eagle eye wrote: » If you cannot show me where their claims are backed up in the bible then they don't compare with Folau.
King Mob wrote: » Repent from what thought? If they are not having sex, what sin are they commiting?
King Mob wrote: » Ok. So then when they did believe all that what they did and said wasnt racist.
batgoat wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » The bible is the source of the persons worldview. You too have a source. And from that source you conclude it is hate speech. Somewhere along the line you've given your source a free pass. That somehow its to be considered authoritative. You are unable to show how this came about however. Do you think conversion therapy is ethical? Cause LGBT teens gets shoved into because of such views. Seems pretty hateful when such views can result in parents refusing to accept their children for what they are. You've created this thread for propaganda hour on why homophobia should be completely acceptable in certain scenarios. You have no interest in discussion and instead resort to quoting scripture that we're all aware of.
antiskeptic wrote: » The bible is the source of the persons worldview. You too have a source. And from that source you conclude it is hate speech. Somewhere along the line you've given your source a free pass. That somehow its to be considered authoritative. You are unable to show how this came about however.
antiskeptic wrote: » Are you sure you're quoting the post you meant to respond to? I, for example, haven't quoted any scripture.
batgoat wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » Let's look He included hetrosexuals. He said adulterers. That means married people who are unfaithful to their spouses. Now, you might (somehow) conclude that all those adulterers were gays married to opposite sex partners and who combined adultery with homosexual acts. But that would be a reach. a) It's not his burn in hell threat. Dont' shoot the messenger? b) he did include heterosexuals in "his" burn in hell "threat". I say "threat" since a treat assumes something that is perceived by the threatee as being a real and realistic proposition. Simple one for you on why it's both hateful and dangerous for a figure in a public position of respect to express such views on social media. So any gay teen who follows rugby in Australia and reads such ****ty views, do you think it would be incredibly hurtful and ****ty to see the team that they support doing nothing when they see Folau express such views? Do you think it's helpful for a person who is coming to terms with their sexuality to see figures of respect saying that they're doomed to hell because they're attracted to people of the same sex? It's incredibly hurtful and can both act as a justification by those who will bully them and just painful for those who need a society that supports them. So any fecking day, I support him being lobbed out of the team over some paradox of tolerance.
antiskeptic wrote: » Let's look He included hetrosexuals. He said adulterers. That means married people who are unfaithful to their spouses. Now, you might (somehow) conclude that all those adulterers were gays married to opposite sex partners and who combined adultery with homosexual acts. But that would be a reach. a) It's not his burn in hell threat. Dont' shoot the messenger? b) he did include heterosexuals in "his" burn in hell "threat". I say "threat" since a treat assumes something that is perceived by the threatee as being a real and realistic proposition.
antiskeptic wrote: » The first question to consider is whether what Folau said is true or not. Are unrepentent sinners hell bound? Is homosexual thought/act sinful? If the answer is yes, then you have a choice: -say nothing about it because the truth is hurtful to those who don't believe the truth. And some will use the truth for hateful purposes. - say it as it is and bring about the above downsides. Now you can argue that you don't believe its true - in which case we have a stalemate, a clash of beliefs: yours and his. He has as much grounding for his position (his belief) as you have for yours (your belief).
splinter65 wrote: » King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all?
batgoat wrote: » Perfectly aware of it and still view them as homophobic views. You seem to think that you're gonna provide some shocking revelation for us at some point. The reality here is, player breached contract after a warning and on top of that, it was negative pr. Simply not a view that you want associated with sport.
AllForIt wrote: » There is much work to be done but the tide is turning.
batgoat wrote: You haven't in this post but otherwise your postings have primarily preachings
Do you think it's okay based on your worldview to send a teen for conversion therapy?
Do you think there's nothing homophobic about effectively rejecting your child because of their sexual orientation?
You can claim all you want that there nothing homophobic about holding such views or expressing them but in practise they are, they are homophobic and such views are actively used to denigrate or even limit the rights of the LGBT community. Eg Uganda's policy on gay people originates from Christianity, is that policy homophobic?
batgoat wrote: » splinter65 wrote: » King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all? The reality here is, player breached contract after a warning and on top of that, it was negative pr. Simply not a view that you want associated with sport.
batgoat wrote: » Cool, dodge away.
11th edition, editor-in-chief Dr. Richard Horton published his own perspectives on the symposium. In what amounts to an editorial, entitled What is medicine's 5 sigma, he wrote: A lot of what is published is incorrect. I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, poor methods get results.
King Mob wrote: Where has Folaus beliefs been shown to be backed up by the bible? Cause they arent any more than the WBC...
antiskeptic wrote: » Whilst technically correct, this merely kicks the can down the road. The question arises whether such a clause has any place in a work contract. Its merely the mood of the times that has such things included. And we're examining the mood of the times.
antiskeptic wrote: » Undergirding the arguments of proponents of the current mood is Science and what science has to say about the development of sexuality. The following on the state of scientific research from the current editor of The Lancet. A former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine was even more excoriating in her assessment of the state of modern day science. An obvious case is the takeover by Big Pharma of medical research - it not taking a rocket scientist to figure out that the hand that rocks the research cradle rules the world. But the problem is a wider one. So forgive if scientific support for a position receives less than wholesome welcome.
batgoat wrote: » You could say the exact same thing about racism no longer being tolerated.
