The Australian Greens party

[SirRumpole]

Yes! I eagerly await an explanation of why this phrase is deemed discriminatorily offensive!

Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".

Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.

 

[fiftyeight]

Apologies if this is more of a ramble than usual, I had to squeeze the reply in between meetings.

Would it be fair to say that the aims of meditation typically include the exaltation of human consciousness?
If so, how could repetition of such practice, fail to deliver an elevated level of awareness?

I would not want to assume anything re the reasons why individuals meditate. It is an extremely personal thing.

Elevated SELF awareness why I meditate.

Exactly how many times does the word "god" feature in the Lord's prayer?

I said he is not my father?

The ten commandments debuted centuries before Christ was born.

Maybe this is the issue. To a lay person such as myself and large portion of the population, it is a Christian prayer and the first commandment implies to a lay person I am going to hell.

The goals are contained within the prayer, and, contrary to popular misconstruance, those goals do not exclude the interests of any person truly seeking to live in a harmonious and prosperous society.

Still not sure what these lofty goals are and why they need to be wrapped in Christianity.

Did you fail to notice that a beneficent prayer, advocating for virtuous qualities, and much admired by many, many, (past and present) members of the human populace, has now been demonised in a very public manner?

Nope not demonising, just don’t want to hear it.

o, it now appears that one has chosen to identify oneself as a potential victim of persecution, via naught more than, audible recital of another's prayer!!
How can hearing somebody praying beneficently, cause such angst?

Everyone else utilises being offend to make a point these days I thought I would get on the bandwagon.

The same can be rightly said of many religions.

If religions were seeking the truth they would not be so opposed to change when new information is made available.


You either are much faster at forming well-constructed sentences (I do not write well at all unfortunately) and faster typer than I am or have a lot more time than myself.


You are clearly much more educated on religion than myself and a smart dude/dudette, maybe this hinders your ability to see it from a lay persons point of view. I do find it disappointing that you cannot see how people like myself would prefer an alternative to the lords prayer but alas I will also have to bow out of this conversation

 

[fiftyeight]

Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".

Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.

Much better response than mine!!!

 

[bellenuit]

Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.

Not to forget the fact that the purpose of parliament is to do the will of the people, not that of a particular deity who didn't partake in the elections.

 

[cynic]

Atheists would think it offensive since they don't believe in Heaven, as I'm sure Christians would find "Our Flying Spaghetti Monster who art in Meatballs".

I fail to understand why any Christian should have a problem respecting the right of others to engage in the practice of Pastafarianism!

Not that I'm an atheist myself, but you could argue about " thy will be done" in regards to a lot of terrible things he commanded in the OT.

And you could rightly counter argue, that those "terrible things" are not only incompatible with the context of the prayer, they are also incompatible with Christ's teachings, and therefore, cannot be reasonably presumed to be present.

 

[cynic]

Not to forget the fact that the purpose of parliament is to do the will of the people, not that of a particular deity who didn't partake in the elections.

Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people?
If so, how so?

 

[SirRumpole]

And you could rightly counter argue, that those "terrible things" are not only incompatible with the context of the prayer, they are also incompatible with Christ's teachings, and therefore, cannot be reasonably presumed to be present.

A bit of selective editing there I think.

It seems to me that if you want people to follow the word of Christ then you should not be endorsing things that go against those words.

The question is, is "Our Father" God or Jesus ? If it's God then we should not be endorsing his evils by repeating a prayer dedicated to him.

 

[SirRumpole]

Libertariansm vs PC ?

Personally I think Lleyonhjelm crossed the line and should apologise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...fuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386

 

[cynic]

...The question is, is "Our Father" God or Jesus ? If it's God then we should not be endorsing his evils by repeating a prayer dedicated to him.

How is recital of that prayer, capable of endorsing "evils"?
Who are/were the perpetrators of these "evils", men or god/s?
And how are those "evils" compatible with the values extolled by that prayer?

 

[SirRumpole]

How is recital of that prayer, capable of endorsing "evils"?

So define God's will as you understand it.

