Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

smacl

theological wrote: »

It is a sad scenario where people who have departed the faith ideologically stick around and expouse secularism in religious garb. And it is possible, both in the history of God's people with God's people turning against Him for idols to clerics turning away from God's word for respectability.

Should I take the implication from the above that your consider the reverend and bishop in the article somehow lesser Christians than yourself?

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

A consensus position arrived at and continually being refined by people from civilised societies across the globe, including Christians, Muslims, Hindus and those of every other faith and none. Not so much turtles all the way down as people all the way up

I understand your position here; people all the way up is a fine summary
One question, do you think this consensus is moving towards (or can move towards) some objective standard of "good" or "right"? Or does the consensus itself define what is right, and is open to refinement / revision?

smacl wrote: »

By 'must', I mean any command, instruction, or imperative statement. By all means feel free to try to persuade others that your beliefs are true but in doing so be prepared for others to do likewise with their contrary beliefs in equal measure. Similarly, I'd take issue with any measure to impose religious belief that involves threat or bribery. e.g. Repent or burn in hell! or Get sanctified or get french fried.

Hear hear! Sharing the truth in love is how I would summarise the Christian way in this, and that includes listening to what others have to say. There are lots of things we will disagree on, and Christianity still has hard things to say, but there is no room for smug superiority on the part of Christians. We are no better than anyone else.

smacl wrote: »

On what basis do you claim that Christianity makes objective claims and could you list a few of them? I would consider anything based on your personally held beliefs to be subjective until evidenced. Suggesting everyone 'must' believe firstly requires you to evidence your beliefs as objective truth and secondly for others to accept that evidence.

On the basis that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the pages of scripture and witnessed to by the Holy Spirit. There is no other or higher authority to appeal to, we can only take it or leave it.

In terms of the claims themselves, the Apostles Creed is a good place to start. That God is real, is the creator and ruler of the world, that people are all fallen and sinful, that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation etc. etc.

As regards proof, the problem isn't lack of evidence but your rejection of the evidence. That's why no-one is ever argued into becoming a Christian. An imperfect analogy would be if I were to reject your idea that there is a place on the other side of the world called New Zealand. You could show me in an atlas, get me to talk to people who've been there, even fly me there to see for myself. But if I continue to insist that all of that is just your subjective belief, at some point you would have to conclude that the problem isn't with the evidence, it's with my inability or unwillingness to accept it.

smacl wrote: »

Again subjective, on my part this time, but cynically I'd say that most religions are very much in the business of selling hope but that doesn't make that hope well founded. I'd tend to go with Marx when it comes to the value of religious hope.

If there is no God then that's a perfectly plausible and reasonable position. It fits with Marx's presuppositions and world view, but I reject both cheerfully and unreservedly!

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

As regards proof, the problem isn't lack of evidence but your rejection of the evidence. That's why no-one is ever argued into becoming a Christian. An imperfect analogy would be if I were to reject your idea that there is a place on the other side of the world called New Zealand. You could show me in an atlas, get me to talk to people who've been there, even fly me there to see for myself. But if I continue to insist that all of that is just your subjective belief, at some point you would have to conclude that the problem isn't with the evidence, it's with my inability or unwillingness to accept it.

How does you actually visiting New Zealand mean that it is still merely someone else belief that it exists.

If all the evidence we can produce to it existence is the end credits of Lord Of The Rings then yes you can claim it doesn't really exist if you want, but once you've been there yourself then you have the physical proof that it exists.

That proof is what religion is lacking.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

How does you actually visiting New Zealand mean that it is still merely someone else belief that it exists.

If all the evidence we can produce to it existence is the end credits of Lord Of The Rings then yes you can claim it doesn't really exist if you want, but once you've been there yourself then you have the physical proof that it exists.

That proof is what religion is lacking.

Maybe I'm ignorant, stupid, or just being unreasonable, who knows? And I did say that it's an imperfect analogy My point was that all the evidence in the world will be of no value if I am either unable or unwilling to accept it.

Christianity begins with the presupposition that God exists, and everything else follows. Assuming that is true, the idea that he would need to prove himself to you (or anyone), in terms that you define and find entirely satisfactory is a strange one. The available evidence is, for me (and countless other Christians), entirely satisfactory. The only thing I can suggest is that you go and visit New Zealand for yourself.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Maybe I'm ignorant, stupid, or just being unreasonable, who knows? And I did say that it's an imperfect analogy My point was that all the evidence in the world will be of no value if I am either unable or unwilling to accept it.

