they would need to take additional days off work to observe those rituals. By matching some public holidays with major Christian religious events, Christians are been afforded the opportunity to observe their rituals without needing to take additional days off work. Although this came about historically because when public holidays were initially decided upon, we were a predominantly Christian "observing" country, we are now predominantly a secular society.
> 
> So rather than Christians complaining that non-Christians and secularists also get public holidays that are based on Christian events, they should be thankful that non-Christians and secularists are willing to accomodate their religious observances when they could demand that as we have become a secular society, all holidays should only have secular associations.
> 
> It is similar to the Queens Birthday. Royalists complain that republicans are willing to take a holiday on that day rather than be appreciative that Australia still allocates a day to honour the Queen, even though a (possible) majority may have republican sympathies.




Yup. Well put there.

Can I add that maybe Public celebration of Christmas and Christian holy days is the Politically Correct thing to do, not the legal thing that ought to be done.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> There is another way to look at it. We should be all entitled to the same amount of public holidays. In a secular society, one could say that all public holidays should only be associated with secular events; Labour Day, etc. However, Christians who wish to partake in religious ceremonies and festivities would be inconvenienced as they would need to take additional days off work to observe those rituals. By matching some public holidays with major Christian religious events, Christians are been afforded the opportunity to observe their rituals without needing to take additional days off work. Although this came about historically because when public holidays were initially decided upon, we were a predominantly Christian "observing" country, we are now predominantly a secular society.
> 
> So rather than Christians complaining that non-Christians and secularists also get public holidays that are based on Christian events, they should be thankful that non-Christians and secularists are willing to accomodate their religious observances when they could demand that as we have become a secular society, all holidays should only have secular associations.
> 
> It is similar to the Queens Birthday. Royalists complain that republicans are willing to take a holiday on that day rather than be appreciative that Australia still allocates a day to honour the Queen, even though a (possible) majority may have republican sympathies.




I don't really agree with that. Add the public holiday entitlements to peoples leave and let them take it when they want. It would cause less disruption to everyone that way.


----------



## bellenuit (27 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't really agree with that. Add the public holiday entitlements to peoples leave and let them take it when they want. It would cause less disruption to everyone that way.




I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. You are suggesting a new method of allocating public holidays, which I agree has possibly some merit, though downsides as well. 

I was referring to Christians being unreasonable in suggesting that secularists are hypocritically piggy backing on their religious holidays, when in fact secularists are simply being accomodating to Christians by accepting that some public holidays are matched with religious holidays so that Christians are free to partake in their religious festivities. That came about for historical reasons, but being a largely secular society there is no reason to necessarily continue that way, so Christians (some) shouldn't be so smug in their attitudes when in fact they are the beneficiaries of the public holiday system in that it works to mainly accomodate them.


----------



## McLovin (27 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> FuÃ±ny how people who rail against religion don't seem to approve of abolishing religious holidays. Easter is not a holiday in the US , so why should it be here ? It and Christmas are simply a marketing opportunity for some businesses but cause a lot of disruption for other businesses. Ban the holidays, bah humbug. ☺




With the exception of Christmas (for reasons explained below), religious public holidays in the US, like here, are done at the state level. Some states recognise Good Friday as a public holiday. The heavily religious aspect of Good Friday prevents it being a US federal holiday because of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. And to answer your next question, Christmas is considered a cultural, secular celebration so does not violate the establishment clause.

Christmas Day and Easter in Australia is a state holiday, because it could otherwise fall foul of the Constitution, although you could apply the same reasoning to Christmas being secular here.



> The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,* or for imposing any religious observance*, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth


----------



## McLovin (27 December 2015)

McLovin said:


> With the exception of Christmas (for reasons explained below), religious public holidays in the US, like here, are done at the state level.




And to add to this, the states often have to hide the true nature of the holiday so that it is not construed as a religious holiday, this problem does not exist in Australia because the Constitution applies only to the Commonwealth.

So you could for example have a "Church of New South Wales" with the governor as its head, but not a "Church of Australia" with the GG, or Queen, as its head.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Add the public holiday entitlements to peoples leave and let them take it when they want. It would cause less disruption to everyone that way.




Works until someone from the political Right starts running around comparing the number of days leave an Australian worker gets versus some other country, conveniently "forgetting" that public holidays were given up in order to increase leave days.


----------



## Tink (28 December 2015)

No, Luutzu, I am not being unfair.

This country was built on our Christian Heritage.
As has been said, the Lord's Prayer is still said in Parliament.

Christmas is a part of our culture, our tradition and our history.
Leave it alone.

Of course people can celebrate as they choose, it is about family.

This all started with our pathetic Victorian Labor/Greens Government, and the state school system, when they tried to ban carols that have been a part of this country all along.

Christmas carol ban is out of tune with society.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25726&page=6&p=893399&viewfull=1#post893399

They received a backlash from the public in disgust, and then they tried to back peddle, that it was not true.
More lies.

Christmas is about love, hope, joy and family.

Another beautiful Carol from the Nativity story.


----------



## Tom32 (28 December 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Because a non religious state school, should not be preaching a religion and it shouldn't be favoring one religion.
> 
> I am not in favor of the government funding religious schools either.




I think you have to look at the unintended consequence of the gov not funding private schools. I can afford 3x5k per annum for a private Christian school. So I pay this. The gov pays about 15k more in subsidy for my three kids.

If they were up the road at the state school the gov would be up for more.

I cannot afford 30k plus if gov withdrew support and I suspect I am not the only person in this marginal camp who would cop state education if the alternative cost too much.

Edit: I should add it was quite refreshing seeing the kids at their Christmas concert doing an old school Christmas themed concert with a bit of a moral / Christian message also. In my opinion religion, while not the only way to teach morals to kids, is quite effective at imbuing them within them.


----------



## Tisme (28 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> There is another way to look at it. We should be all entitled to the same amount of public holidays. In a secular society, one could say that all public holidays should only be associated with secular events; Labour Day, etc. However, Christians who wish to partake in religious ceremonies and festivities would be inconvenienced as they would need to take additional days off work to observe those rituals.




As recent as only a few years ago the public holidays were tested by the QLD Newman govt, which set out to dilute the Labour movement by playing politics with Labour Day and date. 

One would have to be pretty naive to think the Liberal Party would endeavour to keep or even increase leisure time and holidays if there wasn't any religious significance attached. Their manifesto is very clear about the value of working class/labour resource/unions and driving low cost production models to compete with third world poverty nations. We don't even have a viable secondary industry anymore.

In the seventies we were being told to prepare ourselves for retirement at 55, a 32 hour week and too much leisure time as production and productivity increased due to our industry, automation and cleverness.  The only ones who were clever were the public servants as the turns out; the same ones who have their hands in the till of the public monies... and I'm fairly certain they didn't achieve the benchmark working hours; that would mean doubling their effort.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 December 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Works until someone from the political Right starts running around comparing the number of days leave an Australian worker gets versus some other country, conveniently "forgetting" that public holidays were given up in order to increase leave days.




Just shows how stoopid the political Right are.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 December 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with..




I suppose I'm disagreeing with the statement



> However, Christians who wish to partake in religious ceremonies and festivities would be inconvenienced as they would need to take additional days off work to observe those rituals. By matching some public holidays with major Christian religious events, Christians are been afforded the opportunity to observe their rituals without needing to take additional days off work.




Implying that governments either State or Federal should pander to a particular religious group in the allocation of public holidays, which is why I suggest that either "religious" holidays should be deleted altogether meaning Christians would have to use part of their annual leave to observe their own personal beliefs, or everyone gets extra days leave which they can use at a time convenient to them without a disruption to the economy caused by everyone taking a day off at the same time.


----------



## Tom32 (29 December 2015)

I reckon Christmas and Easter given they have been part of the western calendar of holidays for ages is rather like buying on a golf coarse. You bought in when you were born here / moved here so don't complain about the inconvenience.

Whether you observe them or not is up to the individual.

at the end of the day you get a day off so it isn't like it's totally inconvenient for Muslims / atheists to get the time off.

They have enough annual leave to observe any additional festivities they require.


----------



## McLovin (29 December 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose I'm disagreeing with the statement
> 
> 
> 
> Implying that governments either State or Federal should pander to a particular religious group in the allocation of public holidays, which is why I suggest that either "religious" holidays should be deleted altogether meaning Christians would have to use part of their annual leave to observe their own personal beliefs, or everyone gets extra days leave which they can use at a time convenient to them without a disruption to the economy caused by everyone taking a day off at the same time.




Get rid of Easter, move the four day weekend to October or something. It's always raining at Easter. And Easter is not celebrated the way Christmas is.


----------



## ghotib (29 December 2015)

Tink said:


> No, Luutzu, I am not being unfair.
> 
> This country was built on our Christian Heritage.
> As has been said, the Lord's Prayer is still said in Parliament.
> ...



Tink, Your case might be stronger if your history was better. 

Wikipedia lists about 90 Christmas carols with English lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christmas_carols. Of these, about 75 were published in the 19th century or later. The "carols that have been a part of this country all along" (i.e. since European settlement) do NOT include such favorites as Silent Night, Angels We Have Heard on High, The First Nowell, or the English translation of O Come All Ye Faithful. 

It's true that the carols themselves might be older, sometimes much older, than their publication. But a major reason for the 19th century interest in collecting folk music was that it was disappearing. I think it's likely that carols brought to Australia before (say) 1810 were just as vulnerable to changing circumstances and fashion here as they were in the British Isles. It's worth noting that many older carols had already been adapted, reworked, and repurposed before being locked down in print. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_carol

As for bans, well I'd love to stick one on White Christmas. Is there anything stupider than crowds of sweating Australians groaning out a mournful dirge about being homesick for a Christmas blizzard?. But I can always stick my fingers in my ears.


----------



## Tisme (29 December 2015)

http://www.carols.org.uk/index-new-carols.htm


----------



## luutzu (29 December 2015)

Tink said:


> No, Luutzu, I am not being unfair.
> 
> This country was built on our Christian Heritage.
> As has been said, the Lord's Prayer is still said in Parliament.
> ...





You were saying that it's people like him that's destroying Australia right?
I think you mean destroying Australia's heritage - that heritage being Christian and free and liberal and the good stuff.

To paraphrase US Vice-president Biden, we all want a better, richer, fairer... greater country - we just do it in different ways. While Biden might have been wrong since he was referring to politicians, but that's another argument for another day 

With regards to the Atheists and politicians who separated the Church from affairs of state, or who agree with its principles... they don't do it to destroy the country, they do it to preserve and take it to a better future (there are special interests and places to be filled with the priests and bishops removed, but let's assume all politicians were noble with good intention for the plebs)... 

So while a part of Australia's culture and heritage may be destroy or made less significant with that separation... just because something was prominently there before does not mean it ought to remain prominent there forever. 

Australia and its colonies were founded on more than just Christianity and Christian values... was also founded on racism, genocide and total disregard for the legal definition of inhabited land.

We've discarded most of the foundation principles and beliefs... mainly because genocide is not that acceptable, racism and discrimination not so good; voters can only be the landed gentry - well that's essentially the same now as then... 

To quote Han Fei Tzu, "to change or not to change is not important; what is important is whether the change is good and beneficial."

So how does removing the Church's influence over Australian politics harmful to Australia? How does it destroy the country or even its foundations? 

As VC and others have also pointed out... by removing Christianity/Church from Australian politics, the country has actually live up to and moved a bit closer to the teachings of Christ - to care for the poor; to help the beaten and robbed; to be good to thy neighbour.

Does it really matter if these teachings of Christ are met without having some guy in a pointy hat advising or giving approval?

----

So Christmas and Christian values; Western civilisation and all its benefits can be attain without Bishops.. .how does that destroy the country?

