Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

theological wrote: »

This is the interesting point.

It seems like expressing a Christian position on this subject is the new blasphemy.

Hardly,
You are looking for it to be acceptable to hate gay people. This isn't acceptable in a modern society.

Do you think people should have the rights to hate black people as well?
:rolleyes:

theological

Cabaal wrote: »

Hardly,
You are looking for it to be acceptable to hate gay people. This isn't acceptable in a modern society.

Do you think people should have the rights to hate black people as well?
:rolleyes:

Disagreeing with the ethics of a particular act doesn't mean I "hate" someone.

I can disagree with having sex outside of marriage without hating those who do so.

This is unhelpful hysteria, and it is pretty uncharitable.

theological wrote: »

Disagreeing with the ethics of a particular act doesn't mean I "hate" someone.
.

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

Cabaal wrote: »

It wasn't long ago that gay people in Ireland married men/women because of ingrained teachings from the catholic church.

And now heterosexual men are marrying each other for tax reasons.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wedding-for-tax-reasons-3758560-Dec2017/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-85-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413129.html

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

recedite wrote: »

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

Lobby.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whats your point exactly?
Marriage was always about money, property, livestock and power

This idea its somehow super sacred is utter nonsense, its always been about the above. Even the idea of marrying for love is a relatively modern idea in the history of our species.

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

We all have our own opinions, and we are entitled to hold them.
That does not translate into an entitlement to interfere with other people.
As I said earlier...

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.

Going back to Israel Folau, he has an opinion, but who has he interfered with?

Name the gay player who has been excluded from the team, or victimised in any way by him.

recedite wrote: »

And now heterosexual men are marrying each other for tax reasons.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wedding-for-tax-reasons-3758560-Dec2017/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-85-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413129.html

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

apart from the ridiculous reductive aspect of this....

if you think marriage has only existed for financial status in recent years, then you really need a history lesson. Marriages have occurred for finances and status since time immemorial...... long before any 'LGBT agenda' existed

Cabaal wrote: »

Lobby.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whats your point exactly?
Marriage was always about money, property, livestock and power

This idea its somehow super sacred is utter nonsense, its always been about the above. Even the idea of marrying for love is a relatively modern idea in the history of our species.

That may be your opinion of it, but you have just confirmed my point. The LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator.

recedite wrote: »

We all have our own opinions, and we are entitled to hold them.
.

but you should not be entitled to broadcast those opinions, if those opinions cause hurt and pain to people who can do nothing about it.... which is exactly what this thread is about, in a nut shell.

recedite wrote: »

The LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator.

they must have succeeded in time travel too then?? because people have married for money WAY before there was any LGBT lobby.

recedite wrote: »

Going back to Israel Folau, he has an opinion, but who has he interfered with?

He broke the code of conduct he agreed to. That is a fact.
If he didn't like the code of conduct then he shouldn't have agreed to it.

He can have a view, but his employers don't have to accept him if he expresses that viewpoint in a very, very public manner. Maintaining an acceptable not hateful image inline with the code of conduct is part of his job, he failed to do that.

I feel this is very basic stuff and surely you can understand such basic stuff like this, do we need to spell it out for you even more?

If he said all black people should burn in hell nobody would be trying to defend him, but because you think its ok to have the same viewpoint as him towards gay people here you are trying to defend a position which is not defensible.
:rolleyes:

recedite wrote: »

That may be your opinion of it, but you have just confirmed my point. The LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator.

Sorry thats not my opinion, the information is available for all to see in history books and via academic research/

Marriage was always more about money, power and alliances then love for the VAST majority of human history. Again this is really basic stuff that I'd expect anybody to know if they even did a tiny bit of research on the subject.

Clearly you've not.

Cabaal wrote: »

Sorry thats not my opinion, the information is available for all to see in history books and via academic research/

Marriage was always more about money, power and alliances then love for the VAST majority of human history. Again this is really basic stuff that I'd expect anybody to know if they even did a tiny bit of research on the subject. Clearly you've not.

If you want to discount procreation, and love, and religious reasons (as you are) then money is all that is left.
Even primitive tribes have marriages, and at it's most basic it is a commitment by a heterosexual couple that they will stay together, made in public and in front of their community. And a large part of that is to protect the family and any future kids. If the man was to skip away after the first night leaving the woman pregnant, he would not have invested anything but she would have invested a lot.

That is the historical background, but nowadays we have social welfare so arguably that aspect has become less important.

Gays already had the option of sex without commitment, and subsequently they had civil partnerships which introduced the commitment element, if they wanted it.
Now that civil marriage is reduced to a tax arrangement, and is available to all (including heterosexual male couples) we finally have true marriage equality. For what its worth, which isn't much any more.

theological

sydthebeat wrote: »

but you should not be entitled to broadcast those opinions, if those opinions cause hurt and pain to people who can do nothing about it.... which is exactly what this thread is about, in a nut shell.

The real issue at stake seems to be who gives me liberty to do what?

God gives us life, and freedom in Him. Freedom from destructive desires, freedom from human opinion, freedom from judgement. Freedom for what however? To serve God fully and completely.

Romans 6:17-18 wrote:

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness

Jesus says it's silly to fear men.