Christianity begins with the presupposition that God exists, and everything else follows. Assuming that is true, the idea that he would need to prove himself to you (or anyone), in terms that you define and find entirely satisfactory is a strange one. The available evidence is, for me (and countless other Christians), entirely satisfactory. The only thing I can suggest is that you go and visit New Zealand for yourself.

Agreed that it's an imperfect analogy and noted that you said that, but it's not actually even slightly any good from your perspective. There are multiple ways to prove that New Zealand exists without going there personally, I have been multiple times and it's awesome, but to compare actually visiting New Zealand as proof of it's existence fits with you believing that god exists and then working back from that to make the rest of your beliefs then fit with that claim is absolute nonsense.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

Agreed that it's an imperfect analogy and noted that you said that, but it's not actually even slightly any good from your perspective. There are multiple ways to prove that New Zealand exists without going there personally, I have been multiple times and it's awesome, but to compare actually visiting New Zealand as proof of it's existence fits with you believing that god exists and then working back from that to make the rest of your beliefs then fit with that claim is absolute nonsense.

Yeah, that's not really what I was doing. My point, if you remember, was that merely having evidence for something is not enough. I need to be willing and able to accept it.

You can take or leave the analogy, of course it's completely inadequate as the two things are not remotely comparable. But what you're asking for is something that neither I, nor anyone else can provide you with. Your only option is to take or leave Christianity on its own terms.

No doubt you have good reasons for believing what you do. If you can't concede that, perhaps, Christians do as well then I struggle to understand why you would bother posting here at all.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yeah, that's not really what I was doing. My point, if you remember, was that merely having evidence for something is not enough. I need to be willing and able to accept it.

You can take or leave the analogy, of course it's completely inadequate as the two things are not remotely comparable. But what you're asking for is something that neither I, nor anyone else can provide you with. Your only option is to take or leave Christianity on its own terms.

No doubt you have good reasons for believing what you do. If you can't concede that, perhaps, Christians do as well then I struggle to understand why you would bother posting here at all.

You claim to have evidence, but acknowledge that it's no good as it is purely based on a lack of evidence. In fact to have faith requires a lack of evidence for whatever it is that you are believing in.

We know that you have no evidence, you know you have no evidence, yet religions then claim that the thing they can't prove is justification for something else... because people just need to believe a bit more.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I understand your position here; people all the way up is a fine summary
One question, do you think this consensus is moving towards (or can move towards) some objective standard of "good" or "right"? Or does the consensus itself define what is right, and is open to refinement / revision?

Currently, I think consensus based human rights are concerned primarily with eliminating the worst aspects of human behaviour such as various forms of discrimination. In the context of religion this includes freedom of religious expression, which in turn leads the likes of apostasy to be a basic human right where in many jurisdictions it would be considered a crime, as highlighted recently in the Asia Bibi case. I doubt we'll ever see an all encompassing notion of what is "good" or "right" as this is very heavily dependent on context and personal preference, whereas what is "bad" or "wrong" is often more easily recognised and a reasonable curtailment on personal and societal freedom.

Of course consensus is corruptible (as is religious dogma) but in terms of progress we are seeing greater demands for transparency and accountability which serve to counter this. The Pope lifting the 'pontifical secret' rule in sex abuse cases would be a good example here.

On the basis that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the pages of scripture and witnessed to by the Holy Spirit. There is no other or higher authority to appeal to, we can only take it or leave it.

In terms of the claims themselves, the Apostles Creed is a good place to start. That God is real, is the creator and ruler of the world, that people are all fallen and sinful, that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation etc. etc.

As regards proof, the problem isn't lack of evidence but your rejection of the evidence. That's why no-one is ever argued into becoming a Christian. An imperfect analogy would be if I were to reject your idea that there is a place on the other side of the world called New Zealand. You could show me in an atlas, get me to talk to people who've been there, even fly me there to see for myself. But if I continue to insist that all of that is just your subjective belief, at some point you would have to conclude that the problem isn't with the evidence, it's with my inability or unwillingness to accept it.

