Cliff - Right or Wrong?

Did Gareth Cliff overstep the line in terms of how far one can go on-air?

  • No

    Votes: 85 76.6%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 5 4.5%

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 18.9%
  • Total voters
    111
Soulsnatcher said:
ok cool. i can accept that Gavin... I'm not trying to discredit Harvard here... Calling me immature? Not a good tactic but will let it slide... Now answer me this, how would you know that the author of that doctrine is not biased on atheism or toward christianity...
Click to expand...

Why would you think that they are not biased. You cannot ask someone to prove a negative.

I can prove your source was biased, if you can prove my source was biased then great, however asking someone to prove a negative is pointless.
 
Prove to me then, gavin my source is biased. Xarog asked a source/Quote from bible that you cannot have sex before marriage and i obliged. Where else but from someone using the bible as reference? What i'm asking wrt to the author of Harvard is prove to me he wrote that doctrine without "allegiance" to one or the other in fact being unbiased? How would you know, how would i know?
 
Chum nogals Xarog? :D Not picking any battles Xarog and Gavin. Topic is as mentioned. My feeling was it was crude and insensitive of Gareth but also the uproar was not called for.

I was not the one bringing biased or not biased of authors into questions here Xarog. Pick your rsponses/quotes chum.
 
The most important type of free speech is that which you hate hearing the most. Then to quote another cliche, ban a book today, burn a person tomorrow. While I can understand what Gareth said may have offended some listeners.. thats tough. If you dont want to hear what he is saying, do not listen!.

By calling for Gareth to be pulled off the air, the religious fantatics in our society have over stepped the mark. They wish to force their beliefs and social hang ups onto the rest of us, and this should not be allowed.
 
Soulsnatcher said:
Chum nogals Xarog? :D Not picking any battles Xarog and Gavin. Topic is as mentioned. My feeling was it was crude and insensitive of Gareth but also the uproar was not called for.

I was not the one bringing biased or not biased of authors into questions here Xarog. Pick your rsponses/quotes chum.
Click to expand...
Point is, I never complained about the "bias" in your sources. I expected bias... infact I think you'd struggle to find a source that isn't biased. However, mine had the larger volume of factual historical references, and a bunch of quotes from the bible is never going to contradict what actually happened on a fairly regular basis.

Take this for example, from http://www.armoredages.com/sexhistory/sexsocietyME.html :
Another option available to women was to become a courtesan to provide for herself and her family. This choice was very popular. In fact, there were more courtesans working in Venice at this time in history than in any other part of Europe. Some courtesans became rather famous. Veronica Franco was a courtesan and a published poet. Her life was depicted and Hollywoodized in the movie Dangerous Beauty. Other successful courtesans include Rosa Vanossa. She was the mistress of Pope Alexander IV and the mother of Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia.
Click to expand...
How on earth is a POPE going to have a MISTRESS if sex outside marriage was viewed as immoral?

So you have two choices : you can either accept that views regarding premarital sex have changed many times over the ages, both within the church and without; or you can find a source questioning the authenticity of the reports that Pope Alexander was jumping Rosa Vanossa's bones.
 
I can only concede the pope is also man... So all the priests or whatever raping children means it is ok because they are God's crew? Not chosen by God but chosen by man... Same as the pope is chosen by man...
 
Soulsnatcher said:
Gavin, proof one author Peter Singer is an atheist.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2002/12/03/reflections-on-peter-singer/

On to Marc Hauser next
Click to expand...

I fail to see your point here, you are attacking the person and not the content. As your source aptly points out Peter Singer has a strong religious and academic background. He seems quite well suited to writing the document?

Another benefit of academic research is that it is constantly backed up with multiple resources, so much so that if you take away one resource the document should still carry enough weight to move forward.

However religious arguments always revolve around one single book.
 
GavinMannion said:
I fail to see your point here, you are attacking the person and not the content. As your source aptly points out Peter Singer has a strong religious and academic background. He seems quite well suited to writing the document?

Another benefit of academic research is that it is constantly backed up with multiple resources, so much so that if you take away one resource the document should still carry enough weight to move forward.

However religious arguments always revolve around one single book.
Click to expand...

The person that helped in forming the content which is his view prof. or not. It is his view even if he was once christian and now atheist, that did play a part in forming content.

I can say the same of atheists that their argument always comes down to one single ad nauseam comment. Show me proof God exists...

My argument doesn't come down to the bible actually, it comes down to faith, faith in.... nah... you've heard it all no point in stating all that again and going back and forth...
 
