Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Options
1…5681011…31

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Dirkziggler
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Dirkziggler


    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?


  • Options
    #213
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,057 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    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.


  • Options
    #214
    Wheety
    Registered Users Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭Wheety


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


  • Options
    #215
    hots
    Registered Users Posts: 5,200 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #216
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    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.


  • Options
    #218
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes
    Right on cue....
    amcalester wrote: »
    That's a very long winded way of outing yourself as a homophobe.
    But its water off a duck's back at this stage. Label away...


  • Options
    #219
    homer911
    Registered Users Posts: 5,113 ✭✭✭homer911


    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


  • Options
    #220
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    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

    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.


  • Options
    #221
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    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

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    homer911
    Registered Users Posts: 5,113 ✭✭✭homer911


    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?


  • Options
    #223
    homer911
    Registered Users Posts: 5,113 ✭✭✭homer911


    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.
    Let's politely agree to disagree until you have done your research


  • Options
    #224
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    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?

    And the church had a fairly large role in perpetuating that subjugation of women.

    I don't think it's any coincidence that as the church's influence wanes women's right have been recognised more and more.


  • Options
    #225
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    homer911 wrote: »
    Let's politely agree to disagree until you have done your research

    Why don't you point out where I have said something that isn't correct?


  • Options
    #226
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    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?

    So you're saying it's better now that women aren't objectified? That was due to the advance of moral relativism and secular ethics in spite of Christian moralising.


  • Options
    #227
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    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.

    Nick, can I ask why exactly you think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, if not for publicly advocating homophobia?

    For what it is worth, I think it was acting like a jerk, via breach of contract, that lost him his job, and rightly so.


  • Options
    #228
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I give it a week before he finds a cushy number on the right wing speech circuit.


  • Options
    #229
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mod Note:


    Some posts carded, others could have been too.

    This is the Christianity Forum. The purpose of this thread is to discussion Israel Folau's sacking and whether it was justfied. It is NOT a thread for a wider discussion on Christianity. It not a thread where Christian' should be expected to defend every aspect of their faith and it is most certainly not a thread for posters to liberally imply their faith is ficititious.
    It is also not a place to label posters as bigots or homophobes.

    A civil discussion can be had here. No need for personal labelling and ridiculing.

    Thanks

    (Thread re-opened)


  • Options
    #230
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Israel Folau is the one who has been sacked and made the initial comments.


  • Options
    #231
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robinph wrote: »
    Israel Folau is the one who has been sacked and made the initial comments.

    Ahem.
    fixed.
    :o


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    You succintly chart the progress of the LGBT agenda. You can add non-opt out teaching of primary school kids in the UK, normalising families with two mammies or daddies.

    Question for you out of curiousity. (I don't want to derail the thread so won't further a discussion on a reply)

    You see homosexuality as aberrant. On what basis do you conclude that? Physically not matched for sex, not able to produce offspring?

    Do you hold to naturalistic ToE? If so, how can anything be aberrant? Whats fit survives and homosexuality has survived? So is clearly fit?

    If homosexuality is gene based then the current spannering (by which homosexuals may be able to have more kids than before) would see homosexuality increase. The environment (social attitudes to homosexuality, surrogacy, etc. being mere selection factors rendering homosexuality fitter than before).

    It's not like you hold evolution had stopped ☺


  • Options
    #233
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote:
    Nick, can I ask why exactly you think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, if not for publicly advocating homophobia?

    Probably because what he said was lacking in any nuance.

    Unrepentent sinners might be going to hell, but by quoting a snippet of scripture he could expect folk, who are completely blind (i.e.the lost) to the wholer scheme, to insert their own unnuanced take. They read blame, punishment, condemnation into it. And react badly.

    He ought have foreseen that - since one the first realisations of a person coming to see is that the world is, (as the bible makes clear), blind.

    He ought have realised his limitations and, arguably kept his mouth shut.

    Nevertheless, the warning is there , and insofar as a snippet goes, is valid.


  • Options
    #234
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #235
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    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.

    Nobody is born believing in god, it’s learned behavior.


  • Options
    #236
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    amcalester wrote: »
    Nobody is born believing in god

    Indeed. They are born again though. Not for no reason that one of the many ways in which the transformation is described in the Bible includes this way of describing it. It's as fundamental a transformation as being born in the first place.
    it’s learned behavior.

    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.


  • Options
    #237
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    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.


  • Options
    #238
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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

    ☺


  • Options
    #239
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    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.

    Literally. 'Again', because they were born once before. 'Born' because they were born spiritually for the first time.

    How does one demonstrate this 'fact'?


  • Options
    #240
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    People keep avoiding my point.

    You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

    And this has nothing to do with his religion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    troyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    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

    ☺

    You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration? Jesus was born in the summer.

    C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.


Advertisement