 

[cynic]

So define God's will as you understand it.

Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.

 

[wayneL]

Libertariansm vs PC ?

Personally I think Lleyonhjelm crossed the line and should apologise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...fuses-to-apologise-sarah-hanson-young/9931386

Absolutely not. The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists. It is Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens who should be apologizing to men.

 

[bellenuit]

Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people?
If so, how so?

Because it requests the will of that particular deity be satisfied. What is your deity's will regarding Gay Marriage for a start? Some of his supporters here are adamant that he is opposed to it. Also, his will is that we are to obey the God of the OT only. That is also out of accord with the wishes of the people. Does one need to go on?

 

[SirRumpole]

Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.

Much of the Bible is historically inaccurate or cannot be confirmed.

The Great Flood, the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the walls of Jericho being blown down, even Jesus walking on water cannot be proven, so you want people to obey myths ?

 

[SirRumpole]

The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists.

What words did she use to say that ?

 

[cynic]

Because it requests the will of that particular deity be satisfied.

It seeks alignment with creation's purpose. How is that a problem?!!

What is your deity's will regarding Gay Marriage for a start? Some of his supporters here are adamant that he is opposed to it.

Why are you asking me?!! My deity happens to be female!

Also, his will is that we are to obey the God of the OT only. That is also out of accord with the wishes of the people. Does one need to go on?

Whoa!! Where in the Lord's prayer, did you get that idea, and what do you mean "God of the OTonly"?
(You wouldn't perchance be talking of a jealous, vengeful, deity that favours one race of humanity, above all others, would you?!)

 

[cynic]

Much of the Bible is historically inaccurate or cannot be confirmed.

The Great Flood, the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the walls of Jericho being blown down, even Jesus walking on water cannot be proven, so you want people to obey myths ?

I do not understand, how such observations, and/or opinions, about historical acurracy (or lack thereof), are relevant to my response:

Truth in all things, and all things in Truth.

How does such a statement, constitute wanting "people to obey myths"?

 

[SirRumpole]

I do not understand, how such observations, and/or opinions, about historical acurracy (or lack thereof), are relevant to my response:

How does such a statement, constitute wanting "people to obey myths"?

Well if you don't understand a simple concept of truth vs myth then there is really no point going on.

 

[explod]

Absolutely not. The line in the sand was completely erased by the suggestion that all males are rapists. It is Sarah Hanson Young and the Greens who should be apologizing to men.

The following would indicate that Sarah Hanson Young did not state "that all men are rapists", this was the description/interpretation of Senator Leyonhjelm, biased at best imhv.

"The senator argues he was responding to Senator Hanson-Young, who was shouting comments across the chamber during last week's debate.

"She has said words to the effect that all men are rapists and that would seem to me to be a double standard when she is obviously a normal woman who likes men," he told the ABC.

"She's perfectly entitled to like men, but to also at the same time hold the view that they are collectively responsible for violence and sexual assault cases would seem to me to be a double standard."

Senator Hanson-Young denies she made those comments.

"I did not say those words, I did not infer them and I do not believe them. To suggest so is simply a lie," she said."

I think you are trying to ride over two many grasshoppers ole Pal.

 

[bellenuit]

It seeks alignment with creation's purpose. How is that a problem?!

That is not what you asked. You asked "Are the wishes of that particular prayer ,out of accord with the wishes of the people? If so, how so?".

Whoa!! Where in the Lord's prayer, did you get that idea, and what do you mean "God of the OT only"?
(You wouldn't perchance be talking of a jealous, vengeful, deity that favours one race of humanity, above all others, would you?!)

The first of the 10 commandments. Are you suggesting that the Father in the Lord's Prayer is different to the God who made the 10 commandments and his will does not want us to obey said commandments? And if you are saying that it really is a different God completely, then obviously you are out of tune with those who want to keep the Lord's Prayer who see the Father in the prayer as also being the God who set the 10 commandments.

If we are talking about your own personal God with unspecified expectations, then I shall stop wasting time arguing with you.