Jump to content





C H Calthrop

Member Since 27 Apr 2014
Offline Last Active Today, 02:23 AM
-----

#3058176 To whom it may concern

Posted by C H Calthrop on 20 January 2015 - 09:25 PM

The definition I used was from the Oxford English dictionary, and there was no sign of a special definition relating to religious faith simply because there isn't one.  You have just made one up to suit your prejudice.

 

People adopt a religious faith for many reasons and in many ways.  C S Lewis who was a well known intellect of his time did so reluctantly as he found himself unable to avoid the conclusion that God must exist.  In fact his book The Screwtape Letters is a deeply profound yet profoundly familiar story about the battle between good and evil at a deeply personal level. 

 

That's what I said but I was shot down.

Dictionaries do not define words just state meaning in common usage.  It lacks a necessary sophistication to mistakenly think faith in science and faith in a god amount to the same thing but in different subjects. What is the word used in relation to religious faith, "blind" is it?

CS Lewis also wrote about monsters living in wardrobes. You will also find that Lewis started from the assumption that Jesus Christ was real as was his actions and his writings seethe with non sequiter and also belief in demons.

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.". 

 

Another definition of faith. 

“Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated” Christopher Hitchens. 


#3057838 To whom it may concern

Posted by C H Calthrop on 20 January 2015 - 11:28 AM

That isn't the definition of faith.  Faith is having complete trust in something or someone.  I have faith that the chair I am presently sitting on will not break.  I have that faith because I have sat on this chair numerous times before and it hasn't broken.  I trust it to hold my modest weight without caving in.  And it is doing so at the moment, yet again.

 

Reason is very often applied to religious beliefs.  Reason doesn't depart when someone trusts someone or something.  Quite the opposite is often the case.  However, what is also quite often the case is that those with the loudest voices have the most tenuous grasp on reason, which is why they tend to yell a lot.

Faith has many definitions. The one I used  is a definition that is applicable in the context of religious faith. Simply using the same word in secular, scientific and religious contexts does equate the integrity behind them

Your  faith in chairs is because of a considerable body of evidence and personal experience of chairs, their construction, materials, use, tolerances , manufacturers, you could even meet the people who make them. 

If you had the same faith (trust) in gods as chairs then it would cease to be faith you'd have evidence. Religious assertions would be evidence based rather than circumventing the lack of evidence  that leads to a need for faith in the first place. Going round intellect and just believing is religious faith.  

 

My definition of opinion without reason is faith is to make the point that all reasoning is not equal nor is the value of all opinions and therefore  should colour the  respect offered to them. 

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in  the existence of a deity, nothing more , nothing less. Atheists have plenty of faith, it's just based on things proven to be real with reasonable evidence to support that faith.




#3056364 Wasps To Coventry

Posted by C H Calthrop on 16 January 2015 - 04:46 PM

Seriously hope that guy actually plays for them.  Who the eff actually wears the socks to go along as a supporter????

Socks are the future. Shorts can get a bit nippy the shirts are made of plastic and are sweaty when it's warm and cold when it's cool. Socks are the best compromise. Subtle, nuanced and if you want to be noticed waving one hairy leg in the stand certainly convinces people of your loyalties. 

Socks, that's how I roll!




#3056063 To whom it may concern

Posted by C H Calthrop on 15 January 2015 - 07:07 PM

I don't think the C of E's god is a bloodthirsty one.

 

Their god is probably rather more of a Stephen Fry figure.

An atheist homosexual? That's blue sky thinking there.




#3055681 To whom it may concern

Posted by C H Calthrop on 14 January 2015 - 06:45 PM

Yeah but the US was pretty much founded on 'guns and bibles' so it's not like they weren't religious people to begin with.

What I am getting at is that there are numerous people arguing that this or that system is the way to go, yet over time man has had ample opportunity to try any or all of these systems yet no one has successfully.

Anyway back to the point, and I don't believe you should go out of your way to offend peoples views but they don't have any right to not be offended or physically attack someone over it.

The declaration of independence was not guns and bibles. No taxation without representation is not a biblical tenet.