I'd agree that rejection of claimed evidence is the principal reason that I consider Christian beliefs to be subjective. For example I don't consider the bible to be a historically accurate document so much as a synthesis of second hand accounts and legends. Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" makes for good read in this regard. Not too sure how well your analogy to New Zealand holds up. If Qantas start doing return flights to heaven (or RyanAir to hell ) and I took one, I'd clearly have to revise my position.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

You claim to have evidence, but acknowledge that it's no good as it is purely based on a lack of evidence. In fact to have faith requires a lack of evidence for whatever it is that you are believing in.

We know that you have no evidence, you know you have no evidence, yet religions then claim that the thing they can't prove is justification for something else... because people just need to believe a bit more.

Ok then, thanks for clearing that up :pac:

You might be looking for the A&A forum?

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Ok then, thanks for clearing that up :pac:

You might be looking for the A&A forum?

Well this thread started off with chritisans being upset that they could no longer persecute others and feeling as if that was persecution against christianity because it was what they had always done so why couldn't they do it any more.

Some non religious folk have just come in here to point out that just because you used to be able to persecute others didn't mean that you should continue to be able to, and not being able to wasn't persecution against you. So I think we are probably in the right place.

Doesn't mean that you can't continue to believe whatever you like of course, just that you don't get to enforce your beliefs on others anymore.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

You might be looking for the A&A forum?

Have a peruse of the busiest thread there over the last few weeks. Some degree of confusion is not unreasonable

My understanding is that both forums welcome input from those with and without faith once they stay within the bounds of their respective charters. All to the good in my humble opinion on the basis that conversation is better than polarization.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Currently, I think consensus based human rights are concerned primarily with eliminating the worst aspects of human behaviour such as various forms of discrimination. In the context of religion this includes freedom of religious expression, which in turn leads the likes of apostasy to be a basic human right where in many jurisdictions it would be considered a crime, as highlighted recently in the Asia Bibi case. I doubt we'll ever see an all encompassing notion of what is "good" or "right" as this is very heavily dependent on context and personal preference, whereas what is "bad" or "wrong" is often more easily recognised and a reasonable curtailment on personal and societal freedom.

Of course consensus is corruptible (as is religious dogma) but in terms of progress we are seeing greater demands for transparency and accountability which serve to counter this. The Pope lifting the 'pontifical secret' rule in sex abuse cases would be a good example here.

From a purely secular perspective, I think that is the best you can hope for. I still see this as inevitably having to borrow capital from some kind of objective notion of right and wrong. Otherwise, the idea of progress doesn't make much sense.

smacl wrote: »

I'd agree that rejection of claimed evidence is the principal reason that I consider Christian beliefs to be subjective. For example I don't consider the bible to be a historically accurate document so much as a synthesis of second hand accounts and legends. Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" makes for good read in this regard. Not too sure how well your analogy to New Zealand holds up. If Qantas start doing return flights to heaven (or RyanAir to hell ) and I took one, I'd clearly have to revise my position.

The most that can be achieved in a thread like this is for Christians to clearly articulate what we believe and why, and to try and answer questions about that. Bad travel analogies aside, the only way to be convinced of the truth of Christianity is to come and see for yourself. That's why the bible talks about unbelievers being blind and spiritually dead - until that changes, you won't be convinced by any of the evidence or arguments I have to offer. I don't say that to be insulting or offensive, or to imply any degree of superiority on my part, but those are the terms in which Christianity understands itself.

Equally, it's why I understand the insistence from your perspective that religious belief is down to ignorance, naivety, stupidity or some kind of sinister or cynical motive. Your worldview excludes the one option that Christians insist is the right one - that these things are actually true.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

Well this thread started off with chritisans being upset that they could no longer persecute others and feeling as if that was persecution against christianity because it was what they had always done so why couldn't they do it any more.

Some non religious folk have just come in here to point out that just because you used to be able to persecute others didn't mean that you should continue to be able to, and not being able to wasn't persecution against you. So I think we are probably in the right place.

Doesn't mean that you can't continue to believe whatever you like of course, just that you don't get to enforce your beliefs on others anymore.

Ok, if that's really what you think Christians believe and have said about all this, there's little I can do to change your mind.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

Well this thread started off with chritisans being upset that they could no longer persecute others.....

smacl wrote: »

My understanding is that both forums welcome input from those with and without faith once they stay within the bounds of their respective charters. All to the good in my humble opinion on the basis that conversation is better than polarization.

