nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

@antiskeptic, your argument basically boils down to the assertion that the hate speech that Folau is spouting isn't to be taken seriously because it is based on delusional nonsense.

That question isn't settled. It's your belief about his belief vs. his belief about his belief.

You ought to know that by now.

The vast majority of Christians don't preach homophobia on the basis of their literal interpretation of the bible. These more extreme expressions of Christianity are the exception, and it is entirely reasonable to call out cases of hate-speech as they're atypical.

Unrepentant sinners going to hell is a drumbeat message of Christianity. I appreciate not all major on hellfire and damnation - the modern mood in Christianity is for apologetics (give a reason for your faith). Whether that modern mood is as appropriate as it's purveyors suppose is open to question. The hellfire "for unrepentant sinners" message is clear as a bell in the bible however, so nothing wrong with it from a Christian perspective.

You would have to highlight homophobia as opposed to a message from the bible about the destination of unrepentant sinners. If you consider the bible homophobic then that's a different matter.

Secondly, many Christians are also gay, may share some notion of hell and be genuinely hurt by all this. Other gay people may be treated differently by their Christian friends who are swayed by this delusional vitriol, so again the harm is genuine.

Indeed, many Christians are gay. If they differ from the view expressed by Folau (that unrepentant sinners of whatever hue) go to hell then they differ on theology. Which comes first: expressing a theology firmly held or saying nothing because it hurts those who have a different theology?

In my experience, the message of Christianity is highly offensive.

I'd also question your own motives for starting a thread about 'LGBT nonsense' as you call it on the A&A forum. Why here and not the Christianity forum? My guess is that the good people on that forum would also label Folau's nonsense as unacceptable hate speech but on that forum you'd struggle to hide behind the argument that this was an acceptable expression of Christianity.

As you know, there is significant migration across neighbouring forums. I don't think Christians are precluded from engaging here.

I consider it a nonsense for the reasons I've been outlining here.

1. Can you declare where Falou himself condemned anyone

2. Can you do other than merely suppose his beliefs a nonsense - your argument rests on same afterall. You might start by providing empirical proof for your guiding philosophies (empiricism / rationalism). Because all you appear to have is a position based on undemonstrable belief.

smacl

@antiskeptic, your argument basically boils down to the assertion that the hate speech that Folau is spouting isn't to be taken seriously because it is based on delusional nonsense. The hateful intent isn't his, it belongs to the hateful religion he practices. While I agree that what he says is delusional nonsense, and that it emanates from indoctrination in a hateful religion, your argument falls over on two counts. The vast majority of Christians don't preach homophobia on the basis of their literal interpretation of the bible. These more extreme expressions of Christianity are the exception, and it is entirely reasonable to call out cases of hate-speech as they're atypical. Secondly, many Christians are also gay, may share some notion of hell and be genuinely hurt by all this. Other gay people may be treated differently by their Christian friends who are swayed by this delusional vitriol, so again the harm is genuine.

I'd also question your own motives for starting a thread about 'LGBT nonsense' as you call it on the A&A forum. Why here and not the Christianity forum? My guess is that the good people on that forum would also label Folau's nonsense as unacceptable hate speech but on that forum you'd struggle to hide behind the argument that this was an acceptable expression of Christianity.

pauldla

Have we reached peak LGBT nonsense or peak religious believer nonsense...?

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

its hate speech.

telling people they are going to hell because they are a certain way... is hate speech.

you clearly do not agree, and thats fine... but it doesnt change the fact that its hate speech.

There's a few lumps of pyrite in these foundations.

1. I am going to assume you hold the view that Hell doesn't exist.

In that case, what you appear to mean, regarding the statement: "homosexuals et al are going to Hell" goes something like:

"although it doesn't exist, suggesting that homosexuals deserve to go to such a place is hate speech"

Hell, in your mind, would then be on a par with a something that does exist. A rubbish dump where the fire never go out (one translation of Hell is Gehenna, is a rubbish dump outside biblical-times Jerusalem, in which the fires never went out). Or perhaps you mean a furnace (extermination camp connotations come to mind)

Etc.

I would agree with you, save for one important fact. The existence or not of Hell hasn't been established for those who like proofs of the empirical kind. Folau believes it does exist. And from that perspective, the hate speech easily transforms into warning speech. He isn't (nor ought he) be confined to obtaining what he know via the philosophy of empricism (the veracity of which, ironically, has no empirical proof. Empiricism is a belief system)

Which leads me onto..

2. His statement was a warning statement.

Hell unless repentance (a.k.a. turn to God and be saved, even if your a homosexual, adulterer, drunkard. Even if you remain a homosexual, adulterer, drunkard afterwards).

