Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

recedite wrote: »

There are many kinds of aberrant sexual beviours; homosexuals, sado-masochists, gimps, paedophiles. I don't want to delve into all these, nor do I care too much what all these people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they are all consenting adults.
But I refuse to accept these as "normal" behaviour when they are not. They are all deviant in some way. I don't need a holy book to tell me that.
The LGBT agenda seeks to normalise that which is not normal.

It started off with decriminalising gay sex, which was fine. Then it moved on to civil partnerships, which was also fine.
Then it moved on to saying a homosexual marriage is the exact same as a heterosexual marriage, which is untrue. Two homosexuals cannot produce children without the help of a third person.
Then it turned its attention to the kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes. Folau has been harassed and bullied just because he quoted scripture.

The LGBT community are entitled to hold and express their views, but equally others are entitled to hold and express a different view.

That's a very long winded way of outing yourself as a homophobe.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?
if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

There are many kinds of aberrant sexual beviours; homosexuals, sado-masochists, gimps, paedophiles. I don't want to delve into all these, nor do I care too much what all these people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they are all consenting adults.
But I refuse to accept these as "normal" behaviour when they are not. They are all deviant in some way. I don't need a holy book to tell me that.
The LGBT agenda seeks to normalise that which is not normal.

It started off with decriminalising gay sex, which was fine. Then it moved on to civil partnerships, which was also fine.
Then it moved on to saying a homosexual marriage is the exact same as a heterosexual marriage, which is untrue. Two homosexuals cannot produce children without the help of a third person.
Then it turned its attention to the kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes. Folau has been harassed and bullied just because he quoted scripture.

The LGBT community are entitled to hold and express their views, but equally others are entitled to hold and express a different view.

hots

Dirkziggler wrote: »

But he’s not he has signed a non discriminatory and To not bring R.A into disrepute both conditions are breached by his words. If a Garda signs a contract when joining the AGS not to mix or associate with subversives and does so he gets sacked.

I was agreeing with you, he needs to live with the consequences of his words.

Wheety

Why did you not use your normal account to say this instead of setting up a new one?

theological wrote: »

I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late.

your belief that they actually have something to repent from is the basis for society seeing your belief as hateful.

you might think you are lovingly "asking them to repent" but you may as well be asking them to stop breathing.

your belief is hateful.... and i feel sorry for you that you dont see this.

homer911 wrote: »

If I see someone about to step out into the road in front of a truck, do I intervene?

What about? You see the most susceptible and vulnerable of society believe harmful doctrine and then spreading harmful doctrine.

Would you intervene?

theological

Who said that Christian beliefs are always determined on the basis of upbringing? That isn't necessarily true, and I'd argue it's increasingly untrue. Judging on the basis of my Christian friends, and a lot of people in my church, their beliefs differ to their family in many cases, and many have come to faith on the basis of their own investigating of the eyewitness accounts that we have of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

It's potentially true to say that if Christianity isn't based on God's word that it isn't worth listening to. The inverse is that if Jesus Christ was who He said He was and who people witnessed Him to be in history then a lot depends on what He has said including our eternal destiny. That isn't a mere "opinion" as much as you'd like to say it is. In that scenario the "chastisement" of disgruntled people is worth bearing for the better cause of offering them salvation.

As for whether or not his words are "inherently homophobic" - I used to care a lot about this kind of name calling, but at this stage it's just boring. We've heard it all before. Following Jesus is more important than following you. If that's what you want to call my faith, go for it. I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late.

homer911 wrote: »

Or are you suggesting that Israel usurped this passage to "his own homophobic ends"?

no i am not, i am saying the words he used are inherently homophobic.
Words that the majority of right minded christians do not accept as being truth.
Words that modern society completely refutes and does not accept, and rightly so.

i ask you homer....
do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?

if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

so please answer my question.... do you?

amcalester wrote: »

Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.

Religion is realistically mans understanding of another mans understanding.

Wheety

I know this is the Christianity forum and I may get in trouble for saying this but it always strikes me when religious people say stuff like this and have other people defend them. It's just pure luck that you were born into your religion. If you were born into or raised by a different family, you'd probably believe a different God was the one and only. What makes you think you're correct now?