Definitely, couldn't agree more.

I would argue that insisting on telling Christians what they really believe is the equivalent to me yelling "turn or burn" over and over again. At best, I think it's unlikely to yield an interesting or worthwhile conversation.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Definitely, couldn't agree more.

I would argue that insisting on telling Christians what they really believe is the equivalent to me yelling "turn or burn" over and over again. At best, I think it's unlikely to yield an interesting or worthwhile conversation.

The first post in the thread is someone upset that they can't tell gay people they are going to hell. I've yet to see the argument in support of Israel Folau explained much differently than that after 50+ pages of the thread, so if you think the problem is something different then you've done a bad job at explaining it.

Nobody has said that you have to be gay. Nobody has said that you have to be friends with gay people. Nobody has said you have to stop believing in a god, although it has been questioned regarding the claims that your god disapproves of gay people based on the contents of the bible.

All that has been said is that you cannot tell gay people they are going to hell using a profile afforded to them by their employer without their employer having issues with that. You are still free to take your soap box and stand at Speakers Corner and say whatever you like, you cannot take a soapbox covered in Rugby Australia branding and say those things and still expect to get a pay packet from Rugby Australia after doing so.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

From a purely secular perspective, I think that is the best you can hope for. I still see this as inevitably having to borrow capital from some kind of objective notion of right and wrong. Otherwise, the idea of progress doesn't make much sense.

I think we can agree across a very broad population many things that are definitely wrong and unacceptable. What is "right" is far more complex and subjective. Even within this thread among strong Christians, we can see a stark difference of opinion between the Reverend in the article and Theological. As a left leaning liberal, I teach my kids to be kind to others and themselves and to enjoy life. A more conservative parent might be more authoritarian and stress the value of tradition. There isn't a single definitive "right" that works for everyone which is really the core of my understanding of secularism. I think broad acceptance of the diversity within society is most definitely a mark of progress.

The most that can be achieved in a thread like this is for Christians to clearly articulate what we believe and why, and to try and answer questions about that. Bad travel analogies aside, the only way to be convinced of the truth of Christianity is to come and see for yourself. That's why the bible talks about unbelievers being blind and spiritually dead - until that changes, you won't be convinced by any of the evidence or arguments I have to offer. I don't say that to be insulting or offensive, or to imply any degree of superiority on my part, but those are the terms in which Christianity understands itself.

Equally, it's why I understand the insistence from your perspective that religious belief is down to ignorance, naivety, stupidity or some kind of sinister or cynical motive. Your worldview excludes the one option that Christians insist is the right one - that these things are actually true.

I agree to an extent, but similarly I think the position that many people such as myself have that they have no interest in becoming a Christian should be equally respected. Entirely reasonable to invite people to join your faith, and equally reasonable for anyone else to suggest you abandon it for theirs, but unreasonable to demand or otherwise coerce on the basis that would be an attempt to deny the other their own freedom of religious expression.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

The first post in the thread is someone upset that they can't tell gay people they are going to hell. I've yet to see the argument in support of Israel Folau explained much differently than that after 50+ pages of the thread, so if you think the problem is something different then you've done a bad job at explaining it.

FWIW, I have repeatedly said that Israel Folau was, at best, unwise in what he said and the way he said it. And that it was an entirely unhelpful way to approach a complex and sensitive subject.

What I take issue with is the idea that Christian beliefs on sexuality are necessarily and by definition hateful and bigoted. I think it's entirely possible to believe these things and yet still be kind, loving and respectful.

And as you say, it's entirely possible that I and others on the thread have done a bad job of explaining ourselves. The invitation is still open to come along to our church any time and decide for yourself if we're hateful bigots

Cabaal

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

What I take issue with is the idea that Christian beliefs on sexuality are necessarily and by definition hateful and bigoted. I think it's entirely possible to believe these things and yet still be kind, loving and respectful.

I'm not so sure about that,

Replace gay with black and the views would be racist, to claim the person is still kind, loving and respectful if they said black people should burn in hell would be a little bit of a farce.