3. Despite my asking, no one has responded to my query regarding their presumptions.

Folau neither stated nor implied that homosexuals, adulterers, drunkards... and every other kind of unrepentant sinner deserved (in his view) Hell. Yet the implication in your post and in many others is that he has stated that, whether explicitly or implicitly. That he himself thinks that homosexuals etc, deserve Hell

(sinners do deserve to go to Hell, but their deserving stems from an argument presented by God which involves God's holiness and how it is confined to dealing with sin, not from Folau himself. You don't have to believe in God to understand from whence Folau is coming.

Conclusion

Folau has come to believe in the existence of heaven and hell. As I came to believe it. And from that place, he realises that the world around him is full of people who don't know this (in "know" I am switching to his perspective)

And he wants to warn people. As anyone who had an iota of concern for his fellow man wants to warn them of impending Tsunami, earthquake, climate castastrophe. That you don't believe in Hell doesn't alter his believing in Hell. Nor does it alter the existence or otherwise, of Hell.

Question: would you, if fully believing in Hell and despite the storm you know it will bring down on you, warn your fellow man regarding it?

Question: should you be quietened from expressing your belief-unto-warning .. by people who don't believe what you believe. That their beliefs somehow ought trump your beliefs? Maybe you should just shut up warning folk about nailing warmboard to their walls

sydthebeat

splinter65 wrote: »

And you think that this guy saying that gay people are all going to hell would result in not only a charge but a conviction !!!
DOUBLE LOL!

wow.....

please find for me where i said that.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

Well that’s another thread,and nothing to do with homosexuality, but if Catholics see abortion as murder ( they do) then they will do everything they can to stop the murder, as anyone would.

Again not all Catholics. You're defining Catholics by either your personal beliefs of what a real Catholic is, or simply by the church stance.

splinter65

sydthebeat wrote: »

never claimed to be

but you did claim however that :

and you were SO wrong LOL

And you think that this guy saying that gay people are all going to hell would result in not only a charge but a conviction !!!
DOUBLE LOL!

batgoat

splinter65 wrote: »

So let the judge decide wether or not someone’s opinion is hate speech.
Your problem is....
Your NOT the judge.

So I can't call stormfront hate speech unless they face prosecution?

sydthebeat

splinter65 wrote: »

So let the judge decide wether or not someone’s opinion is hate speech.
Your problem is....
Your NOT the judge.

never claimed to be

but you did claim however that :

You see this is the problem with “hate speech”. It’s not possible to define it so it’s not possible to legislate for it. It’s nonsense.

and you were SO wrong LOL

salmocab

Remember when this thread was about Israel Folau? Great days

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

In my opinion they’re wrong. You’re not too sure about opinions king mob.

And in your opinion, is that a racist statement?

Or do you believe that it is not possible to make a racist statement?

[Deleted User]

The Specialist wrote: »

Gender Dysphoria was classified as a mental illness until very recently under the DSM. Now that they have removed it the potential harm is greater than good.

Would we encourage schizophrenics to cultivate as many voices as they want without intervention? **** no. They might even “feel” it’s their right to do so but something is wrong in the brain there. So declassifying trans as a mental illness now has people giving hormone blockers to children (enforcing their own mental illness on the children), surgical procedures to mutilate their bodies to resemble their new “identity”, and speech/thought policing that wouldn’t be out of place in the Nazis. They should be getting serious help, not being told do as you wish.

Cool.
Homosexuality was also in the DSM.

Could you take a swing at answering my questions again, thanks.

You seem to be making a lot of definite statements of fact on a lot of complex topics, so would be good to see if this is coming from someone with actual knowledge and expertise, or if it's all just lay opinion.

What are you using to compare a trans person to a person with schizophrenia?

splinter65

sydthebeat wrote: »

LOL :D:D:D:D:D

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

we already have Hate Speech legislation.

So let the judge decide wether or not someone’s opinion is hate speech.
Your problem is....
Your NOT the judge.

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

So it's not a racist thing to say then?

And how can you say they are wrong? Who are you to decide? :rolleyes:

In my opinion they’re wrong. You’re not too sure about opinions king mob.

The Specialist

King Mob wrote: »

Are you a biologist?
Neurologist?
Psychologist?

Could you detail what research have you done on this topic?
Could you point to some scientific papers that support your insistence that trans people are suffering from delusion?

Gender Dysphoria was classified as a mental illness until very recently under the DSM. Now that they have removed it the potential harm is greater than good.

Would we encourage schizophrenics to cultivate as many voices as they want without intervention? **** no. They might even “feel” it’s their right to do so but something is wrong in the brain there. So declassifying trans as a mental illness now has people giving hormone blockers to children (enforcing their own mental illness on the children), surgical procedures to mutilate their bodies to resemble their new “identity”, and speech/thought policing that wouldn’t be out of place in the Nazis. They should be getting serious help, not being told do as you wish.

eagle eye

sydthebeat wrote:

complete cop out..
its hate speech

I'm not backing down from my position. I don't agree with you and that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion as well. I just don't see hate there.

sydthebeat wrote:

telling people they are going to hell because they are a certain way... is hate speech.