All the countries and gov't that is religious are all stuffed. There's those Islamic theoracies, then there's Israel with its drive for purity Judeo stuff, redrawing the map according to the Bible...


----------



## Tom32 (29 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> With regards to the Atheists and politicians who separated the Church from affairs of state, or who agree with its principles... they don't do it to destroy the country, they do it to preserve and take it to a better future.
> 
> ...




at the risk of sounding like tony abbot it wasn't actually atheists and politicians who were mostly responsible for this idea of separation of powers but Christians themselves esp Martin Luther.

Even before this the church mostly wanted this seperation so that kings did not decide who the next bishop was etc. ie to keep state out of the church.

in my view a secular society can still have a place for carols in the classroom. Indeed I don't think the majority of Muslims living in Australia would even take issue with it, understanding that this is part of our culture.

I actually think we can be less apologetic for our culture as they are more understanding than we are being led to believe (from what I can tell?).

It is way too politically correct to think singing songs about JC is going to offend people.


----------



## Tink (30 December 2015)

Good to see your posts, Tom, and I agree.

Freedom from the Government imposing on the Church, and then tyranny.


----------



## Tisme (30 December 2015)

luutzu said:


> You were saying that it's people like him that's destroying Australia right?
> ...




Probably a true statement. Like any society there are builders and there are vandals and in between the majority acquiesce. VC is a vandal and probably does so because it feels right to him at this period in his life...later on when he looks at the ashes he might lament his bravado, or might applaud because things are better for him. 

There is no doubt that people tend to start off gungho but gradually deteriorate into conservatism as the wick on their life force dies down. Knocking religion is an easy way of shouting out frustration at nothing better to shout down, which is why I do it so often.

There can be no denying our nation is rooted on the Church of England brand of religion as spiritual and ethical guidance to the rule of law. That's just common sense given the head of state was and still is the governor of the Church and rules by the grace of God....even our Royal Anthem tells God to save her for us. Even the UK govt has reserved seats for the clergy.

I view people coming to this land as invited guests and it is an impudence on their part to criticise and tear down the fabric of our society that extended a feeding hand to them. I reckon it's that indignation and the lay down misere govts we have that drives us to look to the various churches as flag bearers of preservation of our culture over the knuckle dragging primates that have infested our shores. Peace brothers


----------



## Tink (31 December 2015)

Thanks, ghotib, I enjoyed reading that history.

I was glad to hear you were against banning, and this doesn't just mean Christmas Carols in education, this means Classical Music and the others too, which if I remember, you like just as much.
Have they banned that too?

In my last post, I mentioned, Freedom from the Government that was set up by the founding fathers.

Our Western Laws, which are based on religious morality (Judeo-Christian), was set up so the Government could not impose on the Church and the people, and then create tyranny.
Just thought I would clear that up.


----------



## McLovin (31 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Our Western Laws, which are based on religious morality (Judeo-Christian), was set up so the Government could not impose on the Church and the people, and then create tyranny.
> Just thought I would clear that up.




And vice-versa.


----------



## nickg198 (31 December 2015)

Hi Everyone

Hope! All are good.

Let me know how's going Christmas


----------



## Tink (1 January 2016)

McLovin said:


> And vice-versa.




So with this freedom from Government, and this separation of Church and State that they set up, where the State couldn't impose on the laws --

Do you want more government control in your life? 
or are you advocating to be able to repel murder, theft etc, because they have a religious basis?


----------



## McLovin (1 January 2016)

Tink said:


> So with this freedom from Government, and this separation of Church and State that they set up, where the State couldn't impose on the laws --
> 
> Do you want more government control in your life?
> or are you advocating to be able to repel murder, theft etc, because they have a religious basis?




What on Earth are you talking about?


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> at the risk of sounding like tony abbot it wasn't actually atheists and politicians who were mostly responsible for this idea of separation of powers but Christians themselves esp Martin Luther.
> 
> Even before this the church mostly wanted this seperation so that kings did not decide who the next bishop was etc. ie to keep state out of the church.
> 
> ...




Risk of sounding like Captain Abbott is a very big risk Tom. Not many things are worth that risk brother 

Your points regarding separation of Church/State being proposed by The Church itself or by Christians... That might be true in some instances, like those you mentioned. But while correct in some aspect and specific examples, it's a very narrow and incomplete when we talk about separation to make a state secular instead of being theocratic.

So, from wikipedia, we can point to Martin Luther and his reformation against corrupt religious leaders all the way to the Pope in Rome as a separation; or Henry with many wives separating from the Pope.

But they simply separate from one Church to establish another, "better" one - with them at the head.

So there's no real separation.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

We can go into the details but I agree with Douglass... To think that Bishops and the Church just give up its power and influence... that's too much of a fairytale.


----------



## Tom32 (1 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Risk of sounding like Captain Abbott is a very big risk Tom. Not many things are worth that risk brother
> 
> Your points regarding separation of Church/State being proposed by The Church itself or by Christians... That might be true in some instances, like those you mentioned. But while correct in some aspect and specific examples, it's a very narrow and incomplete when we talk about separation to make a state secular instead of being theocratic.
> 
> ...




The powerful within the church as you point out would likely be for maintaining the status quo.

The outcome toward the end of the reformation is that while kings could still choose the state religion the people could worship any (Christian) religion they chose within these kingdoms.

Prior to this kings and the chosen religion would persecute people of other religions (as tink calls it tyranny).

While I don't think allowing the state powers over church like gay marriage within a church (this is not being proposed only use it to illustrate my point) that Australia would revert to a fascist or tyrannical state however the church is as resistant to mixing political and religious power as the state should be.

Guess I only made that initial post to point out in 16th - 17th century Europe when these issues of church and state were being fleshed out they were not being fleshed out by politicians and atheists by enlarge by Christians. 

Indeed the first yanks who developed their famous constitution allowing freedom of religion were only putting into words these same points developed in Europe and further all of them would almost certainly of all been Christians. 

your point is true though that it was not generally the powerful (at times chosen by kings) in the existing church who were pushing for reform it was however the Christian people and reformers within the church.

Final point, I would agree that in general those with power don't like to give it up. I prefer Douglas Adams quote though as it distinguishes those who pursue power at first instance. From hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (wont let me cut and paste so I am linking to it)

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html

Para: those most suited to rule are those least likely to pursue power.


----------



## pixel (1 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> From hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (wont let me cut and paste so I am linking to it)



here it is (to copy/paste, use view-source:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html )







> One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job.
> Another problem with governing people is people.



I like especially the last sentence :


----------



## Tom32 (1 January 2016)

pixel said:


> here it is (to copy/paste, use view-source:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html )I like especially the last sentence :




Thanks for that pixel.

 I recently drove across the Nullarbor and listened to the whole hitchhikers guide again. drove the entire family nuts though my oldest daughter liked the idea of dolphins being the smart ones. 

Been using Douglas Adams quotes daily since arriving in Sydney.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> The powerful within the church as you point out would likely be for maintaining the status quo.
> 
> The outcome toward the end of the reformation is that while kings could still choose the state religion the people could worship any (Christian) religion they chose within these kingdoms.
> 
> ...



I think the Church, like all organised interest groups and religion, would want political power. They are not at all resistant to having direct or indirect hold and influence at all. How else could they not get taxed from their income and donations?




Tom32 said:


> Guess I only made that initial post to point out in 16th - 17th century Europe when these issues of church and state were being fleshed out they were not being fleshed out by politicians and atheists by enlarge by Christians.
> 
> Indeed the first yanks who developed their famous constitution allowing freedom of religion were only putting into words these same points developed in Europe and further all of them would almost certainly of all been Christians.




WHile they might have been Christians or raised as Christians... their decision to separate God from State/politics were not done out of Faith but done for political power of their own. 

Napoleon did crown himself emperor and not let some Bishop did put it on him. Jefferson and Paine learn from Europe and avoided titles, monarchies, nobilities... and from Rome the freedom of religion as long as the subject pay their taxes.

They don't write their Constitution because that's how the Bible would have wanted it.



Tom32 said:


> your point is true though that it was not generally the powerful (at times chosen by kings) in the existing church who were pushing for reform it was however the Christian people and reformers within the church.
> 
> Final point, I would agree that in general those with power don't like to give it up. I prefer Douglas Adams quote though as it distinguishes those who pursue power at first instance. From hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy (wont let me cut and paste so I am linking to it)
> 
> ...




That's true. That's why I'm not in power... I would make a great tyrant


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2016)

pixel said:


> here it is (to copy/paste, use view-source:http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29690.html )I like especially the last sentence :




That's right on I think.

Problem is who's going to tell them they shouldn't have that much power and aren't suited to the job


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Probably a true statement. Like any society there are builders and there are vandals and in between the majority acquiesce. VC is a vandal and probably does so because it feels right to him at this period in his life...later on when he looks at the ashes he might lament his bravado, or might applaud because things are better for him.
> 
> There is no doubt that people tend to start off gungho but gradually deteriorate into conservatism as the wick on their life force dies down. Knocking religion is an easy way of shouting out frustration at nothing better to shout down, which is why I do it so often.
> 
> ...




I still don't know how to answer this one McGuiness. 

As lifecycle goes, atheists will have a tougher last few years I think. When we are closer to Earth and farther from the Heaven, there is no God or Buddha to turn to for comfort.. dam it!

Not sure how it came about that people actually worship at a Church some fat monarch created so he could divorce and hang wives he doesn't like. wait... haha


----------



## Tisme (2 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> I still don't know how to answer this one McGuiness.
> 
> As lifecycle goes, atheists will have a tougher last few years I think. When we are closer to Earth and farther from the Heaven, there is no God or Buddha to turn to for comfort.. dam it!
> 
> Not sure how it came about that people actually worship at a Church some fat monarch created so he could divorce and hang wives he doesn't like. wait... haha




The Christian Church is not the buildings the  Lords of the Manor and community built for worship, shelter and social events; it is the society of like minded christians who are the Church.


----------



## Tink (2 January 2016)

Luutzu, that is what I have been saying, and whether I misunderstood what McLovin meant by his comment.

The founding fathers set their country up like that for a reason.

As I said, our laws are based on religious morality and absolute truths.
The State and the Church were set up as separate, for a reason.
They were not made to extinguish the other.

We now have this new double speak by the left, with moral relativism.

If there is no TRUTH, and everything is relative, and there is NO right and wrong.
Then murder can be what you want it to be.
Terrorists aren't doing anything wrong, it is all relative.

_Moral relativism makes any kind of justice impossible. 
All law systems and judicial systems are based on the premise that certain things are right and wrong. 
There can be no real system of justice._

Do you think that is what the founding fathers wanted for their country?

As for Christianity, as I said to VC, you have no idea the depths and the history, of what it has contributed in Western Civilization.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Luutzu, that is what I have been saying, and whether I misunderstood what McLovin meant by his comment.
> 
> The founding fathers set their country up like that for a reason.
> 
> ...




The official reason the Founding Fathers of the US separate Church from State was liberty, freedom of conscience, getting rid of oppression etc. That is, when an organisation claim its authority from God and have that authority backed up by the country's army, it will suppress all other religion and non-believers.

The real reasons was that they wanted power and don't like the priests who weren't nice to them in the school days.

The only reason Christianity/the Church came to dominance was because Emperor Constantine thought it'd be nice that he became the 13th Apostle of Christ - a living link directly to Christ and hence to God himself. Almost as grand as the Chinese Son of Heaven.

So when the Church came to be a national religion, it quickly go about getting rid of other "cults" and start politiking and forgetting small stuff like feeding the poor and caring for the oppressed. They became the oppressor. That's how all revolutions ends up, the successful ones anyway.