Of course I'm speaking for this particular case, other Christian's may not say that gay people should burn in hell. But if they did then its not very kind or loving.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I think we can agree across a very broad population many things that are definitely wrong and unacceptable. What is "right" is far more complex and subjective. Even within this thread among strong Christians, we can see a stark difference of opinion between the Reverend in the article and Theological. As a left leaning liberal, I teach my kids to be kind to others and themselves and to enjoy life. A more conservative parent might be more authoritarian and stress the value of tradition. There isn't a single definitive "right" that works for everyone which is really the core of my understanding of secularism. I think broad acceptance of the diversity within society is most definitely a mark of progress.

I think it's fair to say that some things are always wrong, some things are always right, and many fall into a middle category where it depends. The question for me is how we categorise them and why, and where we look for guidance when we aren't sure.

I certainly don't mean to imply that Christians have a monopoly on doing good, that's clearly not the case.

smacl wrote: »

I agree to an extent, but similarly I think the position that many people such as myself have that they have no interest in becoming a Christian should be equally respected. Entirely reasonable to invite people to join your faith, and equally reasonable for anyone else to suggest you abandon it for theirs, but unreasonable to demand or otherwise coerce on the basis that would be an attempt to deny the other their own freedom of religious expression.

Yep, totally agree. I have no interest in coercing anyone into believing anything - that would be completely counter productive.

ChrisJ84

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that,

Replace gay with black and the views would be racist, to claim the person is still kind, loving and respectful if they said black people should burn in hell would be a little bit of a farce.

Of course I'm speaking for this particular case, other Christian's may not say that gay people should burn in hell. But if they did then its not very kind or loving.

I think it's fair to say that the Christian sexual ethic is a little more complete and nuanced than "Gay people should burn in hell." But that, and the replace gay with black thing, was done to death several hundred posts ago so I don't know what I would add to what has already been said.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Definitely, couldn't agree more.

I would argue that insisting on telling Christians what they really believe is the equivalent to me yelling "turn or burn" over and over again. At best, I think it's unlikely to yield an interesting or worthwhile conversation.

I agree, but surely this also holds for one Christian dictating the meaning of Christianity to another Christian.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that,

Replace gay with black and the views would be racist, to claim the person is still kind, loving and respectful if they said black people should burn in hell would be a little bit of a farce.

Of course I'm speaking for this particular case, other Christian's may not say that gay people should burn in hell. But if they did then its not very kind or loving.

To be fair, I don't think the actions of Isreal Folau say much about Christianity in general, so much as Folau himself and those that row in behind him in using the freedom of religious expression / freedom of speech card as an excuse for blatant homophobia and religious bigotry. I'd guess the homophobic aspects correlate as much with right wing conservatism as religious belief. After all, the majority of the people in this country identify as Christian and the majority also voted for marriage equality. A large proportion of the Catholic hierarchy pushed for a no vote but it didn't get them very far. I reckon if Folau had been playing for Ireland he also would have promptly been shown the door and rightly so.

eagle eye

You know if Folau came out and said that anybody not conforming to the teachings in the Bible will burn in hell there would not be a word about it even though he would be saying the exact same thing just not highlighting all those types who are sinning according to his beliefs.

AngryHippie

eagle eye wrote: »

You know if Folau came out and said that anybody not conforming to the teachings in the Bible will burn in hell there would not be a word about it even though he would be saying the exact same thing just not highlighting all those types who are sinning according to his beliefs.

100% correct.
Nobody would care, because he isn't singling any particular group out, i.e. no discrimination.

Either he is really stupid....Or an absolute POS and it was just a money grab.

eagle eye

AngryHippie wrote:

Either he is really stupid....Or an absolute POS and it was just a money grab.

The first bit.

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

The first bit.

Difficult to know. Persisting with his comments after the warning also cost his team an excellent rugby player which, when you think about it, shows little respect for them or the fans.

theological

AngryHippie wrote: »

What do you consider to be God's word ?
Gospels?
the entire Old and New Testament ?
Everything the Pope says is good to go ?

This post is helpful thank you.

The Bible is God's word, His word is revealed supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. That's why it says that in times past God spoke through prophets but in these last days He has spoken through His Son.

In short what does this mean. The Bible is a progressive revelation with a beginning and end. We read the Scriptures in the light of Jesus Christ and where this ends up. Particularly the Old Testament. We differ from Jews in this regard.