I don't agree. He was asking these people to repent do they don't go to hell. He is entitled to hold the view that being actively gay is a sin. Same as you and I are entitled to hold the opinion thsy his religion is wrong.

sydthebeat wrote:

you clearly do not agree, and thats fine... but it doesnt change the fact that its hate speech.

We disagree, so be it. I think people fly off the handle and call things hate too much.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

That persons opinion. They’d be wrong of course. But still entitled to their opinion.

So it's not a racist thing to say then?

And how can you say they are wrong? Who are you to decide? :rolleyes:

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So what would you call it when some one states "Asian people are inferior to white people"?

That persons opinion. They’d be wrong of course. But still entitled to their opinion.

splinter65

batgoat wrote: »

Yep but that's more like pretending homophobia, racism and antisemitism aren't hate speech. They are. It's more that you're uncomfortable that countries legislate against it because of the incredibly, hurt, discomfort it can cause and can also lead to far more violent actions as well.

I’m not uncomfortable about anything. I’m on this guys list of people who are going to Hell.
Why do you think I’m uncomfortable ?!?

sydthebeat

splinter65 wrote: »

You see this is the problem with “hate speech”. It’s not possible to define it so it’s not possible to legislate for it. It’s nonsense.

LOL

:D:D:D:D:D

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1989/act/19/enacted/en/html

we already have Hate Speech legislation.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

No racism is when someone is discriminated against because of their race.
“I didn’t get the job because I’m Asian”

Ok. So what would you call it when some one states "Asian people are inferior to white people"?

batgoat

splinter65 wrote: »

No racism is when someone is discriminated against because of their race.

Nope, you're limiting the definition. From the Oxford dictionary. In effect you'd be claiming prior to entering power, the Nazis weren't engaging in antisemitic behaviour. That's not true... Their rhetoric was antisemitic as well as actions they took.

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

Then, by your logic, there is no such thing as racism.

Who gets to decide what's racist?
No one I guess, so there's no way to tell what's racist.

Do you believe it's possible to say something racist?
If so, what makes something racist?

No racism is when someone is discriminated against because of their race.
“I didn’t get the job because I’m Asian”

batgoat

splinter65 wrote: »

In my opinion, there’s no such thing as hate speech. There you go. If you can tell me who gets to decide what hate speech is, maybe I’ll reconsider my position.

Yep but that's more like pretending homophobia, racism and antisemitism aren't hate speech. They are. It's more that you're uncomfortable that countries legislate against it because of the incredibly, hurt, discomfort it can cause and can also lead to far more violent actions as well.

splinter65

eagle eye wrote: »

I think in a case like that it's a bit different due to emotional strain.

You see this is the problem with “hate speech”. It’s not possible to define it so it’s not possible to legislate for it. It’s nonsense.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

In my opinion, there’s no such thing as hate speech. There you go. If you can tell me who gets to decide what hate speech is, maybe I’ll reconsider my position.

Then, by your logic, there is no such thing as racism.

Who gets to decide what's racist?
No one I guess, so there's no way to tell what's racist.

Do you believe it's possible to say something racist?
If so, what makes something racist?

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you just declared that hate speech doesn't exist...

Is this something you get to decide?

In my opinion, there’s no such thing as hate speech. There you go. If you can tell me who gets to decide what hate speech is, maybe I’ll reconsider my position.

batgoat

The Specialist wrote: »

No ignorance. Biological fact is biological fact, your feelings are irrelevant. No agenda at all but there can't be double standards, we can all argue against big bad Folaus sky fairy logic but we dare not question the logic of someone defying the entire history of biology? Something wrong there.

You're pretending as if a person being transgender is a modern thing. It's happened throughout history and there's nothing ruling out the possibility of biological factors favouring a person's likelihood of being transgender and identifying with a different gender as a result.

Suspect its your own bigotry taking over.

[Deleted User]

The Specialist wrote: »

No ignorance. Biological fact is biological fact, your feelings are irrelevant. .

Are you a biologist?
Neurologist?
Psychologist?

Could you detail what research have you done on this topic?
Could you point to some scientific papers that support your insistence that trans people are suffering from delusion?

The Specialist

sydthebeat wrote: »

yeah.... all the above could very well be considered transphobic at best, its definitely ignorant.

you clearly have an agenda on that issue

No ignorance. Biological fact is biological fact, your feelings are irrelevant. No agenda at all but there can't be double standards, we can all argue against big bad Folaus sky fairy logic but we dare not question the logic of someone defying the entire history of biology? Something wrong there.