 

Secular morality is the way to go. The benefits  of not stoning children, burning witches, finding the best slave dealers and not murdering those who leave a religion seem absent in bronze age teachings.  Freedom of religion is actually a representation of freedom from religion and that is the way to go for a civilised society. 

The problem with religion is that you don't have to go far to have an allegation of offense and the misbelief that they have a right to be free from condemnation.

The issue is faith is not a virtue however it is packaged and not every opinion has equal weight. Hence the considerable opposition to holy book content being taught as fact.




#3055561 Some interesting ideas from Union

Posted by C H Calthrop on 14 January 2015 - 01:39 PM

I don't believe that they could CHC, it would be too embarrassing for them to do so. Plus, I believe that it would be a step too far that would cause monumental uproar throughout all echelons of both codes, moreso their own.

As john1 said they did a 180 on professionalism .A  core RU belief espousing  the superior morality of the gentleman code that was once justified as standing against the inevitable moral corruption from playing sport for money, dropped overnight. There should be no doubt, they have form! And if RL made a fuss, who would hear it. 




#3055518 Some interesting ideas from Union

Posted by C H Calthrop on 14 January 2015 - 11:37 AM

It'll never happen because it would be an admission that the Northern Union got it right all those years ago and that union is an anachronism. RL has always been the more progressive of the two codes, always trying to improve the spectacle for the fans and ensure the players have the opportunity to keep the game expansive. Sometimes things work, sometimes not, but at least we give things a go.
Stand by for union to voice the desire to become a summer sport........no more slippy, slidey scrums slowing the game down.

I agree it won't happen but they could get away with it if it did! The publicity landscape is so set against RL many would believe 13 men was a RU innovation and the real story inconsequential.




#3055445 Has this gone viral?

Posted by C H Calthrop on 13 January 2015 - 11:13 PM

How much exposure when compared to Union do you think league deserves? Whether we like it or not, our game at the top level is now played in one geographic area of the country. The other code has a far wider geographic spread, regardless of how popular or not their game may be in newcastle, sale or exeter. The M4 corridor claims are mythical, because in addition to the three teams named already, you then have Northampton and Leicester and now the Wasp situated in the midlands. As RL fans we need to accept that until we have a successful team in London or until we have a proper international reach, the media will pay us little heed. Rather than continuously whinging about it, we should all make it our mission to bring as many new people to games, get them hooked as we are and spread that way until we have attendances and participation numbers across the board that make us impossible to ignore. I am flying up to the Auckland 9's this year with 20 Unionites who I have convinced to bin the Wellington 7's........I suspect I may even convince one or two to join me on my travels during the NRL season too.......this is how we will make our game un-ignoarable (sic)

England can be crossed in 12 hours on a bicycle and has virtually 100% tv coverage..Outside of traditional, ancient bias what is it about geography that is a real barrier against exposure and acceptance.

Why should RL accept anything regarding a club in London when a successful London  clubs impact on RL acceptance is only imaginary.

How much exposure should the most viewed club rugby competition in the British Isles get in comparison to the second most viewed?

Can you think of any sport where regional representation is used as a check on exposure or is it something just reserved for RL. 




#3054960 Burgess Watch......

Posted by C H Calthrop on 12 January 2015 - 03:56 PM

Sounds like a subtlety. We have those in RU too, just some are unable to appreciate them or don't understand them.

 

Good handling a subtlety ? Oh no it is overtly practiced, practiced and then practiced some more. That's why it is still an aspiration in U and an achievement in RL. 




#3054069 Burgess Watch......

Posted by C H Calthrop on 10 January 2015 - 01:42 AM

Let's be fair; the author of the article linked above used the trip to write two articles; one about RU and one about RL. Here's his 2015 season preview, and he was good enough to respond in the comments below to readers' reactions.

He defines RL's last few seasons as background noise and an expectation for the sport to be barged to the margins again.  Well in the Guardian they certainly will be. There is bullshi~ arsehattery given air time from the RFL's Blake Solly about the RUWC being good for RL. More Burgess. 

The whole thing seems to be written on a train back to the office by someone who has never seen a RL game. He probably responds to the readers as they are the most likely to be contacting him daily about the quality of RL coverage.




