Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Nobelium wrote: »

Just for the purposes of criticizing them accurately - their CCC refers to the acts as being intrinsically disordered rather than the person. Other acts are considered intrinsically disordered as well, including wank1ng . . . if that's your thing.

The CCC? Are they the people who make the rugby clothing? :pac:
You are right about the ****.

Anyway, the homosexual act is "intrinsically disordered" but the inclination is also "objectively disordered" apparently.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

I'm not seeing any substantial difference between this and what Folau said.

AngryHippie

troyzer wrote: »

Paedophilia is clearly genetic to some extent

There are some indicators that there are some genetic pre-cursors, but that evidence is absolutely drenched in a wave of confirmation bias at this point in time as it hasn't been verified by similar testing to confirm that an equal portion of the population with similar genetic traits do not have paedophilic tendencies.

There is far more convincing evidence coming from the CBT field pointing towards them not progressing through puberty in a typical fashion and not developing emotionally beyond the early pubescent stage.

I wont go into the implications of what this would mean for an organization that uses guilt, shame and sin in an effort to explain sexuality to young people, nor the great harm that such an organization could do by employing people with an already distorted view of sexuality as something unclean or sinful to influence young people. :mad:

troyzer wrote: »

but the reason why so many priests are paedophiles probably has more to do with the dysfunctional nature of the church's relationship with sex. It's not normal to abstain from all forms of sex, it's no wonder people get messed up.

It is definitely a factor. It attracts men who find justification and reason in sex being sinful and dirty. Then it gives them a position and authority to spread that viewpoint to the vulnerable.

Again, just to frame that, there are plenty of good honest humans that are devoted in their faith and serve a useful and honest position in the clergy. Their inaction and silence (and often protection) about the abuses that were perpetrated leaves their good acts shattered in fragments on the ground around them. Cleaning house and rebuilding from that is the challenge facing the church today.
Not getting homosexuals to convert or repent, certainly not by further alienating those that are prepared to acknowledge the value of the church by defending the clownish behavior of Israel Folau or the Westboro Baptists or any other organization that is clearly just looking for attention.:(

AngryHippie

theological wrote: »

The dating for the Gospel of Thomas seems to range from anywhere from 40AD to 250AD which makes certainty highly doubtful.

Delicious Ironing :rolleyes:

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

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.

I'd say we are naturally born agnostic. It's the default position on everything from food to porn. You don't know what you like until you know more about it. You can't have an informed belief/non belief from birth.

Paedophilia is clearly genetic to some extent but the reason why so many priests are paedophiles probably has more to do with the dysfunctional nature of the church's relationship with sex. It's not normal to abstain from all forms of sex, it's no wonder people get messed up.

Having said that, I honestly can't find myself to have that much rage towards paedophiles. I mean, they are bastards who should control their urges but their urges aren't their fault. They need to be removed from society to protect the innocent, something you can't say about being gay but ultimately most of the rage should be reserved for the learned men who left them in a position where they could commit further crimes.

A lot of this also applies to my views on drug addiction. Addiction in general really.

Nobelium

recedite wrote: »

The RCC describes both as intrinsically disordered, which is much the same as what I said the other day; both are aberrant in some way, in that they both deviate from normal sexuality.

Just for the purposes of criticizing them accurately - their CCC refers to the acts as being intrinsically disordered rather than the person. Other acts are considered intrinsically disordered as well, including wank1ng . . . if that's your thing.

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
You are now going to suggest being gay and being a paedophile are the same thing?

Have you no bloody shame what so ever?

Nice deflection.
But no I did not say they were the same thing. The RCC describes both as intrinsically disordered, which is much the same as what I said the other day; both are aberrant in some way, in that they both deviate from normal sexuality.

I went on to make a further distinction, putting paedophiles in a category with psychopaths, being people who are harmful to society. Predators.
AFAIK no religion makes that second distinction. Gays are not necessarily harmful to society.

But now that you mention it, there does seem to be an unhealthy level of crossover. Why is this 11 year old so popular among gay men?
What's your attitude to gay paedophiles?

Former Observer

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....

Dunno. Dave Kearney gets a lot of slack in the rugby forum but he can't do anything about it.

recedite wrote: »

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.

Really?
You are now going to suggest being gay and being a paedophile are the same thing?

Have you no bloody shame what so ever?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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: »

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.

Squatter wrote: »

How do you know that he wants it?

Erm, because of what he said in his tweet.

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!

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.

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"

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

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

homer911

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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.

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.