So when the Church's grip on power were separated, it's the separator's way of telling them to go to retirement and pray with God on a farm somewhere, leaving the boring business of state to themselves.

To say that the Church wanted to separate itself from real power so they can care for the spiritual realm... yea that's a nice thought but it's wrong.

That's like saying the British monarchy like to be rubber stamps and tabloid content for the plebs amusement because they're nice people. They were forced to give up power... first to the "nobles" at Runnymede, then Cromwell did a good job at kinda taking over right?

-----

In terms of Christianity and morality and Western values... Western civilisation existed long before Christ came along; Western system of gov't like democracy and science and reason - they're either before Christianity or does not came from or sanctioned by the Church at all.

But at the individual level, at where most of us plebs are... yea we go to Church, pray and want to do good things. At the upper level where the Bishops and high priests are... it's all politics and master plans for world dominance. And you can't dominate the world through kindness and goodwill, unless you're me or something.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> The Christian Church is not the buildings the  Lords of the Manor and community built for worship, shelter and social events; it is the society of like minded christians who are the Church.




You know words are free right?
Use many more please. I need things unpacked and with pictures


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> The Christian Church is not the buildings the  Lords of the Manor and community built for worship, shelter and social events; it is the society of like minded christians who are the Church.




In other words, it's a social club.


----------



## Tisme (2 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> The official reason the Founding Fathers of the US separate Church from State was liberty, freedom of conscience, getting rid of oppression etc.




That might be an official reason, but make no mistake, the Colonists were Anglican and giving power to the King of England via the Church was not on their agenda. Such is the stain of the English, the American  Anglicans changed their name to evangelists.... the Church of England's influence on the UK and the USA is manifest in the industrial might of both nations .... it is not a binding covenant that the Catholics, et al have to suffer.


----------



## Tisme (2 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> In other words, it's a social club.




.... with an invisible host.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> In other words, it's a social club.




See Tisme, I understand that.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> That might be an official reason, but make no mistake, the Colonists were Anglican and giving power to the King of England via the Church was not on their agenda. Such is the stain of the English, the American  Anglicans changed their name to evangelists.... the Church of England's influence on the UK and the USA is manifest in the industrial might of both nations .... it is not a binding covenant that the Catholics, et al have to suffer.




I didn't know that. All these time just thought they don't like paying taxes to crazy George. There's way too many sects within Christianity.

So why does the Irish adopt Catholicism? Just to peed off the English?

Spain and France are also Catholic aren't they?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2016)

Ghosts of Christmas past ?

We are into the New Year now.


----------



## Tisme (3 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> I didn't know that. All these time just thought they don't like paying taxes to crazy George. There's way too many sects within Christianity.
> 
> So why does the Irish adopt Catholicism? Just to peed off the English?
> 
> Spain and France are also Catholic aren't they?





I'll let you look up the chronology


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> .... with an invisible host.




Imaginary host is a more fitting term, saying invisible gives the impression it is there.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Imaginary host is a more fitting term, saying invisible gives the impression it is there.




Are the characters in a simulation game aware of their programmer ?

Some pretty interesting things are going on with artificial intelligence. If we can do it there is no reason to say someone else hasn't.


----------



## Tisme (4 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Are the characters in a simulation game aware of their programmer ?
> 
> Some pretty interesting things are going on with artificial intelligence. If we can do it there is no reason to say someone else hasn't.





I think the old anecdote was "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Are the characters in a simulation game aware of their programmer ?
> 
> Some pretty interesting things are going on with artificial intelligence. If we can do it there is no reason to say someone else hasn't.




The time to believe in the programmer is when we have evidence for it, starting a social club to worship said programmer, and claiming to know what he wants of you and who he thinks you should sleep with is a bit off in my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> starting a social club to worship said programmer, and claiming to know what he wants of you and who he thinks you should sleep with is a bit off in my opinion.




I agree, but absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree, but absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.




How about evidence to the contrary? There's plenty of that.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> How about evidence to the contrary? There's plenty of that.




Such as ?


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Such as ?




Dinosaurs.

Other gods and deities in other cultures - God can't really be just what a few ME tribes said it is.

Earth is not 5,000 years old or however old Adam is since he beget this and that and start more incestuous relations than can be found in Tasmania [haha]

The sun is but one star in a universe of hundreds of millions of them; each star being a solar system with planets revolving around it - very high chance that other intelligent lifeform exists beyond Earth.

You can't take people who deny evolution and dinosaurs, then when the science is too much thought well Man walks with dinosaurs too.

Oil - organic organism died, washed into lakes or seas, covered in sand and over millions of years turn to fossil fuel. God created the world in six days and five thousand years later we have them?

No religion are taken seriously if the State did not sponsor it. They'd be as funny and crazy as Scientology. Kings and emperors decrees make worshiping bs respectable.


----------



## Tom32 (4 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Dinosaurs.
> 
> Other gods and deities in other cultures - God can't really be just what a few ME tribes said it is.
> 
> ...




They are not endorsing any particular religion or its beliefs. If you have about 50 hours spare watch battlestar galactica then you will know what they mean.  for that matter for about 15hours you could listen to hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy and get to the same result. 

As they point out if you believe humans can come up with artificial intelligence in the next 1000years than in our near infinite universe, who is to say we are not some giant experiment of another race of beings. 

Once you have artificial intelligence things are likely to move quite quickly in ways we cannot for now understand. 

We might all have a SIM card (soul?) in our heads for which only the believers get theirs uploaded to the cloud upon death for an eternity on the servers. I don't know from logic / science, only believe through faith in my religion, but as sir rumple said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Dinosaurs.
> 
> Other gods and deities in other cultures - God can't really be just what a few ME tribes said it is.
> 
> ...




I agree that a God is most unlikely to be what religions says it is, and I think that evolution is the most likely explanation for the development of life, but evolution (and the physical/chemical/biological laws) are a set of principles discovered by man, but what created these laws ? 

There seem only two answers, an intelligent Being or a gigantic accident. Take your pick.


----------



## Tisme (5 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Dinosaurs.
> 
> Other gods and deities in other cultures - God can't really be just what a few ME tribes said it is.
> 
> ...




So Luutzu owns a junk yard and he decides he's going to homologate a car from spare parts he has amassed over the years;  newish donor vehicles and those dating back to last century. He spends 6 days creating his masterpiece and on Sunday he goes down the pub for some R&R.

A few short years later Luutzu has better things to do than keep track of where his beastie is, but some bright spark decides he knows this car evolved from an old car, with new bits added over time ... an evolutionary vehicle. 

It's fairly obvious the dinosaur bones are landfill of whatever God could cobble together from the other planets before He cleaned house on the prototype greenhouses, like Mars, etc.

Is it that hard for people to understand recycling for goodness sakes


----------



## nickg198 (5 January 2016)

Hi Everyone

My name is Neil Gaiman from Queensland Australia. Let me know How going Christmas and New Year 2016 ?


----------



## luutzu (5 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> So Luutzu owns a junk yard and he decides he's going to homologate a car from spare parts he has amassed over the years;  newish donor vehicles and those dating back to last century. He spends 6 days creating his masterpiece and on Sunday he goes down the pub for some R&R.
> 
> A few short years later Luutzu has better things to do than keep track of where his beastie is, but some bright spark decides he knows this car evolved from an old car, with new bits added over time ... an evolutionary vehicle.
> 
> ...




yea that makes sense, after half a carton.


----------



## luutzu (5 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree that a God is most unlikely to be what religions says it is, and I think that evolution is the most likely explanation for the development of life, but evolution (and the physical/chemical/biological laws) are a set of principles discovered by man, but what created these laws ?
> 
> There seem only two answers, an intelligent Being or a gigantic accident. Take your pick.




Maybe it's just randomness. All the laws and theories the eggheads discovered may work under most circumstances but they are never really "complete". Most science and conclusions have a bunch of assumptions and conditions and controls attached.

Too deep for me


----------



## luutzu (5 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> They are not endorsing any particular religion or its beliefs. If you have about 50 hours spare watch battlestar galactica then you will know what they mean.  for that matter for about 15hours you could listen to hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy and get to the same result.
> 
> As they point out if you believe humans can come up with artificial intelligence in the next 1000years than in our near infinite universe, who is to say we are not some giant experiment of another race of beings.
> 
> ...




Will catch up on the Hitchhiker's guide... There was a movie some years back - was it based on the same book? I saw the movie and thought it's too British, haha... have to be in a mood for that kind of movie.


If we approach religion from a political point of view - see it as a tool of state. It kind of answer everything.

Zeus and the Olympian gods/goddesses are no longer around  - or prayed to. Why? New kids on the block got a few armed prophets telling us Zeus aren't real.


----------



## Tom32 (6 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Will catch up on the Hitchhiker's guide... There was a movie some years back - was it based on the same book? I saw the movie and thought it's too British, haha... have to be in a mood for that kind of movie.




You wAnt to get hold of the original radio show I reckon. I don't think the movie covers a lot of the ground (well it couldn't given it goes for only a fraction of the time) that is covered I. The radio show.

One potential problem for you though is that the radio show is even more British than the movie.

On your other point around politics and religion: I guess I cannot disagree given the church I would claim to belong to is a product in large part (apart from the base of it which is still Christianity) of the English crown rather than a priest or prophet.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> One potential problem for you though is that the radio show is even more British than the movie.




That's not a problem.

The problem is that the movie was too "American".


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> How about evidence to the contrary? There's plenty of that.




Exactly, not being able to disprove a god exists is completely different from debunking positive god claims,

Eg, I can't prove no god exists, but the bible creation story can be easily debunked, because it makes some positive claims which can be shown to be untrue.


----------



## Tisme (6 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Exactly, not being able to disprove a god exists is completely different from debunking positive god claims,
> 
> Eg, I can't prove no god exists, but the bible creation story can be easily debunked, because it makes some positive claims which can be shown to be untrue.




I don't know if you have succeeded yet, but keep trying VC. So far I think you have been batting zero, with your opinions predicated on unverifiable facts....just sayin'


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I don't know if you have succeeded yet, but keep trying VC. So far I think you have been batting zero, with your opinions predicated on unverifiable facts....just sayin'




Succeeded in what?

And which of my opinions is based on an unverifiable fact?


----------



## Tisme (6 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Succeeded in what?
> 
> And which of my opinions is based on an unverifiable fact?




Well, for instance, you base some of your  truths on invisibility meaning non existence, yet we breath invisible stuff, we think via invisible brain activity, we have never really seen a man walking on the moon first hand, but we believe it to be true,

You believe dinosaurs walked the earth because fossils and dating methods say so, yet we know animal species disappear in one generation (e.g. Tassie Devil). We somehow know all about 100s of millions years ago, but we can't even get recent history right amongst pointy heads.

You refuse to verify your unimpeachable source that a greater being exists, preferring to defer to twats from England who talk like pompous twits. You want believers to produce God to prove his existence, but I bet you are happy to accept there is gold in Fort Knox, without insisting on seeing it.

just saying


----------



## luutzu (6 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> You wAnt to get hold of the original radio show I reckon. I don't think the movie covers a lot of the ground (well it couldn't given it goes for only a fraction of the time) that is covered I. The radio show.
> 
> One potential problem for you though is that the radio show is even more British than the movie.
> 
> On your other point around politics and religion: I guess I cannot disagree given the church I would claim to belong to is a product in large part (apart from the base of it which is still Christianity) of the English crown rather than a priest or prophet.




Listening to it now. BBC radio version. Will need total concentration for this one then...


----------



## luutzu (6 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's not a problem.
> 
> The problem is that the movie was too "American".