Soulsnatcher said:
I can only concede the pope is also man... So all the priests or whatever raping children means it is ok because they are God's crew? Not chosen by God but chosen by man... Same as the pope is chosen by man...
Click to expand...
This has got nothing to do with actual morality.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality and many people have viewed many different things as either moral or immoral.

My point had only to do with what the church thought of certain practices back in the day, and the actions of the pope pretty much cements that point.

The first link, the one which actually quotes scripture and goes to great length to show that sex before marriage was not a sin, that's the one you should be focussing on if you want to actually debate the "morality" of premarital sex.
 
Xarog said:
This has got nothing to do with actual morality.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality and many people have viewed many different things as either moral or immoral.

My point had only to do with what the church thought of certain practices back in the day, and the actions of the pope pretty much cements that point.

The first link, the one which actually quotes scripture and goes to great length to show that sex before marriage was not a sin, that's the one you should be focussing on if you want to actually debate the "morality" of premarital sex.
Click to expand...

Ok, so no punishment from God back in the day meant it was ok to do it?? In Genesis it is stated as forbidden, in your link it is stated that once you take the virginity of a woman it is of the man's choice to wed or not giving proof that weddings are part of religion since the beginning of time and morals come into play for the religious man to accept that woman as his wife and not plead adultery...
 
Soulsnatcher said:
Ok, so no punishment from God back in the day meant it was ok to do it??
Click to expand...
Where the hell do you get that from?

In Genesis it is stated as forbidden, in your link it is stated that once you take the virginity of a woman it is of the man's choice to wed or not giving proof that weddings are part of religion since the beginning of time and morals come into play for the religious man to accept that woman as his wife and not plead adultery...
Click to expand...
No. The fact that a man and a woman who did the dirty had the option of marrying afterwards shows that the actual act itself wasn't the problem.

If something is immoral, it's immoral period. Clearly, sex outside marriage was not inherently immoral, and the link I provided gives a pretty compelling argument that the reason it was a problem at all was because women were regarded as property.

Since most of us all know that regarding people at property at all is extremely immoral all by itself, it certainly cannot be used as a justification to declare pre-marital sex immoral. That in turn puts everything the bible said in an extremely questionable light from a modern perspective. When people use the bible to point to the immorality of premarital sex, they are in actual fact endorsing the idea that women can be considered chattel.

And I wonder, exactly how does that possibility sit with you, personally?
 
It's one thing to say there is no god. Everyone knows god is made up, something for little kids. But the Tooth Fairy is real, very real. How can anyone question the existence of a deity that brings money for teeth?

JayM said:
Would a preacher saying on the air that atheists are going to hell for eternity be insensitive and stepping over the line?
Click to expand...
I think so and that's why we atheists are demanding that these people be whipped to death.

If you think about it there really is no reason to be sensitive towards people's religious beliefs. Certainly not those that worship an allegedly omnipotent god. If their god is super, and they're going to be saved and live forever, why are they getting upset about comments from a DJ?
 
The reason why sex before marriage is considered a sin by some of the religious groups comes from a time when woman where property and men owned them. The only way a father could guarantee that the son coming out of his wifes womb was his was if she was a virgin. So basically this whole sex before marriage thing stems from the enslavement of woman in mans history.
 
Xarog said:
Where the hell do you get that from?

No. The fact that a man and a woman who did the dirty had the option of marrying afterwards shows that the actual act itself wasn't the problem.

If something is immoral, it's immoral period. Clearly, sex outside marriage was not inherently immoral, and the link I provided gives a pretty compelling argument that the reason it was a problem at all was because women were regarded as property.

Since most of us all know that regarding people at property at all is extremely immoral all by itself, it certainly cannot be used as a justification to declare pre-marital sex immoral. That in turn puts everything the bible said in an extremely questionable light from a modern perspective. When people use the bible to point to the immorality of premarital sex, they are in actual fact endorsing the idea that women can be considered chattel.

And I wonder, exactly how does that possibility sit with you, personally?
Click to expand...

Your first link.

Even in your link there is no conclusive evidence that woman are regarded as property, only that the man/father holds majority say so to speak. It was/is still within their rights to refuse a man even in your link sex and punishment for raping or doing the dirty against said refused woman was that the man is obliged to wed and take after her. A woman who deceives her father being a virgin before she decides to have sex again/first time in your link is also punishable by the father/man for that act... Thus immoral
 
Give me a Bible book and verse where it says exactly woman are a man's property
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X