Luke 12:4-7 wrote:

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Christians are to respect human authority (Romans 13:1), but ultimately Christians are to respect God's authority. We see this in the ministry of the apostles. Pretty early on in their ministry, they get arrested for telling the people of Jerusalem about Jesus. Read the answer they gave them.

Acts 5:27-31 wrote:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

They say no, "we must obey God rather than men" and proceeds to tell them about it too. Why? They want forgiveness of sins for all people everywhere because they love them.

1 Peter 2:11-12 wrote:

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

People claim Christians "hate" people for disagreeing with what God says no to. The Bible actually tells us this will happen in the passage above. Christians actually love the world enough to tell them they are wrong and need a Saviour.

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

@theological
can you answer my question please

homer911

I think that question has been answered many times through this thread

Iscreamkone

The gays seem to own all the offence on this one.
As an atheist I'm disappointed that we are not deemed worthy to warrant this backlash.
However, on the other hand I'm not to bothered about getting an after death banishment to fairyland's naughty step.

Not too many adulterers on giving out either it seems

Iscreamkone wrote: »

The gays seem to own all the offence on this one.
As an atheist I'm disappointed that we are not deemed worthy to warrant this backlash.
However, on the other hand I'm not to bothered about getting an after death banishment to fairyland's naughty step.

Not too many adulterers on giving out either it seems

Neither am I, still, its messed up to want people to burn and suffer for being who they are.

Iscreamkone

Cabaal wrote: »

Neither am I, still, its messed up to want people to burn and suffer for being who they are.

What he did say was unchristian as he went against the "treat others etc" company line.

More christians should come out and say that he was out of line.
But are they allowed?, "Let those without sin, cast the first stone etc."

It's very complicated this bible thing.
Best to just follow the one commandment... "Don't be a dick"

theological wrote: »

Disagreeing with the ethics of a particular act doesn't mean I "hate" someone.

I can disagree with having sex outside of marriage without hating those who do so.

This is unhelpful hysteria, and it is pretty uncharitable.

Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "I don't think that you should have sex before marriage" and "all of group X will go to hell".

One is OK and we can have a debate about, the other is hate speech.

Squatter

Cabaal wrote: »

Neither am I, still, its messed up to want people to burn and suffer for being who they are.

How do you know that he wants it?

My understanding of his foolish tweet is that he was publicly professing his belief in a particular set of warnings as set out in his version of the Good Book.

As such his tweet was intended as a warning to sinners to repent and give up their auld sins!

I haven't indulged in any fornication, sodomy or bestiality since I read his tweet. So I'm in the Folau good books!

Squatter wrote: »

How do you know that he wants it?

Erm, because of what he said in his tweet.

Squatter

robinph wrote: »

Erm, because of what he said in his tweet.

Did you read it?

If so, then I suggest that you contact your local VEC and ask them if they run evening classes in English comprehension.

If not, then stop making a fool of yourself.

He made a statement about what will happen to certain groups of people. He want's them to repent, but equally he wants those who don't do as he says to go to hell.

He wan'ts both things to happen.

Squatter

robinph wrote: »

He made a statement about what will happen to certain groups of people. He want's them to repent, but equally he wants those who don't do as he says to go to hell.

He wan'ts both things to happen.

On your knees, folks! For the Almighty God in his goodness has sent us a mindreader.

Squatter wrote: »

On your knees, folks! For the Almighty God in his goodness has sent us a mindreader.

I thought it just required some simple understanding of English to know what Folau meant from his tweet?

Or are you now trying to claim that he doesn't want the things that his version of the religion he follows says will happen, to actually happen?

troyzer

Iscreamkone wrote: »

The gays seem to own all the offence on this one.
As an atheist I'm disappointed that we are not deemed worthy to warrant this backlash.
However, on the other hand I'm not to bothered about getting an after death banishment to fairyland's naughty step.

Not too many adulterers on giving out either it seems

The "gays" are right to be pissed off and so should we on their behalf.

As a fellow atheist, the reason why I'm not offended is because he's criticising what I think or rather what I don't think. Criticising what other people think and their views, opinions etc has always been fair game.

Criticising people for who they are, is not. You are not born an atheist, communist, Christian, Muslim, Nazi or anything else. You are however, born gay. If you are gay that is.

We don't negotiate on people's right to exist and be who they are, there are basic standards of decency. We don't let public figures rag on women, ethnic minorities or people with disabilities. Unless you're Trump of course. Equally, we don't let public figures rag on gay people.

Well, they can do it all they want. But they're going to get sacked if they were explicitly warned last time and told not to do it again.

troyzer wrote: »

Criticising what other people think and their views, opinions etc has always been fair game.
Criticising people for who they are, is not. You are not born an atheist..

What about paedophiles? Is it OK to criticise them for being born paedophile?

The RCC views both gays and paedophiles as being "intrinsically disordered" but is quite prepared to shelter both, if they commit to not acting on their sexual impulses.
Folau seems to be following along similar lines with his message of hope and repentance.

BTW I'd also dispute that we are "not born atheist"; maybe we are, but its mostly only the individuals born with a large dose of scepticism that remain so. And the poor things can't help themselves for being born so sceptical.