What's wrong with American movies? They suk for the best of reasons 

Quite enjoy the few British movies and series. Saw entire series of Downton Abbey - it's a bit overrated I think. The latest Sherlock with Cumberbach is pretty good - especially season 1. Jane Austen series I thought was cool... The latest version of Persuasion was awesome.

Shakespeare... they really need to dumb that down and speak English so I can appreciate it. Was dragged by my wife to see King Lear last Boxing Day... when you modernise the costumes I think you ought to put effort into modernising the language too please. I've read great prose written around Shakespeare's time, a talented writer can modernise and capture at least most of its essense and the audience would actually understand and love the stuff rather than pretending to.

I saw Kurosawa's adaptation of King Lear - Ran - and thought it was just amazing, one of the best movie I've ever seen - and I understand it even though it's in Japanese.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> What's wrong with American movies?




Where should I start ?

When you hear American accents playing historical non American characters that's cr@p for starters.

Then there is gratuitous violence, bad taste and pursuance of the American way, ie survival of the richest, America is always right, they are God's chosen people etc etc.


----------



## luutzu (6 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Well, for instance, you base some of your  truths on invisibility meaning non existence, yet we breath invisible stuff, we think via invisible brain activity, we have never really seen a man walking on the moon first hand, but we believe it to be true,
> 
> You believe dinosaurs walked the earth because fossils and dating methods say so, yet we know animal species disappear in one generation (e.g. Tassie Devil). We somehow know all about 100s of millions years ago, but we can't even get recent history right amongst pointy heads.
> 
> ...




Air is invisible but can be felt and yes, breathed in. Without its presence we die so we know it exists.

Brain wave we can't see but we can measure and know it works through synapses and electrical this and that. So we can prove it exists.

God only seem to exists because a few people started to believe some guy who hear voices and talk to noone but claim he's not crazy or Schizophrenic. That or they see some natural disaster or event and could say with a straight face he know it's the big man upstairs doing it and only he knows why.

So while air and brainwave we can't live without, literally... God or any Creator we can...  and when there are many to choose from. If we aren't happy with the existing ones we can always create and imagine new ones


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Well, for instance, you base some of your  truths on invisibility meaning non existence, yet we breath invisible stuff, we think via invisible brain activity, we have never really seen a man walking on the moon first hand, but we believe it to be true,
> 
> You believe dinosaurs walked the earth because fossils and dating methods say so, yet we know animal species disappear in one generation (e.g. Tassie Devil). We somehow know all about 100s of millions years ago, but we can't even get recent history right amongst pointy heads.
> 
> ...




Nope, I never said that because something is invisable it doesn't exist, we can demonstrate that air, brain activity exist through other tests, the god claims have never been demonstrated to be true.

Well fossils prove that dinosaurs existed, and we have dinosaur foot prints, so that proves they "walked the earth" just in case the fact they had legs wasn't proof enough.

It's easier to believe gold exists in Fort Knox, because There is proof gold exists, gold itself can be demonstrated, whether it exists inside of Fort Knox or not doesn't really bother me.

You have to have good reasons to believe things, I have never been presented with a good reason to believe any of the god claims are true.

What's your best piece of evidence for a god?


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What's your best piece of evidence for a god?




The natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology that work together to allow the universe to exist and life to develop. 

How did they come about ?

No one has given a satisfactory explanation of how they were created. 

Richard Dawkins says he doesn't know, he just doesn't want to believe a God did it but he can't prove otherwise.


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

VC, you are just in denial of our history and how this country was established.
Thank GOD, Joe believes in freedom of speech, because if it was up to you, we would all be living in a dictatorship, as we can see happening in Melbourne.

Anti-life, anti-Christian, anti-family.

Tisme's quote in the other thread  was spot on with the constitution -- 

'Life and Liberty, and the Judeo-Christian view'

What our laws were built on.

_-- In a true spontaneous order, the constraints are already there, in the form of customs, laws, and morals_


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology that work together to allow the universe to exist and life to develop.
> 
> How did they come about ?
> 
> No one has given a satisfactory explanation of how they were created




That's called the arrguement from ignorance fallacy, it's the "I don't know how it could happen, therefore I know a god did it" arrguement.

We have no idea how many universes exist and how different the laws of physics are in each one, obviously if the laws of physics are random in each universe, eventually one will have the laws of physics that allow life as we now it, and then that life form will sit there saying "look these laws of physics are perfect, it must have been designed.

Also, if the universe was slightly different, another type of life may form, and then it will think the universe is designed for it.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> VC, you are just in denial of our history and how this country was established.
> Thank GOD, Joe believes in freedom of speech, because if it was up to you, we would all be living in a dictatorship, as we can see happening in Melbourne.
> 
> Anti-life, anti-Christian, anti-family.
> ...




"Judeo-Christian view" ???

For most of history your organisation has be very anti jewish.

I am not anti Christian, as I said I support your right to practice your faith, I just stand up for the rights of others not to have your faith pushed on them.

Also, I actually care if my beliefs are true, do you care if your beliefs are true?


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

Our laws are based on religious morality, how this country was set up.

The Law of the Land that YOU live in, and have enjoyed.


----------



## Tisme (7 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Air is invisible but can be felt and yes, breathed in. Without its presence we die so we know it exists.
> 
> Brain wave we can't see but we can measure and know it works through synapses and electrical this and that. So we can prove it exists.
> 
> ...




So when I tell you that God believers can feel his presence with a physical uplifting, change in breathing, change in brain wave activity, that is not measurable?


----------



## Tisme (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, I never said that because something is invisable it doesn't exist, we can demonstrate that air, brain activity exist through other tests, the god claims have never been demonstrated to be true.
> 
> Well fossils prove that dinosaurs existed, and we have dinosaur foot prints, so that proves they "walked the earth" just in case the fact they had legs wasn't proof enough.
> 
> ...




see my response to luutzu,,,said the spider to the fly


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> That's called the arrguement from ignorance fallacy, it's the "I don't know how it could happen, therefore I know a god did it" arrguement.




What you call a fallacy I call examining all the possibilities and not ruling out the ones you prefer not to believe.

I don't *know* a God "did it", but I'm at least open to the possibility.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> see my response to luutzu,,,said the spider to the fly




Delusions of all types exist across all types of religious beliefs. The delusion is real the gods are not.


A good study was done on people's brain waves when they describe the thoughts and feelings of their God, the same parts of the brain light up that light up when they describe their own thoughts and feelings, which is a different part to when they describe the thoughts and feelings of others, this shows it's really them talking about themselves.


----------



## Tisme (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Delusions of all types exist across all types of religious beliefs. The delusion is real the gods are not.
> 
> 
> A good study was done on people's brain waves when they describe the thoughts and feelings of their God, the same parts of the brain light up that light up when they describe their own thoughts and feelings, which is a different part to when they describe the thoughts and feelings of others, this shows it's really them talking about themselves.




I doubt very much a scientific test can quantify a person's feeling of truth, compassion, beliefs etc. It's so subjective and virtually an infinite analogue. Delusion is another person's reality, your opposition to skyfairies is probably viewed as delusional by the believers,

You obedience to the institutionalised rules of disbelief is like a religion itself.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What you call a fallacy I call examining all the possibilities and not ruling out the ones you prefer not to believe.
> 
> I don't *know* a God "did it", but I'm at least open to the possibility.




I am open to the idea too, But I just haven't seen any evidence that suggests the god hypothisis is true.

the best answer at this stage is to refrain from belief and just say I don't know, thats the Agonotic-Atheist position I take.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I doubt very much a scientific test can quantify a person's feeling of truth, compassion, beliefs etc. It's so subjective and virtually an infinite analogue. .




A persons "feelings of truth" are don't mean anything, no doubt people hold "feelings of truth" about astrology, feng shei, lucky underpants etc, but that doesnt in anyway mean those things are true.



> Delusion is another person's reality, your opposition to skyfairies is probably viewed as delusional by the believers,




and the christians see the muslims as delusional, and the muslims see the christians as delusional, they can't both be right, but the could both be wrong.

If astrology, feng shei, lucky underpants, christianity, islam etc  is in fact reality, they should be able to demonstrate it.


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

Our history is Christendom.

What have you got to show for atheism?


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Our history is Christendom.
> 
> What have you got to show for atheism?




Atheism is a simple lack of belief is a god or gods, So it's a silly question to ask "what have you got to show for it".

I guess you can say the demise of silly superstitions is the main benefit, but really its a silly question to ask.

Tink, do you care if your beleifs are true?


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

Exactly, NOTHING.

Destruction.

So you are happy to sit here putting down what this country was built on with nothing to show.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I am open to the idea too, But I just haven't seen any evidence that suggests the god hypothisis is true.
> 
> the best answer at this stage is to refrain from belief and just say I don't know, thats the Agonotic-Atheist position I take.




Your views have been far more atheist than agnostic.

It doesn't really bother me what you believe, however if you attack all religious people as being nutcases or fruitcakes then that is an extremist position from one who says he "doesn't know".


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Your views have been far more atheist than agnostic.
> 
> It doesn't really bother me what you believe, however if you attack all religious people as being nutcases or fruitcakes then that is an extremist position from one who says he "doesn't know".




Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms.

Atheist / theist describe what you *believe*

Agnostic / Gnostic describe what you claim to *know*

I am very willing to say I don't *Know* whether a god exists or not, But I also say I don't *Believe* in any gods.

That makes me an agnostic atheist, and thats that most common position among atheists. I have never claimed to know a for a fact no gods exist.

there are actually four postions you can be

Agnostic Atheist - ( I don't know for sure, but I currently don't believe)
Gnostic Atheist - ( I do Know for sure, therefore I don't believe)
Agnostic Theist- ( I don't Know For sure, but I do Believe)
Gnostic Theist- (I do know for sure, there fore I do believe)

I am the top one, I don't claim to know for sure, But am currently unconvinced.


Do you *Know* whether or not a god exists? (yes = Gnostic) (No = Agnostic)

Do you currently *believe* in any form of god? (yes = theist) (No = Atheist)

Agnostic and atheist are different answers to different questions.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Exactly, NOTHING.
> 
> Destruction.
> 
> So you are happy to sit here putting down what this country was built on with nothing to show.




lol, I didn't say atheists haven't achieved anything, atheists have added alot to society, you asked what does atheism have to show, and "atheisim" being a simple description of lack of belief means its a silly question.

It's like saying "What has the lack of beilef in the lochness monster, bigfoot or fairies got to show for itself"

-----

Are you avoiding the question?

I asked "do you care if your beliefs are true?


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

So I presume you are buying a ticket to China, or is it North Korea?

Life and Liberty is not what the atheist countries say.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> So I presume you are buying a ticket to China, or is it North Korea?
> 
> Life and Liberty is not what the atheist countries say.




Nope I prefer to live in a secular democracy like Australia.

Are you Buying a ticket to a theocracy?

As I have said before atheism is not communism, as much as you wish it were for your strawman construction.

----
still avoiding the question?

I asked "do you care if your beliefs are true?

turns out you prefer buiding strawmen rather than getting to the relivant points.


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

We have been through this already, VC

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25726&page=7&p=893572&viewfull=1#post893572


----------



## bellenuit (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Our laws are based on religious morality, how this country was set up.




Is that why they say: "The Law is an ass"?


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> We have been through this already, VC
> 
> 
> 
> > It is the values you live by, VC --- our Christian values, our Christian nation




And as I pointed out then, Australia is a secular democracy with laws that assure freedom of and from Religion.

You can say this is a Christian nation all you want, but the fact is it's not.

And our modern secular laws are far superior to any biblical moral system you will find.

------------
still avoiding the question?

 I asked "do you care if your beliefs are true?