It's better for religious nuts to not damn others to hell in public and keep their beliefs to themselves. What made Folau decide to broadcast this opinion? Because that's all it is. If I followed a cult which said all black people are going to hell and I was in a position to broadcast this on social media to thousands of followers, I'd be rightly chastised for it.

homer911

sydthebeat wrote: »

directly from god???

no he didnt. 100% no he did not.

directly from a book written by man, many different men, long long ago..... men you have accepted can be corrupted and be fallible.... absolutely.

were those words homophobic and hateful... 100% yes absolutely.
is israel folau hypocritical in his selection of who to threaten with hell... as a tattooed man, who gets haircuts (leviticus 19:28) yes 100% he is.

The irony here of someone quoting the bible, who doesn't understand what the bible is saying. Israel quoted from Galatians, from a letter written to Christians reminding them of behaviours that are not consistent with the Christian faith. Homosexual behaviour was included in a list of behaviours. Where is the hatred in this passage? If I am one of the cohorts on this list should I be upset or offended? If I am, why? Do I consider myself a Christian and Paul is telling me I need to change?

Or are you suggesting that Israel usurped this passage to "his own homophobic ends"? I don't think so. If I see someone about to step out into the road in front of a truck, do I intervene?

salmocab

theological wrote: »

In an atheistic worldview - right and wrong is only a matter of subjective preference and as a result an utterly meaningless basis for living by. I'm much more concerned about the objective judgement of Jesus Christ when He returns to judge the living and the dead. That's the only judgement that matters.

Meaningless to you just like an atheist thinks following teachings of something that doesn’t exist is meaningless.

Dirkziggler wrote: »

The Q’uran is as fiction as the rest of the religious books or whatever you want to call them.

Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.

theological

Being a Bible believing Christian is the new blasphemy. The gospel is offensive because the gospel calls people to listen to hard truths that we have rejected God and we've lived in a way that is displeasing to Him. (Romans 3:23)

People interpret the Christian gospel as being "I am better than you". However, that isn't the case. Christians are simply those who have heard God and realised that they need His mercy, and as a result of that want the same for others too. (1 Peter 3:15).

Given the bedrock assumptions of the Christian faith, it is loving to call people away from sin that leads to destruction in our lives here and now and in the life to come to a new life with Christ which provides us with a right relationship with God both now and into eternity. (2 Corinthians 5:17, Romans 12:1)

Worshipping sexuality or anything else instead of God is just bound to lead to disappointment - because they aren't God.

They bound to fall short because they cannot fill God's place. Unrealistic expectations lead to unnecessary disappointments. Instead of chasing after things that provide temporal satisfaction, perhaps we should find the one who helps us to see everything else in it's right place and find our satisfaction in Him and in the gospel of His Son.

I'm not hugely interested in what the world regards as being "righteous", because ultimately it doesn't matter. God is the one who will have the final say (Psalm 2).

Mark 8:34-38 wrote:

And calling the crowd to Him with his disciples, He said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Respect where respect is due. Israel Folau has understood his Bible when it tells us of sacrificing our lives for Christ.

In an atheistic worldview - right and wrong is only a matter of subjective preference and as a result an utterly meaningless basis for living by. I'm much more concerned about the objective judgement of Jesus Christ when He returns to judge the living and the dead. That's the only judgement that matters.

amcalester wrote: »

If you want to follow the word of god then read the koran, otherwise you’re just reading someone’s interpretation (of an interpretation).

The Q’uran is as fiction as the rest of the religious books or whatever you want to call them.

troyzer

Nick Park wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Did anyone stop him from doing this? No.

In that way, it enjoys the same privileges of other forms of speech. You want a super duper class of speech which means you're not allowed to criticise religious speech and react to it.

Being religious doesn't mean it's sacred to everyone.

No, I want people (including atheists and homosexuals) to be able to exercise their basic human rights without being prosecuted, discriminated against, or sacked for doing so.