Cool, so a science conspiracy?
antiskeptic wrote: » You could. But by that measure, whatever the mood of the time says is right, is right. Which is clearly is problematic. Was the mood of the time right when is was culturally acceptable to be racist and homophobic? I don't think the editor of The Lancet mentioned conspiracy in his assessment of the corrupted nature of modern science. Plain old corporate greed is one perfectly corrupting ingredient. Where one corporation finds a way to bend things to their will, the rest will follow. No conspiracy required Presumably you disagree with his assessment. Could you tell us what qualification you have to begin to dismantle his assessment? Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep. Just like you do above. It's getting tiresome. So, deal with the points directly as they occur or else we won't be conversing for long more.
batgoat wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » You could. But by that measure, whatever the mood of the time says is right, is right. Which is clearly is problematic. Was the mood of the time right when is was culturally acceptable to be racist and homophobic? I don't think the editor of The Lancet mentioned conspiracy in his assessment of the corrupted nature of modern science. Plain old corporate greed is one perfectly corrupting ingredient. Where one corporation finds a way to bend things to their will, the rest will follow. No conspiracy required Presumably you disagree with his assessment. Could you tell us what qualification you have to begin to dismantle his assessment? Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep. Just like you do above. It's getting tiresome. So, deal with the points directly as they occur or else we won't be conversing for long more. You're attempting to use the editor of the Lancet to justify your homophobia.. You're not putting forward research. Meanwhile the likes of conversion therapy can actively damage the mental health of those subject to it. Corporate greed does not factor in.
recedite wrote: » Hence he thinks atheists, drunks, fornicators and REALLY DUMB WORD DELETED need to repent, while they still can.
antiskeptic wrote: » Might I note that your responses aren't exactly compelling? There is a tendency not to address points raised but to sidestep.
antiskeptic wrote: » Corporate greed countered your supposing my supposing a conspiracy need be at work. Are we agreed I need not be supposing a conspiracy? I've used the editor of The Lancet (and the equally prestigious NEJM to undergird the notion that resorting to Science isn't a killer card anymore for your position. My (or Forau's) supposed homophobia is something your aiming to establish. Its premature to be assuming it - especially given the poverty of your responses to direct counters. I've elaborated on my view of support for those people who chose to reject homosexuality in themselves. And have stated where I think damage might well be done. Zero absorbtion by yourself, zero developing your position in response. Just a repetition of elemental slogans. Over and out!
robindch wrote: » your use of uncivil prose went a step too far, so your helpful moderator has removed the inadvertent incivility concerned.
Sally Kohn wrote: Wars are won and lost. Liberty, freedom and the ever-bending arc toward equality have won. Intolerance and hate have lost. But this was not a war of liberty versus religion; the war itself took place within religion, including within Christianity itself. And Christianity is ultimately taking the side of equality and liberty, too. To those who remain in the fringe minority stubbornly mired in hatred and the dark rationalizations of the past, please try to lose gracefully. You are not being exiled. The world is simply moving on without you.
eagle eye wrote: » I believe it's in Corinthians which covers all the 'sinners' that Folau mentions.
smacl wrote: » splinter65 wrote: » King Mob and batgau how do you deal with the fact that so many 100s (possibly 1000s) of millions of people outside of the western world (and plenty within the western world) agree wholeheartedly with this rugby player? Or do you ever consider that at all? The fact that there remain hundreds of millions of homophobic Christians is no doubt true, but this is hardly something to be proud about, and as this article explains Christianity in the west is increasingly post homophobic. From that article Sally Kohn wrote: Wars are won and lost. Liberty, freedom and the ever-bending arc toward equality have won. Intolerance and hate have lost. But this was not a war of liberty versus religion; the war itself took place within religion, including within Christianity itself. And Christianity is ultimately taking the side of equality and liberty, too. To those who remain in the fringe minority stubbornly mired in hatred and the dark rationalizations of the past, please try to lose gracefully. You are not being exiled. The world is simply moving on without you. Given the vast bulk of Christianity is cultural, actual Christianity is and only ever will be fringe. For all the change you think you see, there has been little actual change. Culture will always flow with the times and cultural Christianity with it.
Sally Kohn wrote: Wars are won and lost. Liberty, freedom and the ever-bending arc toward equality have won. Intolerance and hate have lost. But this was not a war of liberty versus religion; the war itself took place within religion, including within Christianity itself. And Christianity is ultimately taking the side of equality and liberty, too. To those who remain in the fringe minority stubbornly mired in hatred and the dark rationalizations of the past, please try to lose gracefully. You are not being exiled. The world is simply moving on without you. Given the vast bulk of Christianity is cultural, actual Christianity is and only ever will be fringe. For all the change you think you see, there has been little actual change. Culture will always flow with the times and cultural Christianity with it.
batgoat wrote: » Cool, so a science conspiracy?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