----------



## Tink (7 January 2016)

You need to learn more about our history.....
_
Without the Judeo-Christian worldview, the West as we know it would not exist. So many of the social goods of the West which we enjoy – and too often take for granted – such as democracy, freedoms of various kinds, the rule of law, and so on, are very much the result of the biblical worldview.

Even the fruits of scientific and technological progress which have made life so much easier in recent centuries can be traced directly back to the Christian worldview._


----------



## trainspotter (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> And as I pointed out then, Australia is a secular democracy with laws that assure freedom of and from Religion.
> 
> You can say this is a Christian nation all you want, but the fact is it's not.
> 
> ...




Sort of true ........

Christianity is the largest Australian religion according to the national census. In the 2011 Census, 61.1% of Australians were listed as Christian. Australia has no official state religion and the Australian Constitution protects freedom of religion

Ahhhhhh thanks Wikipedia !!


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

Tink said:


> You need to learn more about our history.....
> 
> Without the Judeo-Christian worldview, the West as we know it would not exist. So many of the social goods of the West which we enjoy –.[/I]




Can you name one good thing that requires religion that could not be achieved through secular ways?



> and too often take for granted – such as democracy, freedoms of various kinds, the rule of law, and so on, are very much the result of the biblical worldview.




Democracy was invented by people who believed in Zeus not Jesus.




> Even the fruits of scientific and technological progress which have made life so much easier in recent centuries can be traced directly back to the Christian worldview




Nope, it can be traced back to human curiosity, Humans were making scientific advances long before there was a "Christian world view"

in fact a lot of Christians have and still do resist new knowledge that goes against their pre existing ideas.

Remember it was your church that wanted to put Galileo to death because he discovered Jupiter didn't revolve around the earth.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Sort of true ........
> 
> Christianity is the largest Australian religion according to the national census. In the 2011 Census, 61.1% of Australians were listed as Christian. Australia has no official state religion and the Australian Constitution protects freedom of religion
> 
> Ahhhhhh thanks Wikipedia !!




And 52% of us are female, are we a female country?

the largest percentage are white, are we a white nation?

---------------

On a side note, what you call Christianity is just a bunch of different religions that believe a few core things, but other wise don't agree on some big issues, if you broke up the "Christian" list into all its brands, they would be tiny, and "Non religious" would be the largest group.

Also how many of the 61% actually practice their religion, most of my family would describe them selves as Anglican, But haven't been in a church apart from weddings and funerals for over 30 years, and wouldn't agree with the Anglicans on much.


----------



## trainspotter (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name one good thing that requires religion that could not be achieved through secular ways?
> 
> Democracy was invented by people who believed in Zeus not Jesus.
> 
> ...




Yes ... the Church is a good thing.

Mesopotamia had democracy in a tribal sense before Athens 508BC.

Remember the Crusades? 

17th-century theologians based their decision on the knowledge available to them at the time, they had wronged Galileo by not recognizing the difference between a question relating to scientific investigation and one falling into the realm of doctrine of the faith.


----------



## trainspotter (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> And 52% of us are female, are we a female country?
> 
> the largest percentage are white, are we a white nation?
> 
> ...




Yes we are a female country. I don't see too many people with balls making decisions anymore.

Yes we are a white nation - Sydney riots anyone? Anyone?

You nailed it ... "a few core things" .. that is the Christian belief system. The CORE values. But you already knew that !

Does your family believe in the CORE values of their faith?


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Yes we are a female country.
> :




Really, I thought we were a nation made up of both genders



> Yes we are a white nation - Sydney riots anyone? Anyone?




Really, I thought we were a nation made up of multiple skin colours



> You nailed it ... "a few core things" .. that is the Christian belief system. The CORE values. But you already knew that !




Nope, they probably disagree on a lot more things than they agree on, hence the wars they have fought with each other. Some preach being gay is a sin others say its fine, some celebrate Christmas others don't, 

Look at the difference between the mormans and the catholics.



> Does your family believe in the CORE values of their faith? :confused




I don't think they really have much religious faith, I mean both parents were raised Anglican, but both stopped attending church when they moved out of home, but if asked they say they are Anglican, I never attended church, but was raised to write Anglican on any forms I had to fill out, I think the first census I filled out I wrote Anglican on, but I couldn't have told you anything about the Anglican faith.

I doubt most people that write Christian on the census even attend church or have read the bible.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Yes ... the Church is a good thing.
> 
> .




Can you name a good thing a church does that can't be done in a secular way or for secular reasons?


----------



## trainspotter (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name a good thing a church does that can't be done in a secular way or for secular reasons?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9_7e1rQU_U


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9_7e1rQU_U




I asked



> Can you name a good thing a church does that can't be done in a secular way or for secular reasons?




I didn't say can you link a 5 min song.

So,

Can you name a good thing a church does that can't be done in a secular way or for secular reasons


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name a good thing a church does that can't be done in a secular way or for secular reasons




It's not a matter whether things *can* be done secularly, it's a matter of whether they *are* done that way.

Churches have provided non profit charities and services where private enterprise sees no profit and therefore does not contribute in those areas.

eg Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, church run schools and hospitals etc.


----------



## trainspotter (7 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I asked (insert blah blah blah here)
> 
> I didn't say can you link a 5 min song.
> 
> ...




Sorry did not get the memo that someone died and made you God. You must have missed the link's meaning to the 5 minute song. The bands name was "The Church" but you are far to cerebral to be monkey trapped by such triviality now aren't you.

Okay one good thing that the Church can do that secular pathways cannot is give people FAITH. There you have it ... I have said it ... FAITH. Sometimes that is what people need the most to get them through tough times. They need to believe in something and that something is FAITH.

Now I know you are not going to understand what I have written because your beliefs are black and white as in night and day and no time for this silly mumbo jumbo religious stuff here matey boy. I am talking about FAITH in the Holy Trinity Father, Son and Holy Spirit kind of way is what I am talking about. Some people NEED this in times of need or crisis because they believe in it. It makes them stronger and no amount of sitting in a circle and telling everyone your problems to a psychiatrist is going to help them. No Sir. Not one bit.

I went through Cyclone Tracy in 1974 and I remember praying like a mother trucker to let my family live.

Tell me what secular pagan deity should I have been praying to instead?


----------



## trainspotter (7 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a matter whether things *can* be done secularly, it's a matter of whether they *are* done that way.
> 
> Churches have provided non profit charities and services where private enterprise sees no profit and therefore does not contribute in those areas.
> 
> eg Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, church run schools and hospitals etc.








Nailed it .........


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> View attachment 65471
> 
> 
> Nailed it .........




That's not nailing anything - it's just a rusted old nail barely sticking into the beam


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a matter whether things *can* be done secularly, it's a matter of whether they *are* done that way.
> 
> Churches have provided non profit charities and services where private enterprise sees no profit and therefore does not contribute in those areas.
> 
> eg Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, church run schools and hospitals etc.




schools are funded by gov't and fees from the students/parents. Church didn't give money for it. I actually saw breakdown and some of the school fee actually went from the school to the Church. 

Salvos and Vinnies are staffed by volunteers mainly. Maybe the manager get some pay. All the goods there were donated and they sell it on to the poor. Some of the prices are a bit high too. 

Don't know about hospitals but pretty sure it's the same. 

Heard from a frequent churchgoer that the donation plates that goes around - the first round goes to the Vatican or its equivalent; the second the next down and the third to the state level or so. 

Preaching goes down but money flows up.


----------



## Tisme (8 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Sorry did not get the memo that someone died and made you God. You must have missed the link's meaning to the 5 minute song. The bands name was "The Church" but you are far to cerebral to be monkey trapped by such triviality now aren't you.
> 
> Okay one good thing that the Church can do that secular pathways cannot is give people FAITH. There you have it ... I have said it ... FAITH. Sometimes that is what people need the most to get them through tough times. They need to believe in something and that something is FAITH.
> 
> ...




The old tetralogy/quadrilogy was always Faith, Hope, Charity and Rat Cunning. I'd like to think Comfort is just as important a role in Christianity.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a matter whether things *can* be done secularly, it's a matter of whether they *are* done that way.
> 
> Churches have provided non profit charities and services where private enterprise sees no profit and therefore does not contribute in those areas.
> 
> eg Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, church run schools and hospitals etc.




Firstly, there are plenty of secular charitable organisations doing great work out there, Charity is not owned by religion or churches, look at the great work funded by Gates and Buffet, that's a completely secular organistation, or the red cross and Oxfam or the thousands of others.

Secondly, the church based charity organisations are some of the most inefficient, and can have some nasty side effects, eg they have a goal of spreading their faith and preaching nonsense about condoms are evil and therefore helping spread aids in Africa.

Thirdly, a lot of the funding for these religious organisations comes from secular sources anyway, I know over the years I have donated a lot to World vision and the salvation army, until I learned they were not treating Gay members of society fairly.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Sorry did not get the memo that someone died and made you God. You must have missed the link's meaning to the 5 minute song. The bands name was "The Church" but you are far to cerebral to be monkey trapped by such triviality now aren't you.




I was asking a serious question, you chose to answer it in a half assed way.





> Tell me what secular pagan deity should I have been praying to instead?




None, Praying does nothing. 

Two hands working does a lot more than two hands praying as they say.

unless you have been raised to believe the nonsense in the first place, you don't need the nonsense to get through life.


----------



## Ves (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly, there are plenty of secular charitable organisations doing great work out there, Charity is not owned by religion or churches, look at the great work funded by Gates and Buffet, that's a completely secular organistation, or the red cross and Oxfam or the thousands of others.



Thanks for raising Bill Gates. After having a brief look out of curiosity,  his views on religion / spirituality are very reasonable and down to earth. 

His Wikipedia page lists a few excerpts from an interview he did:



> The moral systems of religion, I think, are super important. We've raised our kids in a religious way; they've gone to the Catholic church that Melinda goes to and I participate in. I've been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that's kind of a religious belief. I mean, it's at least a moral belief.






> I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill. But the mystery and the beauty of the world is overwhelmingly amazing, and there's no scientific explanation of how it came about. To say that it was generated by random numbers, that does seem, you know, sort of an uncharitable view [laughs]. I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know."




Sorry for the digression.  I don't have anything to add to the thread topic at this stage.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2016)

Ves said:


> Thanks for raising Bill Gates. After having a brief look out of curiosity,  his views on religion / spirituality are very reasonable and down to earth.
> 
> His Wikipedia page lists a few excerpts from an interview he did:
> 
> ...




Interesting quote from Gates. Apart from his religious participation his views are very close to mine, but I think that it does indicate the role of Faith in the development of morality.

 Of course there are moral atheists no doubt about that, but I keep coming back to non religious countries like China that are trying to eliminate religion, and I see a society that his little morals or scruples at least at the government level. Corruption is rife, their companies produce shoddy goods, they only care about being caught and about their own advancement.

I hope we don't end up like that.

 When money takes precedence over "doing the right thing", civilised society is doomed.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

Look at how religion warps morality, religion isn't a source of morality, it hijacks it and clouds it, otherwise moral individuals can take on some crazy views.

Morality is secular.

Listen to this salvation army boss admit he thinks gays should be put to death.






> but I keep coming back to non religious countries like China that are trying to eliminate religion, and I see a society that his little morals or scruples ]




What about the religious nations that will behead you or burn you for religious crimes or even just being gay, or stripping women of rights etc I think I would rather a secular democracy any day.


----------



## trainspotter (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Look at how religion warps morality, religion isn't a source of morality, it hijacks it and clouds it, otherwise moral individuals can take on some crazy views.
> 
> Morality is secular.
> 
> Listen to this salvation army boss admit he thinks gays should be put to death.