For what it's worth, I think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, but he has the right to do so - as do you. He should be free to say what he said, without losing his job. And you should be free to advocate removing his human rights without you losing your job (if you have one). I supported the removal of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution - but woe betide anyone who blasphemes against our secular sensitivities.

Alright well I'll ask you then.

Would you extend the same courtesy to an open and proud Nazi?

You're completely ignoring that a core function of his role is to be an ambassador for the sport and country. He doesn't flip burgers at the back of McDonald's. He's an incredibly public figure who has a fiduciary responsibility to both his employer and his sponsors.

Not only did he know this but it's exactly WHY he felt so emboldened to do it

santana75 wrote: »

But Id have to point out that theres the Church and then theres the word of God himself. Like I said above, theres a difference between the message and the messenger. One is infallible the other is inherently corruptible. Now if you have issues with the word of God then thats between you and him but dont mix up the institution that is the "Church" with a direct relationship with God himself. Because we've all had bad experiences with the church and people who were supposed to be representing God here on earth. So I understand the hostility, but I just think people maybe getting the word of God and the people who claim they represent God, mixed up.
Anyway, I meant to be studying right now so I better stop slacking off here....

If you want to follow the word of god then read the koran, otherwise you’re just reading someone’s interpretation (of an interpretation).

sydthebeat wrote: »

directly from god???

no he didnt. 100% no he did not.

directly from a book written by man, many different men, long long ago..... men you have accepted can be corrupted and be fallible.... absolutely.

were those words homophobic and hateful... 100% yes absolutely.
is israel folau hypocritical in his selection of who to threaten with hell... as a tattooed man, who gets haircuts (leviticus 19:28) yes 100% he is.

You see thats the problem here.
people of faith are expected to be unquestioning .... to accept dogma without question, no matter the consequences to that person or wider society.. on the basis that its gods words, and god is infallible.

However if you even slightly being to scratch the surface youd see that the whole religious system, particularly catholicism, is so innately corrupt and built on a foundation of fear.

the congregation are told "you are the church" yet the congregation have no impact into the running of the church, its anything but democratic. Women are excluded from being part of the hierarchy and yet the church expect to be able to control womens bodies.

you are told in the bible to "“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” matthew 19:21..... yet the church is one of the richest institution on the planet.

i could go on and on... but ive much better things to do .
all i can say is that i feel sympathy and sorrow for those who need religion as a crutch to navigate our modern society. It has many good aspects, but it also has many bad aspects of which its more extreme practitioners refuse to recognise.

Now don’t you be letting sense get in the way of right wing fanaticism.

santana75

amcalester wrote: »

If I may be so bold as to rephrase your question to "Do I place any value on the church's teaching" then I can answer that yes I do. Not all of it positive though, some of it is negative and some positive.

But Id have to point out that theres the Church and then theres the word of God himself. Like I said above, theres a difference between the message and the messenger. One is infallible the other is inherently corruptible. Now if you have issues with the word of God then thats between you and him but dont mix up the institution that is the "Church" with a direct relationship with God himself. Because we've all had bad experiences with the church and people who were supposed to be representing God here on earth. So I understand the hostility, but I just think people maybe getting the word of God and the people who claim they represent God, mixed up.
Anyway, I meant to be studying right now so I better stop slacking off here....

santana75 wrote: »

Absolutely, I agree 100% that man is extremely corruptible. But there is a difference between the messenger and the message. But as far as i can tell Israel folau quoted the message directly.

directly from god???

no he didnt. 100% no he did not.

directly from a book written by man, many different men, long long ago..... men you have accepted can be corrupted and be fallible.... absolutely.

were those words homophobic and hateful... 100% yes absolutely.
is israel folau hypocritical in his selection of who to threaten with hell... as a tattooed man, who gets haircuts (leviticus 19:28) yes 100% he is.

You see thats the problem here.
people of faith are expected to be unquestioning .... to accept dogma without question, no matter the consequences to that person or wider society.. on the basis that its gods words, and god is infallible.

