|
Post by matt on Dec 3, 2012 18:23:41 GMT 10
I love the New Zealand national anthem, it reads more like a hymn in church.
The title is God Defend New Zealand, which is fitting for any nation.
The entire song speaks about God.
A far cry from the Australian National Anthem where God is not mentioned once!
ENGLISH VERSION:
God of Nations at Thy feet, In the bonds of love we meet, Hear our voices, we entreat, God defend our free land. Guard Pacific's triple star From the shafts of strife and war, Make her praises heard afar, God defend New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 3, 2012 18:34:32 GMT 10
I love their NA too....far better than ours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2012 22:14:56 GMT 10
Kiwi will need smelling salts after reading that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 2:13:39 GMT 10
It's just out-of-date words that need to be changed, just like that silly flag with the Union Jack in one corner.
In the same way that Wager operas are just words.
You don't believe all that fantastical fantasy stuff sung in Wagner operas, do you?
I don't, but I love Wagner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 16:45:00 GMT 10
A friend and great cook, Gertrude, plans to open a cafe on the beach and call it "Gert's by Sea" Love it!
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 4, 2012 19:46:42 GMT 10
Kiwi will need smelling salts after reading that! LOL ... I could just picture him hyperventilating at assembly ;D
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 4, 2012 23:53:49 GMT 10
There is nothing wrong with our national anthem, except it does not acknowledge God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 19:01:42 GMT 10
There is nothing wrong with our national anthem, except it does not acknowledge God. Now why would you want the Australian National Anthem to acknowledge a delusion?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 5, 2012 20:22:32 GMT 10
There is nothing wrong with our national anthem, except it does not acknowledge God. Now why would you want the Australian National Anthem to acknowledge a delusion? It is respectful to acknowledge our creator in all things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 20:33:34 GMT 10
Except that you weren't created (that's a fairytale).
Your species EVOLVED.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 5, 2012 20:35:15 GMT 10
Yes our species evolved after it was created.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 20:35:28 GMT 10
Except that you weren't created (that's a fairytale). Your species EVOLVED. How do you know God didn't use evolution?
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 5, 2012 20:50:54 GMT 10
Now the jesus freaks are trying to claim evolution ... funny shit ;D
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 5, 2012 20:58:07 GMT 10
Garfield I have been saying Creation and Evolution go hand in hand for years.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 5, 2012 21:11:12 GMT 10
Garfield I have been saying Creation and Evolution go hand in hand for years. I know and thats the beauty of religion you can just tailor make it to suit whatever the hell you feel like around whatever you reckon is the religious go when you wake up in the morning ;D Evolution is the antithesis of religion, any crackpot jesus freak that tries to incorporate evolution into their crazy jesus delusions is a fraud and god should strike them down for being unbelievers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 21:20:03 GMT 10
Now the jesus freaks are trying to claim evolution ... funny shit ;D Some of Darwin's earliest supporters were devout Christians. Also see www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolutionbiologos.org/questions/christian-response-to-darwinIn a Nutshell Even before Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, many Christians had already accepted an old Earth. One of the first supporters of evolutionary science in America—Harvard biologist Asa Gray—was a devout Christian. Conservative theologian B. B. Warfield also accepted the science of evolution, and both he and Asa Gray rejected the idea that evolution leads to atheism. Even the authors of The Fundamentals, published between 1910 and 1915, accepted an old earth. It wasn’t until a century after Darwin that a large number of evangelicals and fundamentalists began to accept the combination of flood geology and 6-day creation promoted by Seventh-day Adventists.
(Updated on July 10, 2012)
So it appears Garfield you are advocating an erroneous stereotype of Christians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 21:25:40 GMT 10
Garfield I have been saying Creation and Evolution go hand in hand for years. I know and thats the beauty of religion you can just tailor make it to suit whatever the hell you feel like around whatever you reckon is the religious go when you wake up in the morning ;D Evolution is the antithesis of religion, any crackpot jesus freak that tries to incorporate evolution into their crazy jesus delusions is a fraud and god should strike them down for being unbelievers. You seem remarkably misinformed on this topic Garfield - The Pope has stated that there is no significant problem with evolution and Christianity - see www.cin.org/jp2evolu.htmlPlus if you read a devout evolutionist site - www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html you will see the following quote - 2. Evolution and Religion
Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?
Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.
Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.
Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 5, 2012 21:25:52 GMT 10
Garfield I am not a typical Christian and yes I have tailored my faith to suit me and my way of thinking. I feel my way is the right way....well at least it is for me.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Dec 5, 2012 21:53:22 GMT 10
Religion has had a good run for two thousand years then along came smart arse scientists that make the religious look silly and what do the religious do? ... they try to incorporate the scientists views into religion, any true believer would denounce those scientists and refer back to the book of idiotic babbling bullshit for crazies ... ie the bible.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 5, 2012 22:13:13 GMT 10
Except that you weren't created (that's a fairytale). Your species EVOLVED. We were created, and we should be thankful to God :-)
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 6, 2012 6:35:18 GMT 10
Yes matt we were created but only the very stupid...you know like young earth christians deny that we also evolved. God is all things and created all things.....and all things evolve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 10:09:01 GMT 10
Ahem! Back on topic! The problem with our anthem...it is too long! Have you ever heard even the first two verses, let alone four, sung at a public event?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2012 11:27:09 GMT 10
I like the NZ national anthem too. I've heard it sung at a rugby test match. They sing it in Maori and then repeat it in English - or is it the other way around? I've got nothing against a song that calls upon a notional omnipotent cosmic Power to come to the defence of one's country - except that in NZs case it (the notional omnipotent cosmic power thingy) has got that one covered by placing NZ about as far removed from the rest of the world's landmasses as it's possible to be while still rremaining on Planet Earth. In fact NZ is so isolated, in among all that water and with only Australia and Antarctica as the nearest landmasses - and even then still separated from them by a few thousand km of water - that a potential invader would have to be really motivated, and I mean really really seriously motivated, to commit the resources and personnel to place foreign boots on NZ soil with the objective of Invade, Occupy and Annex. Looking at it from the perspective of a potential invader, on a cost/benefit basis, why bother? So instead of praying to the notional omnipotent cosmic power thingy to defend NZ, surely it would be more appropriate for the NZ national anthem to sing "Gee thanks!"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2012 12:03:55 GMT 10
As for our own national anthem, it fulfills all the jingoistic self-serving criteria that I think Australians wanted from a national anthem. Personally I voted for Waltzing Matilda when we voted in that plebiscite back in the 1980s. In retrospect I think it was a good thing that WM didn't end up becoming the national anthem. With the way Advance Australia Fair is mangled, if it had been WM it would have been a case of a good song ruined. I also prefer the older version of WM, with its different tune and chorus:
Waltzing Matilda, Matilda my darling You'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me ...
So the fact that we tend to hear the more popular and better-known version of WM bellowed tunelessly and cringe-makingly by drunken yobbos who want to thrust their offensive Australianness in foreign airports with their "Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Oy Oy Oy" means that the older and more tuneful version remains untouched and unknown by the drunken yobboes. Long may it remain in its comfortable obscurity.
As for the official anthem, AAF is not as good as God Save the Queen - musically, I mean, and also in its sentiments. There always used to be something positive about a song imploring the notional omnipotent cosmic power thingy to come to the rescue of a lady with a crown on her head who lives on the other side of the world. Kinda satisfying in a bizarre way that AAF doesn't manage to come close to matching.
Still, it depends on the context and on how it's played or sung. When AAF is sung at a Grand Final it's usually performed by some pop singer who tries to sing it as if AAF were a pop song ... and an anthem sung like a pop song doesn't work. On the other hand I've heard AAF played by a symphony orchestra at the start of a classical music concert and they made it sound as if it had been composed by Beethoven. And that was nice. I liked that. Also, a dear friend of mine got naturalised a year or so ago. She took out Australian citizenship (she was originally a Pommie) after living her for over 30 years. It was held in a nice park in suburban Adelaide, all her friends were there and at the close of the ceremony we all sang AAF. That was nice. Our friend was happy she'd finally taken the plunge and we were happy for her so we sang AAF with feeling.
As an anthem, AAF didn't quite grab us in some sort of inspirational way. As with most of the benefits of this our wide brown land, we came by it in a boring pedestrian way rather than in the heat of a revolution as with the Americans and the French. Our development as a nation has been a dull affair. We hardly even know it's happening. The day after Federation - 2/1/1901 - would have been not too different from the day before Federation - 31/12/1900 which was the last day that Australia existed a 6 separate British colonies. Federation was a momentous occasion for us, but only in hindsight. And we got the national anthem in a similar way, by a ballot rather than by the bullet. Nobody loses their life as Australia develops as a nation and acquires national symbols, and the price of a peaceful and orderly development of nationhood is a certain dullness and even boredom. Maybe we should learn to proclaim that as a virtue. As for AAF, it seems to be taking hold as an anthem ... slowly. At least when people sing it these days they seem to know the words, which wasn't the case at first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 12:46:40 GMT 10
I had a look at the lyrics of I Am Australian again the other day. Jingoistic? You betcha!
Whats the matter with Australians being proud of our heritage and tradition and the great work we've done building this land from essentially a desert?
If a bunch of poofs can march up and down the street in their underpants saying they are proud of their perversion then we can say we're proud of being Aussies.
And if that causes grief to a few PC fainthearts then they'll have to get out a big hanky and wipe their tear stained eyes and also "toughen up Princess."
|
|