Go push your GAY pride ****e somewhere else please VC ... This thread is about Christmas and what it entails

:topic


----------



## trainspotter (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I was asking a serious question, you chose to answer it in a half assed way.
> 
> None, Praying does nothing.
> 
> ...




You must work in the accounting department for the ATO right? They have no sense of humour either.

Praying gives people hope which in some peoples world is something.

So you are saying I should have stood up in 312 km/h cyclonic winds and started working and stopped praying?

Such a narrow minded view on how religion effects people in so many ways. Yes you think it is nonsense and in some cases you are right but that does not mean that people that believe in the values of a Christian upbringing are all wrong now does it? Bill Gates MUST be wrong !!

Some people live by the Decalogue and are happy to celebrate Christmas. Does it affect you and if so why are you so uptight about the way others live their life? It seems you are proselytizing just as much for your cause?


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Go push your GAY pride ****e somewhere else please VC ... This thread is about Christmas and what it entails
> 
> :topic




lol, Gay pride, I don't think pointing out that some of the morals of a religious charities are quite warped can be thought of as Gay pride.

I am just showing these religious groups get held up as pillars for good morals, but when you lift the curtain you find that some of their beliefs are terrible, and if you could just get rid of the religious nonsense, they would be improved.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What about the religious nations that will behead you or burn you for religious crimes or even just being gay, or stripping women of rights etc I think I would rather a secular democracy any day.




That happens in Australia does it ?

Some religions are way behind the times when it comes to human rights, but that doesn't mean they all are.

I may as well say all atheists are criminals because some of them are.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> Praying gives people hope which in some peoples world is something.
> 
> ?




False hope. its no different to lucky underpants.



> So you are saying I should have stood up in 312 km/h cyclonic winds and started working and stopped praying?




Praying didn't add anything and possible took away your concentration.

If you are on plane, and the pilot has to crash land into a river, do you want him to start praying or actually devote full concentration to the task at hand?





> Some people live by the Decalogue and are happy to celebrate Christmas. Does it affect you and if so why are you so uptight about the way others live their life? It seems you are proselytizing just as much for your cause




Not at all, I have repeatedly said I am a supporter of religious freedom, I am probably its biggest advocate here, Part of that though is not forcing your religion on others.

I have said I am happy for schools to celebrate a secular type of Christmas, they just should use it as an platform to preach a brand of religion, because that is denying others their right to be free from religion.


----------



## trainspotter (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> lol, Gay pride, I don't think pointing out that some of the morals of a religious charities are quite warped can be thought of as Gay pride.
> 
> I am just showing these religious groups get held up as pillars for good morals, but when you lift the curtain you find that some of their beliefs are terrible, and if you could just get rid of the religious nonsense, they would be improved.




That is one man's opinion who does not necessarily have a grip on the real world.

If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” .. Pope Francis says otherwise.

The moment ANY organisation becomes of a size where idealism is the driving factor then I am sure if you lift up the curtain on ANY of them you will find that some of the beliefs are skewiff to reality.

Just ask Mark Zuckerburg about "Free Basics"


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That happens in Australia does it ?
> 
> Some religions are way behind the times when it comes to human rights, but that doesn't mean they all are.
> 
> I may as well say all atheists are criminals because some of them are.




I was commenting on you bringing up non religious nations and saying they have bad morals, I was pointing out the theocracies at the opposite end are no different.

then I said I prefer secular countries, like Australia, where we have religious freedom.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” .. Pope Francis says otherwise.
> 
> :




The pope also preaches that gays should abstain from sexual activity, and can only "Find" the lord if they turn away from their "immoral thoughts", that's a horrible thing to be telling gay youths.

Here is an atheist lady who saved her childs life by not sitting and praying, instead thinking clearly during a hurricane.


----------



## trainspotter (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> False hope. its no different to lucky underpants.
> 
> Praying didn't add anything and possible took away your concentration.
> 
> ...




You don't have a lot going on in the psychology department do you? It may be false hope / lucky underpants to you but in their minds it is HOPE. FULL STOP.

Not much to concentrate on other then praying when you are trapped in a house under a bed in a cyclone 

I bet you London to a brick that your atheist pilot would be muttering a few "Hail Mary's" under his breath as he concentrates to stop from sudden impact with the ground.

As for the schools palava then send your kids to the school that DOES NOT push religious thoughts into their head !!  I sent my children to Catholic schools because the education they received were actually better standards (read educational outcomes) then the government and private (non religion) ones. The children did not seem to mind going to mass once a month and it taught them RESPECT and not necessarily religion.


----------



## trainspotter (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The pope also preaches that gays should abstain from sexual activity, and can only "Find" the lord if they turn away from their "immoral thoughts".
> 
> Here is an atheist lady who saved her childs life by not sitting and praying, instead thinking clearly during a hurricane.




Once again it is one man's opinion who is more open to LGBT beliefs then previous pointy hat wearing Popes.

No mention of what she actually did ? She just said she is an atheist ... and laughed. Reading her body language how she tilted her head away from the microphone and let out a nervous *giggle* seems to lead to the conclusion she was not particularly proud to be saying it on TV either?


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

trainspotter said:


> I bet you London to a brick that your atheist pilot would be muttering a few "Hail Mary's" under his breath as he concentrates to stop from sudden impact with the ground.
> 
> .




The Pilot that crashed into the Hudson river in new York is quoted as saying he was far to busy to worry about praying, that's the pilot I want in an emergency.



> As for the schools palava then send your kids to the school that DOES NOT push religious thoughts into their head !!




That's what I have been saying all along, I am happy for faith schools to teach religion, just keep it out of public schools.



trainspotter said:


> Once again it is one man's opinion who is more open to LGBT beliefs then previous pointy hat wearing Popes.
> 
> ?




One mans opinion that's been clouded by religious nonsense that keeps him from coming to a rational moral opinion based on facts.



> She just said she is an atheist ... and laughed. Reading her body language how she tilted her head away from the microphone and let out a nervous *giggle* seems to lead to the conclusion she was not particularly proud to be saying it on TV either




I think she was embarrassed by the silly question or possible shy of admitting she's an atheist due to the unfair stigma attached to the word.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I think she was embarrassed by the silly question or possible shy of admitting she's an atheist due to the unfair stigma attached to the word.




The stigma is more on religious people these days thanks to the lunatics among them.


----------



## Value Collector (8 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The stigma is more on religious people these days thanks to the lunatics among them.




In the USA, atheists are regularly trashed in the media, here is a few examples.

Its no wonder some people are shy to admit to being atheist in public. I made the mistake of watching a show called the 700 club while I was in the states recently, it's crazy how looney the American Christians are.





-------------------

Then there is stuff like this, 



> A Kentucky woman was arrested on accusations she beat a disabled man with his metal cane until it broke, because he said he didn’t believe in God, WDRB reports.
> 
> Laura Reid, 49, was visiting the victim in his home, and at one point she asked him if he believed in God, police told the station. The man jokingly replied he didn’t. Reid became so enraged by his answer that she allegedly picked up his metal cane and beat him over the head and body




http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/woman-beats-disabled-man-with-his-own-cane-because-he-said-he-doesnt-believe-in-god-police/


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> In the USA, atheists are regularly trashed in the media, here is a few examples.
> 
> Its no wonder some people are shy to admit to being atheist in public. I made the mistake of watching a show called the 700 club while I was in the states recently, it's crazy how looney the American Christians are.





I've always said the US is a strange place.

 Yes it's frightening how extreme some of these religious people can be, but I wonder what percentage of the church going population they are, and whether the media just picks them out for the novelty value.

Although not religious myself I was bought up going to a Methodist church (which I left at the earliest opportunity with no objections from my parents). The people there were just like anyone else and the church was more like a social club than the "thought police". 

I think the loonies are the exception and most Christians/Muslims/Jews are good people. You can get atheists and anarchists who are just as loony as the devout.


----------



## bellenuit (8 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course there are moral atheists no doubt about that, but I keep coming back to non religious countries like China that are trying to eliminate religion, and I see a society that his little morals or scruples at least at the government level. Corruption is rife, their companies produce shoddy goods, they only care about being caught and about their own advancement.




I won't dispute that China has ongoing corruption, but to pin it on their lack of religion is a big call. 

One thing that does stand out is that the least religious countries (Scandinavian for instance) also seem to have the highest ethical standards.

When it comes to the most religious countries it is hard to go beyond those in the Middle East that not only have few business scruples but commit human rights violations often on a par with countries like North Korea.

Outside the ME, two of the most corrupt countries (consistently topping the world list) are Thailand (predominantly Buddhist and regarded as extremely religious) and Indonesia (Muslim). Then we have Myanmar, another Buddhist country that has no qualms about allowing their Muslim minority to be slaughtered.

If you were to use Christianity as an argument, one thing that always struck me was that the countries that had the strongest adherence to, in this case, Catholicism, are often the most violent and corrupt within the "Christian" domain of countries. I'm referring to countries like Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, a few Latin American ones, Ireland and The Phillipines.

So the correlation of morals and scruples with religiosity is more likely to exist in the negative than the positive if the world as a whole is looked at, rather than a specific example of just one or two. It has being pointed out time and time again that countries that are becoming more secular are the ones exhibiting the higher moral and ethical standards. A good example is Ireland, which I listed above as historical having a high degree of violence. It is quickly becoming a good example of tolerance of human rights and non-violence. It was also listed recently as a country showing one of the highest declines in religiosity.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> If you were to use Christianity as an argument, one thing that always struck me was that the countries that had the strongest adherence to, in this case, Catholicism, are often the most violent and corrupt within the "Christian" domain of countries. I'm referring to countries like Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, a few Latin American ones, Ireland and The Phillipines.
> 
> So the correlation of morals and scruples with religiosity is more likely to exist in the negative than the positive if the world as a whole is looked at, rather than a specific example of just one or two.




I take your point, but there could be reasons for this; eg the non religious people are the ones who have no scruples and force their way into positions where they become corrupt while the average devout citizens who have no desire for power and are relative pacifists are therefore the victims.

Generalisation on this subject is fairly pointless imo, it's too complex an issue for that.


----------



## McLovin (8 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> If you were to use Christianity as an argument, one thing that always struck me was that the countries that had the strongest adherence to, in this case, Catholicism, are often the most violent and corrupt within the "Christian" domain of countries. I'm referring to countries like Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, a few Latin American ones, Ireland and The Phillipines.




A few Latin American countries? Try all of them! I've been doing business down there the last couple of years and everyone wants a kickback. It's not like corruption in Australia is such a foreign concept either. While it may have been mostly stamped out, back in the 1980s it was rife. Bob Askin was crook, so was Sir Joh, who also was a devout Christian. The Wood Royal Commission in NSW exposed the NSW Police Force as basically no better than the crims they were supposed to be stopping. It's more about cultural norms than religion.


----------



## luutzu (8 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The pope also preaches that gays should abstain from sexual activity, and can only "Find" the lord if they turn away from their "immoral thoughts", that's a horrible thing to be telling gay youths.
> 
> Here is an atheist lady who saved her childs life by not sitting and praying, instead thinking clearly during a hurricane.





ISn't there a joke about some dude praying to God for help and a few people come round but he ignored them because he was praying; then died, saw God and complaint why he didn't help him? God said he sent a few people.

So the tornado or the flood or the Earthquake rips entire town, leaving survivors homeless and the dead, well dead. But thank god ey.

Don't think we'd thank an arsonist who burn down our house but we managed to all escaped with minor burns.


----------



## luutzu (8 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I won't dispute that China has ongoing corruption, but to pin it on their lack of religion is a big call.
> 
> One thing that does stand out is that the least religious countries (Scandinavian for instance) also seem to have the highest ethical standards.
> 
> ...