AngryHippie wrote: »

If someone lives a good life, (obeys commandments, does good deeds, treats others as they wish to be treated etc.) and the only "wrong" they have committed is to reject the nonsensical tosh that makes up 90% of scripture (of which there is absolutely zero credible evidence to suggest it is the word of God) why should they regret or repent this ?
There are elements to scripture that conflict with ethical behavior (eye for an eye, stoning etc) that as an agnostic I find barbaric and cannot accept

What is a good life? What does good mean?

The non-believer cannot answer that objectively. From my perspective God has spoken and He declares what is good to us. What is your source for good?

You make a point about zero credible evidence. That's not true. We've got eyewitness testimony of Jesus recorded for us in history. The key question is what do you make of Jesus? What do you make of the empty tomb? Where is Jesus' grave? I trust the eyewitnesses who were there. How do you explain it?

AngryHippie wrote: »

1 Timothy 2:12, in which the saint says: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."
So its not just God now, but you have to believe in witches too....

Psalm 137 had a good run until the Second Vatican Council, at which stage it was deemed to be a bit risque, being about infanticide...

The Bible acknowledges that men and women are different but equal. Different in role and equal in status. Women have a different role to men as a result. I find this much better than the gender confusion in our world where we are contorting ourselves to deny any differences between men and women.

The other two passages need to be read in context. I'm happy to give some deeper thoughts on these later when I'm not on a busy train.

AngryHippie wrote: »

And don't get me started on St. Paul's letter to the Romans, which is the normal source of the shade thrown at homosexuals.

Romans is one of my favourite books. It shows us life in Christ and the wonderful truth of Jesus dying in our place for our sins.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I was raised catholic, baptised, received communion, was confirmed etc. but I got to a point (Based on behavior of clerics) where I started to question the source of their righteousness and I had a good read of the bible. Lots of it contains very valuable guides for good living and wholesome relationships, but the majority of it is just cobblers. It was being made up on the fly by a bunch of loons who had somehow managed to claim some moral authority due to their written word (and the burning and destruction of lots of other written words) and the adoption of the faith by those in power.

Your upbringing doesn't matter much to me. I am an evangelical Protestant in any case but God could raise up stones to be Catholic if He wanted.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I see traditional religions as being no different than Scientology or Mormonism, just older, wealthier, more heavily subscribed and more heavily guarded.

I find the whole thing quite bizarre on logical reflection.

I find the secular worldview of our world odd to be honest. Two examples I have mentioned: gender and morality. A third for homework is the question about accounting for Jesus in history.

Thanks again!

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I agree, but surely this also holds for one Christian dictating the meaning of Christianity to another Christian.

Oh no, not that again! :P

You could have a point, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm fine with us disagreeing, not so much with putting words in each others mouths. As a Christian, I believe that objective truth exists, and has been revealed to us in the person of Jesus. That means that some questions have objective and unchanging answers, such as "What is a Christian."

Remember, I'm subject to that just as much as everyone else. So I'm not dictating anything, simply pointing to something that is true whether I believe in it or not.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Oh no, not that again! :P

You could have a point, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm fine with us disagreeing, not so much with putting words in each others mouths. As a Christian, I believe that objective truth exists, and has been revealed to us in the person of Jesus. That means that some questions have objective and unchanging answers, such as "What is a Christian."

Remember, I'm subject to that just as much as everyone else. So I'm not dictating anything, simply pointing to something that is true whether I believe in it or not.

Sorry, but there it is, mea maxima culpa :P

Reason I linked the IT article with the good Reverend and Bishop Burrows was really just as an illustration that what it means to be a Christian is demonstrably very different for many Christians regardless of how devout they may or may not be. If you accept that to be the case, while it is reasonable for any Christian to state personally what it means to be a Christian it isn't reasonable to state what it means for any other Christian to be a Christian. Similarly, if what you believe to be objectively true is different from what someone else believes to be objectively true those are actually subjective beliefs until such time as you can arrive at commonly agreeable evidence or method for demonstrating this truth.

From a secular perspective the idea is simply acknowledging that these gaps exist, accept them and move on. Folau's turn or burn approach is always going to be objectionable in this context.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

The fact that no one has picked him up already screams to his toxicity.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him ending up playing with some obscure rugby league team

when i said "obscure" even i didnt envisage something as weird as this :

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/us-rugby-league-start-up-interested-in-folau---report/622718

:D:D

it would be hilarious if this happens