homer911 wrote: » If I see someone about to step out into the road in front of a truck, do I intervene?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes
amcalester wrote: » That's a very long winded way of outing yourself as a homophobe.
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.
homer911 wrote: » 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. Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret
homer911 wrote: » Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret
sydthebeat wrote: » 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: » Do you not see any irony in criticising the koran for being contradictory? And those oldest scripts were written how long after the death of Jesus? Even translating into a modern understanding implies that the understanding has changed over time, so how can someone say they follow the literal word of god when you've admitted it's the current best guess of what was written down years after he died. Not exactly a solid foundation.
homer911 wrote: » The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?
homer911 wrote: » Let's politely agree to disagree until you have done your research
homer911 wrote: » sydthebeat wrote: » 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? I have a number of gay friends and colleagues, just as I have straight friends and colleagues. We are all sinners. If I choose to use the bible to point out the need for Christ to my straight friends, why should I not do this to my gay friends, in a way that is appropriate to each of them? I serve an unchanging God, who exists outside of time and space, having created them both. Forgive me for holding to biblical teaching when its not "politically correct". The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?
Nick Park wrote: » 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.
robinph wrote: » Israel Folau is the one who has been sacked and made the initial comments.
recedite wrote: » 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.
smacl wrote: Nick, can I ask why exactly you think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, if not for publicly advocating homophobia?
sydthebeat wrote: » 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.
antiskeptic wrote: » Much is said about homosexuals not being able to help the fact they are homosexual. "They might as well be asked not to breathe" Are you assuming holding the 'hateful' belief is any different? We are, after all, born again this way. Maybe your starting point is that the bible is untrue, therefore all beliefs that arise in relation to it are really a choice. Wouldn't that merely be inserting your beliefs onto my beliefs. Since you can't show either my beliefs false or your beliefs true, things are somewhat stalemate. You'd be left holding onto a majority view for your foundation. Not only is your view not even close to a majority in the world. But the might is right argument is very, very problematic.
amcalester wrote: » Nobody is born believing in god
it’s learned behavior.
antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. They are born again though You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so. But it's just a belief system. * I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever.
Troyzer wrote: The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.
amcalester wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. They are born again though You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so. But it's just a belief system. * I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever. Born again figuratively speaking I assume? It’s always important to establish whether religious people are speaking literally or figuratively because they’ve been known to pick and chose depending on what they’re saying and their particular religious text says. No, it’s a fact that religion in all cases is learned behavior it’s not in anyway innate.
antiskeptic wrote: » Troyzer wrote: The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God. This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God. 325 CE. smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in) Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas ☺