I think Ireland was violent because they don't like the British too much. That and it's Ireland with lots of Irish


----------



## Boggo (8 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think Ireland was violent because they don't like the British too much.




History indicates that there was a valid reason for them not liking those who took them over (violently)


----------



## Tink (10 January 2016)

Great post, Ves, thanks.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=12&p=894597&viewfull=1#post894597

Agree, Rumpole, things we take for granted that are now here and established, like the Salvation Army etc.
It was Christian teachings, including the Red Cross, St John Ambulance, Royal Flying Doctor Service, and others.
We don't see them set up in the atheist countries.

VC, unless you have intentions of dismantling the rule of law, with no boundaries, no accountability, no responsibility, no rules, then you have religion pushed at you everyday.
What is right and wrong.
Morality, and codes of conduct.

So saying that you don't want it in public schools, is saying you don't want laws or boundaries, because that is where they come from.

Well said, trainspotter.
It has helped many people through difficult times, and even turned their lives around, for the better.
A good song by The Church too.

Love, hope, faith and charity - and of course, comfort for many, Tisme.

I don't care what people believe, I was just stating to VC, what this country was built on, and our Christian history.

As I have said, Science and Religion/God are both important in society.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27938&page=62


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Great post, Ves, thanks.
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=12&p=894597&viewfull=1#post894597
> 
> Agree, Rumpole, things we take for granted that are now here and established, like the Salvation Army etc.
> ...




tink, there is plenty of secular charities, the Red Cross is secular, so is oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, and heaps of others, and the secular ones are often the most effective, because they don't have to waste time preaching and won't deny help to those that don't fit their moulds.


----------



## luutzu (11 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Great post, Ves, thanks.
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=12&p=894597&viewfull=1#post894597
> 
> Agree, Rumpole, things we take for granted that are now here and established, like the Salvation Army etc.
> ...




Technically, Australia is an Atheist country. It's not a Theocratic country.

If you're saying that it was founded and built by Christians and it was Christian values that made it great. Well... the first few fleets were mainly convicts who probably broke a couple of the Ten Commandments; the others who sailed over may do so to get away from the unbearable Christians or trying to get away from the law and bondsman... and then there's the Aborigines having to vacate you know... you probably don't want that to be put at the foot of Christ's teachings.


From the few incidents I have seen personally... I find that as long as a Church goer and their family is all nice and sweet, then they're welcomed to the Church. The moment they "stray", they're avoided like the plague. So parents whose kids got addicted to drugs, you should have seen how the parents are treated... very cold.

Of course not all Christians or people are like that... but you know, religious people tend to not tolerate deviants too much. May make good friends when it's fair weather but otherwise...


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Technically, Australia is an Atheist country. It's not a Theocratic country.




Australia is not an atheist country it's a secular country, with a mixture of religions, atheism and agnostics.

If people say in census that they have "no religion", it doesn't necessarily mean they are atheists. They may believe in a God but they just don't recognise the claims of any religion to be His/Her/It's spokesmen.


----------



## luutzu (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Australia is not an atheist country it's a secular country, with a mixture of religions, atheism and agnostics.
> 
> If people say in census that they have "no religion", it doesn't necessarily mean they are atheists. They may believe in a God but they just don't recognise the claims of any religion to be His/Her/It's spokesmen.




True. But aren't they the same thing? Atheist is a term to describe the person while Secularism describe the same thing but for the country/state? Never mind. You know what I mean.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> True. But aren't they the same thing? Atheist is a term to describe the person while Secularism describe the same thing but for the country/state? Never mind. You know what I mean.




Sorry mate I don't know what you mean.


Atheism is an individual belief, secularism applies to the society, which is what you said but atheism and secularism are not the same.

Secularism is basically separation of church and state, it makes no comment on whether God does or does not exist, it is an administrative system not a belief system.


----------



## luutzu (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sorry mate I don't know what you mean.
> 
> 
> Atheism is an individual belief, secularism applies to the society, which is what you said but atheism and secularism are not the same.
> ...






See, I was personifying a State. If the secular state is a person, and that person is then an Atheist. Since we're splitting hair, "Agnostic".

A secular state does not favour any deity or religion - it says you plebs believe and pray to whomever and whatever you want, as long as you pay your taxes and don't give us trouble. When you don't mind what god your people pray to, it implies that you don't believe in one, or many, or any.

So "Secular" is a nice way to put it - it doesn't offend people when what you're really saying is their belief are full of it.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> See, I was personifying a State. If the secular state is a person, and that person is then an Atheist. Since we're splitting hair, "Agnostic".




No, no, no. A secular State cannot have a belief, it's neither religious, agnostic or atheist, it has no opinion. 

Individuals have beliefs about religion, the secular state does not.


----------



## luutzu (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No, no, no. A secular State cannot have a belief, it's neither religious, agnostic or atheist, it has no opinion.
> 
> Individuals have beliefs about religion, the secular state does not.




I did said "True" to what you're saying. Was trying to wiggle out of what I said though


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> I did said "True" to what you're saying. Was trying to wiggle out of what I said though






Fair enough. At least we can celebrate Australia day without this religious stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No, no, no. A secular State cannot have a belief, .




in the interests of muddying the water, lol, Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief.

So, if a secular state can not have a belief, then you can say it lacks a belief, and is therefore an atheist in the true sense that it is unconvinced of any of the claims, and lives as if none of them are true, and must justify its actions in non religious reasoning.


----------



## Tink (12 January 2016)

I answered in here, luutzu.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=27938&page=63&p=894865&viewfull=1#post894865

If there was no God, VC, atheism wouldn't exist.
You have nothing to show for atheism, apart from destruction.

You want me to remind you of the atheist countries you created?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> in the interests of muddying the water, lol, Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief.
> 
> So, if a secular state can not have a belief, then you can say it lacks a belief, and is therefore an atheist in the true sense that it is unconvinced of any of the claims, and lives as if none of them are true, and must justify its actions in non religious reasoning.




How many pink elephants can you fit on the head of a pin ? 

I'm still on holidays, but secularity means a *mixture *of all opinions ;ie it's a group characteristic not an individual one.

Back to the cricket.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> but secularity means a *mixture *of all opinions ;ie it's a group characteristic not an individual one.




No, it means - " not connected with religious or spiritual matters "

Eg, people with spiritual or religious leanings can take part in secular things, they can't however drag their spiritual or religious opinions into the activity, otherwise the activity ceases to be secular, so any actions they take need to have non religious reasoning.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

Tink said:


> If there was no God, VC, atheism wouldn't exist.
> You have nothing to show for atheism, apart from destruction.
> 
> You want me to remind you of the atheist countries you created?




Why would atheism not exist, that's like trying to prove Santa claus by saying "if there was no Santa Claus, then the big kids that don't believe in him wouldn't exist"

Humans make up all sorts of stories, and someone rejecting the story doesn't mean the story must be true.

Tink, you don't believe in any of the Aboriginal, African, Asian or Native American creation stories, is that proof they must be real. I reject your middle eastern creation myth in exactly the same way you reject the thousands of others, there is noting special about yours, it's equally ridiculous.

I haven't actually created any atheist countries tink.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No, no, no. A secular State cannot have a belief, it's neither religious, agnostic or atheist, it has no opinion.
> 
> Individuals have beliefs about religion, the secular state does not.




Which is why until recently politicians took the oath on the Bible


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Which is why until recently politicians took the oath on the Bible




Yes, interesting. I wonder what atheists would take an oath on  ? A copy of Dawkin's "The God Delusion perhaps ?

What about agnostics ? Maybe a Thesaurus perhaps .


----------



## Tink (12 January 2016)

They do in the Courts also, where our laws were established.

_An oath is a verbal promise to tell the truth. Oaths are frequently made while holding the Bible, the New Testament or the Old Testament. 

"I swear  by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."_


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, interesting. I wonder what atheists would take an oath on  ? A copy of Dawkin's "The God Delusion perhaps ?
> 
> What about agnostics ? Maybe a Thesaurus perhaps .




A few people have started taking oaths on the constitution.

When I joined the army we had the choice to take the oath on the bible or not, they made us heathens that refused to hold up bibles stand in the back, lol.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

Tink said:


> "I swear  by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."[/I]




I can't see how invoking ones imaginary friend lends any more credibility, lol.

Romans used to have to hold their hand in the mouth of a statue that was said to bite off the hand if the person lied, I guess it might work if your the type of person that takes myths seriously.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> A few people have started taking oaths on the constitution.
> 
> When I joined the army we had the choice to take the oath on the bible or not, they made us heathens that refused to hold up bibles stand in the back, lol.




So what did you take your oath on ?


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So what did you take your oath on ?




Nothing, you just make a promise to serve the queen just like the guys holding bibles, except you don't have to hold a bible and you don't have to mention any gods.

Here is what you have to say.



> I, (insert full name of person) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, as a member of the
> 
> (insert Australian Navy , Australian Army , or Australian Air Force )
> 
> ...




The other option only differs by holding up a bible and adding "so help me god " at the end


----------



## pixel (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, interesting. I wonder what atheists would take an oath on  ? A copy of Dawkin's "The God Delusion perhaps ?
> 
> What about agnostics ? Maybe a Thesaurus perhaps .




Why does one need a book to make an assertion or a promise?
The true-blue Aussie way that I was taught and experienced doesn't need a book. All it takes is a clear statement and a firm handshake. If you don't trust each other on that, paraphernalia won't make a difference.

I'd rather trust an honest atheist giving his word on his honour than a crooked pretender invoking a deity or his mother's honour. She may not have such a thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Nothing, you just make a promise to serve the queen just like the guys holding bibles, except you don't have to hold a bible and you don't have to mention any gods.
> 
> Here is what you have to say.
> 
> ...




Can Republicans delete the Queen reference ?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2016)

pixel said:


> Why does one need a book to make an assertion or a promise?
> The true-blue Aussie way that I was taught and experienced doesn't need a book. A clear statement and a firm handshake are all it takes. If you don't trust each other on that, paraphernalia won't make a difference.




Yes I agree, sort of.

We can swear allegiance to the Constitution, but that is still a document. People immigrating here should have to make a statement that they will defend our Constitution, otherwise we shouldn't let them in. 

If we give evidence in Court do we need to swear on anything, given that telling lies in Court is a crime of perjury ?


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Can Republicans delete the Queen reference ?




Lol, no.

Unforntunatly you can't join the Queens army without swearing allegiance to the queen. That's the crazy thing about the Australian oath of allegiance, you don't actually have to swear allegiance to Australia, it's states, its citizens or its government, just the queen.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Nothing, you just make a promise to serve the queen just like the guys holding bibles, except you don't have to hold a bible and you don't have to mention any gods.
> 
> Here is what you have to say.
> 
> ...




so the Queen being the head of the anglican Church, you took an oath to serve The Church of England.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2016)

pixel said:


> Why does one need a book to make an assertion or a promise?
> The true-blue Aussie way that I was taught and experienced doesn't need a book. All it takes is a clear statement and a firm handshake. If you don't trust each other on that, paraphernalia won't make a difference.
> 
> I'd rather trust an honest atheist giving his word on his honour than a crooked pretender invoking a deity or his mother's honour. She may not have such a thing.




Because the written word is accepted in law as more truthful/factual than word from mouth.

It plays a pivotal role in giving credibility of evidence to coppers when they recite facts from their notepads.

The pen is mightier than the discord.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> so the Queen being the head of the anglican Church, you took an oath to serve The Church of England.




I took an oath to serve the queen, As the queen of Australia, what her other hobby's are doesn't both me. 

Really I couldn't care less about the Queen, I really signed up for adventure and to serve Australia, but to be allowed to do that I had to say I would serve the Queen, a small price to pay.


