Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

smacl wrote: »

Nothing to do with my belief. You're previous argument, specifically "although it doesn't exist, suggesting that homosexuals deserve to go to such a place is hate speech", is predicated on the non-existence of hell.

That wasn't my argument. That was sydthebeats apparent argument. If hell does exist then it's not hate speech.

It appears we have clash of beliefs:

if you don't believe hell exists then you think Folau is engaging in hate speech.

If Folau does believe in hell then he doesn't think he's engaging in hate speech.

Think. Based on your beliefs about hell.

Not know.

Firstly, not all Christians even believe in hell.

Per above. If you believe in God but don't believe in hell then you think Folau has an incorrect theology. You don't think he is engaging in hate speech - because you understand he believes in God and hell.

Secondly, most Christians aren't literalist bible-thumpers and quietly ignore the deeply homophobic sections of Romans and Leviticus.

I would have thought that homosexual-acts-a-sin would be the predominant view in Christianity.

You are making a mistake in implying that most Christians are defined by their religion. Most demonstrably diverge from their religion where it becomes openly hateful and repressive. The few more extreme elements repeatedly fail to rally the more moderate masses as has been seen in local referendums here.

As ever, I can only state my own view - although it's not by any means unique to me.

My own view is that a person becomes a Christian by divine act (the act being triggered by a response to God (even if they don't realise they are responding to God) by a person. That's the only way it can occur.

Cultural Christianity, on the otherhand, produces lots of people who self identify as Christians. That doesn't mean they are Christians in the only way outlined above.

Which makes reading the tea leaves a bit harder than you make out above.

I agree, I think many aspects of the bible are homophobic and misogynistic, but then so are most texts from that era. This leaves those who identify as Christians in a bit of a dilemma with a number of possible options;

1) Stick with the bits they like and simply ignore the nasty stuff, e.g. a-la-carte Catholics.
2) Dump the religion entirely and become atheists or choose an alternative religion.
3) Change over to a church that rejects and re-interprets the meaning of Christianity based on modern social norms, e.g. Michael Burrows version of Anglican Christianity.

Those are options alright. Bearing in mind my above point, you might see why some folk at least are prepared to ditch things that run counter to present day norms.

4) Become or a remain a Christian that views a very literal interpretation of the bible to be the one true faith, including all that is offensive.

I think your confusing literalism with thought-out theology. A literalist see no nuance, no parable (unless stated to be so), no symbolism. A thought-out theology can hold to things that are distasteful to present day minds, having built up a picture of the whys and wherefores contained in the bible.

As with Sydthebeat, your whole position is based on the supposition that the Bible isn't God's revelation to man. If you thought for a second it was, then you would quickly see that some things are going to be immutable.

Relatively few choose this last option, but many of those that do seem to be very vocal about it. They get called out for preaching hate speech because that is what they are doing and it is by their own choice. This is the category Folau falls into in my opinion.

My own view is that Ireland is a predominantly non-Christian country and that most of the Christians in it aren't Christians as defined earlier.

Now, back to whether it's hate speech if looking at it from his, as opposed to your, perspective. That clash of beliefs I was talking about earlier.