However if you even slightly being to scratch the surface youd see that the whole religious system, particularly catholicism, is so innately corrupt and built on a foundation of fear.

the congregation are told "you are the church" yet the congregation have no impact into the running of the church, its anything but democratic. Women are excluded from being part of the hierarchy and yet the church expect to be able to control womens bodies.

you are told in the bible to "“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” matthew 19:21..... yet the church is one of the richest institution on the planet.

i could go on and on... but ive much better things to do .
all i can say is that i feel sympathy and sorrow for those who need religion as a crutch to navigate our modern society. It has many good aspects, but it also has many bad aspects of which its more extreme practitioners refuse to recognise.

salmocab

Nick Park wrote: »

So if your employer retrospectively imposed a condition upon you that you were not allowed to publicly criticise the Catholic Church, including outside of work, then that would be fine and dandy, would it? If they sacked you, you should just suck it up because you didn't live up to the agreement?

It’s a code of conduct, even if a condition in it was imposed retrospectively (which I am pretty sure this wasn’t) so long as it’s reasonable then I dont see the issue. He did this before and had his wrist slapped for it so he knew what he was doing when he posted his nonsense and he knew the likely outcome.

hots wrote: »

He's entitled to say more or less what he likes and entitled to live with the consequences. He's being vilified for the content of what he says, not the book which he's reading from.

But he’s not he has signed a non discriminatory and To not bring R.A into disrepute both conditions are breached by his words. If a Garda signs a contract when joining the AGS not to mix or associate with subversives and does so he gets sacked.

hots

He's entitled to say more or less what he likes and entitled to live with the consequences. He's being vilified for the content of what he says, not the book which he's reading from.

The man is living by complete fiction in my books, should we also go around and take a hand from a thief, or sacrifice lambs.

santana75 wrote: »

Again I just want to make sure I understand exactly what youre saying: You dont believe In God

Correct.

santana75 wrote: »

and you dont place any value on God's words? Is that right?

This is basically the same question asked above only rephrased. How can I put a value on something that doesn't exist.

If I may be so bold as to rephrase your question to "Do I place any value on the church's teaching" then I can answer that yes I do. Not all of it positive though, some of it is negative and some positive.

And I think most people would agree with me on that, many (most, all?) religious people pick and chose which part of the church teachings to follow, so we see people get divorced, have abortions, disobey the sabbath etc.

santana75

sydthebeat wrote: »

many many atrocities have occurred becuase people belived "god told me to do it" and that they were doing gods work.

so maybe god is perfect and infallable... but people certainly are not...

Absolutely, I agree 100% that man is extremely corruptible. But there is a difference between the messenger and the message. But as far as i can tell Israel folau quoted the message directly. He didnt offer anything other than the message itself. Now maybe you dont agree with the message, fair enough, but it is what it is and it has always been the same and can never be altered, thats the word of God, it can never pass away.
The purpose of my questions though was to try to get to the crux of the matter. Not to get caught up in the symptoms but to actually understand whats happening here. And it seems that the core of the issue is that the word of God is now considered to be hateful and public expressions of the word of God will be met with hostility.

Nick Park

sydthebeat wrote: »

so this should be allowed without consequence because its their "religious beliefs" ?

While hardly of the same magnitude, I don't think you should lose your job for it. You should certainly suffer the consequences of everyone knowing you're a jerk for posting it (although you could always hide behind a pen name)

Nick Park wrote: »

So if your employer retrospectively imposed a condition upon you that you were not allowed to publicly criticise the Catholic Church, including outside of work, then that would be fine and dandy, would it? If they sacked you, you should just suck it up because you didn't live up to the agreement?

there was nothing retrospective....

the code of conduct for players has existing well before folau ever signed a contract

Nick Park

salmocab wrote: »

He is still free to say what he wants but he didn’t live up to an agreement he had with his employer. He wasn’t sacked for being religious or having his views.

So if your employer retrospectively imposed a condition upon you that you were not allowed to publicly criticise the Catholic Church, including outside of work, then that would be fine and dandy, would it? If they sacked you, you should just suck it up because you didn't live up to the agreement?