#3053748 Wasps To Coventry

Posted by C H Calthrop on 09 January 2015 - 01:00 PM

Love how you have switch the chess analogy from RU to RL, I do like your sense of humour and your unique way of seeing things.

Not really the chess analogy was an aggrandisement of RU meant to demean RL, it served no other purpose than that. An easy soundbite that scanned well providing you had no knowledge of the subject .Once in an environment where people effortlessly contradict the idea it doesn't hold up does it?




#3052706 Wasps To Coventry

Posted by C H Calthrop on 06 January 2015 - 10:37 PM

Rucking is proper rugby, so is mauling. So are scrums. We like watching them. You don't. We watch two different games. Bit arrogant to suggest your version is better

Actually anything up and down of 40 players on the pitch is proper rugby.

0 points for a try is proper rugby.

Hacking and tripping is proper rugby.

Taking a mark from anywhere on the pitch was proper rugby.

Kicking the ball out on the full from anywhere on the pitch was consider proper rugby.

Actual arrogance to invite aggrandisement of Union with the word proper, considering how much "proper rugby" union no longer considers "proper"! 




#3052308 Burgess Watch......

Posted by C H Calthrop on 05 January 2015 - 09:26 PM

If it wasn't for the mistimed dummy producing a forward pass committed by a Devoto, a natural RU player no doubt,   Burgess would be heralded far and wide for scoring his first RU try from outstanding support play. Bath turned the ball over 20 times in that game. Sounds like Burgess is not the only player that's  "uncomfortable".




#3052234 A handful of rugby league coaches

Posted by C H Calthrop on 05 January 2015 - 06:35 PM

CiderWire - you misunderstood me re Point 1.  i was talking about kicking for distance from hand, particularly at penalties.  When Leeds RL and England union trained together, the Leeds guys admitted that the union guys were miles ahead with their kicking for distance.  Maybe I wasn't clear, but kicking for length at penalties is one (small) area that RL could improve massively.

 

Point 2:  I don't want to go round in circles, but yes - i remember JD and Gibbs transferring over, in fact the reason I became a Warrington fan was largely down to J Davies (and the green-white striped and hooped away kits.... check my user name).  What I was trying to say though, is that elite rugby league players could definitely be bigger.  Yes - there is far more running to do, but getting your team bigger particularly across the backline, affords you a greater chance of dominating collisions throughout the whole game, and fatiguing your smaller opponents in the process.  Physical imposition if you like.  I am not for a second suggesting going back to the Bradford Bulls Vangana/P Anderson 20 stone guys rlling off the bench days, but a quick look at the Australian backline at the World Cup (and even more so the PREVIOUS 4 Nations... not the 2014 one) and compare the body types to the England backline.  it was literally men against boys.  I could talk about this for hours, and have a good few Strength&Conditioning qualifications to my name, but in general, guys come back from union a bit bigger, and a good bit stronger, and this translates well into their ability to play RL again.  Even Danny Williams at Salford looked bigger, stronger and more powerful when he got back from Newcastle.  getting that size on is really difficult in a short RL off-season, whereas union spend a lot more time on the hypertrophy and strength side of things.  Check Keegan Smith's (Roosters Strength Coach)comments yesterday  about Jared W-H's 140kg power clean.  He made it clear that strength training in the NRL is way short of where it should be.  Smith was previously at the Catalan Dragons and made big gains in terms of size and strength among their squad.

 

Anyway - none of these points are major in terms of what an imaginary union coach could add - I was simply (as I said already) pointing out that there are a few areas where RL can really learn from union, whereas most on here seem adamant that this is not the case.  The complacency at times, is a bit frightening - union has better and better athletes playing it all the time - partly due to money of course, but also due to training methods that have improved exponentially over the last few years.

http://www.smh.com.a...1114-2xjmr.html




#3052123 High Profile SL Game in London 2016: Craven Cottage?

Posted by C H Calthrop on 05 January 2015 - 02:31 PM

We don't have the broadcaster for high profile.

''        ''      ''      ''    money for high profile.

''        ''      ''      ''    exposure for high profile.

''        ''      ''      ''    acceptance for high profile.

Because of this it will simply be a game in London.

If high profile is a goal and to have knock on effects then the RFL has to address these points and not simply burst through the doors in a clown costume and say here we are again.