----------



## pixel (13 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Because the written word is accepted in law as more truthful/factual than word from mouth.
> 
> It plays a pivotal role in giving credibility of evidence to coppers when they recite facts from their notepads.
> 
> The pen is mightier than the discord.




It appears that you misunderstood, Tisme 

Whether someone takes an oath on the bible, q'ran, or Grimm's fairy tales, nothing is written into the book; nor is there anything read from that book. They simply hold it in their hand as a prop and recite the applicable promise, be it to uphold the constitution, serve the people, or tell the truth. None of that takes a book or any other prop. 
I even find it quaintly amusing when some people end their pledge with "swelpmegod". That sounds to me like having doubt about one's ability to indeed be truthful, as if saying "okay, I'll try; but if I fail it'll be just as much the big guy's fault that he didn't help me enough."


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

pixel said:


> They simply hold it in their hand as a prop




A prop which most of them have probably not even read.

What I find amusing is that they may be swearing an oath on a bible, but are actually being charged with a crime which the bible condones.


----------



## luutzu (13 January 2016)

Is this the biggest Christmas hangover or what?


----------



## Tom32 (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I took an oath to serve the queen, As the queen of Australia, what her other hobby's are doesn't both me.
> 
> Really I couldn't care less about the Queen, I really signed up for adventure and to serve Australia, but to be allowed to do that I had to say I would serve the Queen, a small price to pay.




I can still remember when in scouts the scouts promise went from "do my duty to God and to the queen" to "do my duty to my God and to the queen of Australia"

I reckon that would have been late 80s.

Also While that feels etched in my memory I have possibly got an inconsequential word wrong here or there... Look forward to being corrected though.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

Tom32 said:


> I can still remember when in scouts the scouts promise went from "do my duty to God and to the queen" to "do my duty to my God and to the queen of Australia"
> 
> I reckon that would have been late 80s.
> 
> Also While that feels etched in my memory I have possibly got an inconsequential word wrong here or there... Look forward to being corrected though.




I was only in the cubs and it was "dib dib dib we'll do our best". None of this God and queen stuff.


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2016)

pixel said:


> It appears that you misunderstood, Tisme
> 
> Whether someone takes an oath on the bible, q'ran, or Grimm's fairy tales, nothing is written into the book; nor is there anything read from that book. They simply hold it in their hand as a prop and recite the applicable promise, be it to uphold the constitution, serve the people, or tell the truth. None of that takes a book or any other prop.
> I even find it quaintly amusing when some people end their pledge with "swelpmegod". That sounds to me like having doubt about one's ability to indeed be truthful, as if saying "okay, I'll try; but if I fail it'll be just as much the big guy's fault that he didn't help me enough."




I think it's implied the swearer abides by the terms and conditions of the book, therefore the heads of agreement ceremony.  Viv the abridged version.

I am also of the opinion that any non believer who takes umbrage at swearing an oath to something that doesn't exist is showing his/her true protest colours of actually believing in a God, but trying to deny the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I think it's implied the swearer abides by the terms and conditions of the book, therefore the heads of agreement ceremony.  Viv the abridged version.
> 
> I am also of the opinion that any non believer who takes umbrage at swearing an oath to something that doesn't exist is showing his/her true protest colours of actually believing in a God, but trying to deny the same.




The point about swearing on the Bible was probably the belief that the Almighty would strike you down if you told a lie.

The fact that people have been convicted of perjury puts this theory in great doubt, so there isn't much point swearing on the Bible. What else I wonder ?

 I swear on a hit man that he will execute me if I tell a lie ? This would probably be more effective.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I am also of the opinion that any non believer who takes umbrage at swearing an oath to something that doesn't exist is showing his/her true protest colours of actually believing in a God, but trying to deny the same.




Bibles and religions do exist, and those morally bankrupt things are what we don't want to have anything to do with.

When people protest against religion, we are not protesting against your god, we don't think your god exists, we are protesting against your morally bankrupt religion and standing up for our right not to be free of it.

If someone said we had to take an oath to the lochness monster, if we said that's stupid, we don't want to do that, that doesn't mean we must believe in the lochness monster.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact that people have been convicted of perjury puts this theory in great doubt, so there isn't much point swearing on the Bible. What else I wonder ?




Maybe just get them to sign a document that lays out the penalties they will fact if they are found telling a lie, and then have them hold that up and swear that they will tell the truth, and if found to be lying that they will accept the penalties laid out.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Maybe just get them to sign a document that lays out the penalties they will fact if they are found telling a lie, and then have them hold that up and swear that they will tell the truth, and if found to be lying that they will accept the penalties laid out.




Yes, like a statutory declaration, same legal liabilities.


----------



## pixel (15 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> If someone said we had to take an oath to the lochness monster, if we said that's stupid, we don't want to do that, that doesn't mean we must believe in the lochness monster.




Now I'm totally disillusioned: Are you implying the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist??? 
I've seen photographs of it! :1zhelp:


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2016)

pixel said:


> Now I'm totally disillusioned: Are you implying the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist???
> I've seen photographs of it! :1zhelp:




lol, I don't know, Maybe this guy is right and dinosaurs only went extinct in the 1800's and the lochness monster was just one of the last dinosaurs.

listen to him at the 3.30 minute mark the crazy really gets crazy, lol


----------



## Tisme (13 December 2017)

My job to do the honours for annual xmas carols concert. I'm toying with the idea of spoiling the kids night by revealing that xmas isn't about the birth of Santa Claus


----------



## luutzu (13 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> My job to do the honours for annual xmas carols concert. I'm toying with the idea of spoiling the kids night by revealing that xmas isn't about the birth of Santa Claus




Was at the kids' school xmas carol. The narrative was some ancient news broadcast with journalists interviewing the inn keeper, Mary and Joseph, emperor Augustus, the three wise kings etc. on the birth of Christ.

I thought you'd want to keep the news a secret seeing how Herod gave orders to kill all newborns and what not. No?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> My job to do the honours for annual xmas carols concert. I'm toying with the idea of spoiling the kids night by revealing that xmas isn't about the birth of Santa Claus




What out for fanatics of another religion trying to spoil the party.


----------



## basilio (9 December 2018)

The Christmas story.  As told by children and acted by adults.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 December 2018)

The worst thing about Christmas is that everyone seems to be doing it.


----------



## Darc Knight (9 December 2018)

Christmas is cancelled this year. Sorry folks.


----------



## basilio (18 December 2019)

Hope you have all been good and Father (Mother ?) Christmas is going to fill your sacks appropriately.

Can you imagine an England without Christmas ?  No kidding  once-upon-a-time celebrating Christmas was banned across England and Scotland.


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2019)

Mrs and I have been wishing every (seemingly) non Christian and merry Christmas.

Without exception they have been taking it in good cheer and returning the greeting. 

So, where are all these people being offended by Christmas?


----------



## PZ99 (19 December 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Christmas is cancelled this year. Sorry folks.



To make up for last year hopefully we can now have two Christmases and save the economy


----------



## cynic (21 December 2019)

Just in case any ASF members (or acquaintances of same) are in the vicinity of Melbourne, and at a loose end this Christmas:


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2019)

cynic said:


> Just in case any ASF members (or acquaintances of same) are in the vicinity of Melbourne, and at a loose end this Christmas:




We were in Brisbane last night and saw several vans set up to spread some Christmas cheer for the homeless.

We offered our help but there were so many people already, that we were not needed, pretty heart warming stuff.


----------



## Miss Hale (27 December 2019)

Merry Christmas everyone  



wayneL said:


> Mrs and I have been wishing every (seemingly) non Christian and merry Christmas.
> 
> Without exception they have been taking it in good cheer and returning the greeting.
> 
> So, where are all these people being offended by Christmas?




Saw my (fairly new) neighbour on Christmas morning and hesitated to wish him a Merry Christmas for fear of offending. He then wished me one and so I wished him one back - relief! Insane that we should even feel this way.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (23 December 2020)

T'was a week before Christmas,
 And all through the town,
 People wore masks,
 That covered their frown.
 The frown had begun
 Way back in the Spring,
 When a global pandemic
 Changed everything.
 They called it corona,
 But unlike the beer,
 It didn’t bring good times,
 It didn’t bring cheer.
 Airplanes were grounded,
 Travel was banned.
 Borders were closed
 Across air, sea and land.
 As the world entered lockdown
 To flatten the curve,
 The economy halted,
 And folks lost their nerve.
 From March to July
 We rode the first wave,
 People stayed home,
 They tried to behave.
 When summer emerged
 The lockdown was lifted.
 But away from caution,
 Many folks drifted.
 Now it’s December
 And cases are spiking,
 Wave two has arrived,
 Not to our liking.
 It’s true that this year
 Has had sadness a plenty,
 We’ll never forget
 The year 2020.
 And just ‘round the corner -
 The holiday season,
 But why be merry?
 Is there even one reason?
 To decorate the house
 And put up the tree,
 Who will see it,
 No one but me.
 But outside my window
 The rain gently falls,
 And I think to myself,
 Let’s deck the halls!
 So, I gather the ribbon,
 The garland and bows,
 As I play those old carols,
 My happiness grows.
 Christmas is not cancelled
 And neither is hope.
 If we lean on each other,
 I know we can cope 
❤💚 🎄🎅🏼🎄🎅🏼🎄🎅🏼🎄🎅🏼🎄


----------



## SirRumpole (23 December 2020)




----------



## Knobby22 (24 December 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> T'was a week before Christmas,
> And all through the town,
> People wore masks,
> That covered their frown.
> ...



Obviously written for Sydney siders. Here in Victoria:
Christmas lunch with my side last Sunday in Castlemaine, about 25 of us.

Work breakup yesterday, 12 of us in the beer garden of the Three Crowns, West Melbourne,

and tomorrow the wife's side at our house in Ascot Vale, 12 altogether. The mother in law finding she is getting too old to hold it now.

Going with my youngest brother to the second day of the Cricket test in members (he is a member). Didn't think I would get to go this year.

So good to be rid of Covid. Reward for the lockdown.

Australian Tennis Open though fills me with trepidation.


----------



## moXJO (24 December 2020)

Knobby22 said:


> Obviously written for Sydney siders. Here in Victoria:
> Christmas lunch with my side last Sunday in Castlemaine, about 25 of us.
> 
> Work breakup yesterday, 12 of us in the beer garden of the Three Crowns, West Melbourne,
> ...



Not that much problem in nsw as of yet.


----------



## explod (24 December 2020)

A bit quiet my end as my Mother passed away Monday, peacefully, 97 yrs, raised 8 of us children, city girl taken to the back of the bush.

So we celebrate a new way this year.


----------



## macca (24 December 2020)

explod said:


> A bit quiet my end as my Mother passed away Monday, peacefully, 97 yrs, raised 8 of us children, city girl taken to the back of the bush.
> 
> So we celebrate a new way this year.




Sorry to read that Explod, treasure the memories, after 15 years I still think of Mum on the special days


----------



## sptrawler (24 December 2020)

Yes Explod, as Macca says cherish the memories 97 is a great innings and eight kids is above and beyond these days.
My mum has gone into permanent care at 90, the MIL dodged a bullet and has gone home from hospital aged 89.
The departure lounge is emptying mate, we all get a turn, just enjoy the time you have had and are going to have.
Enjoy tomorrow with the family and have a drink for your mum mate, I'm sure she would be happy with that.  

All the best plod.


----------



## basilio (26 November 2021)

Norway gay  Santa Christmas story.
Christmas is for everyone.









						Fk ‘Love Actually’, Watch Gay Santa Fall In Love In This Wholesome Norwegian Christmas Ad
					

I was NOT ready for these feels.




					www.pedestrian.tv


----------

