ChrisJ84 wrote: » I hope you'd agree that it's the nub of the issue. If it's not true then Christians are definitely deluded, arguably hateful, and really quite pitiful. If it is true, then Christianity sets the terms for what is true and loving, and something you should probably give serious consideration to.
robinph wrote: » Either way you are still going to have to explain the definition of loving where eternal damnation in hell awaits for homosexuals.
Cabaal wrote: » Its full or errors and contradictions
troyzer wrote: » ChrisJ84 wrote: » troyzer wrote: » Deny the way God made you or he's sending you to hell. But yeah, God is good. Everyone is a sinner in need of salvation, and no-one is a worse sinner than anyone else. This is a basic and central Christian belief. By your logic Christians must hate everyone, and not just homosexuals? My logic is that there is no logic. I said it earlier in the thread; if God is all powerful and all knowing then he is also all responsible. Your belief system states that God made me the way I am with all of my flaws and virtues. He didn't make me gay but he did make people I know gay. He made them gay and also made them lustful and struggle with repressing their nature. In many cases he made them not want to repress their nature and reject the notion that there's something wrong with being gay. God is responsible for all of this. There can be no free will in a world where a prime mover plans everything out in advance. It's deterministic. How can we be held accountable for the things we do when they're not our fault? It's particularly galling that the one who punishes us is the one who is actually responsible. Apart from the madness in the bible and all of its inspired atrocities, the central tenant of an all powerful God trying to save us from something he did is just illogical. And even if it is all true, he certainly isn't worthy of respect because he's not loving and benevolent. He's the "Stop hitting yourself" God.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » troyzer wrote: » Deny the way God made you or he's sending you to hell. But yeah, God is good. Everyone is a sinner in need of salvation, and no-one is a worse sinner than anyone else. This is a basic and central Christian belief. By your logic Christians must hate everyone, and not just homosexuals?
troyzer wrote: » Deny the way God made you or he's sending you to hell. But yeah, God is good.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Sure, and I and others have tried at length to engage with you on that. Maybe we are just hateful and nasty, but the invitation to come along to a church and find out for yourself still stands.
robinph wrote: » Been there, done that, gave the t-shirt back. Is it too complicated a definition to explain here?
robinph wrote: » Well I actually think you should probably stop wasting your time arguing the case for something that doesn't exist
Cabaal wrote: » First off, to rate people based on a ring is a pretty weird tactic to take. As you#ve clearly pointed out its flawed heavily and yet you are silly enough to veer towards the person with the ring :rolleyes:
troyzer wrote: » I don't bring any presuppositions to the table other than Christian theology. I'm using the premise of your faith to show how ridiculous it is.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Hell is not for homosexuals, it is for everyone who does not put their faith in Jesus Christ. That's an important distinction, but one you are determined to ignore. Funny, it almost seems like you're doing it on purpose.
antiskeptic wrote: » On average, the person who is married will have (or be able to display by virtue of their being married) attributes that the person who isn't married won't be able to display. There is a difference between someone who has been trained, by having kids, in self-sacrifice compared to someone who can do as they please all the time. On average You've heard of "exercise"? Well, it builds muscle.
uptherebels wrote: » If the only way to endure self sacrifice was to have kids you might actually have had a point.
robinph wrote: » So which part of the statement "...homesexuals...hell awaits you, repent!" is the bit that is telling them that they are welcome? That statement is demanding that they changes and stop being homosexual, with the threat of hell if they do not comply. I know that many people who are gay are also Christians, and that is fine. If they are OK with that and their church is OK with that then no problem whatsoever. But the statement made by Folau was absolutely not in any way shape of form a welcoming, loving, friendly message.
theological wrote: » . Being silent while people are headed for hell is hate speech.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » So we're back to Israel Folaus post now? At least it brings the thread back on topic. I've already said I think it was unwise, unhelpful and lacking important context. But it's still nothing more than a direct quote of scripture, so true in so far as it goes. And saying that Folau shouldn't have posted something on social media is a long way from saying that the message is inherently unloving. That brings us back to the point I made earlier about everyone being a sinner and in need of salvation. At worst, Folau majored on truth at the expense of love. Highlighting of sin and a call to repentance should be done boldly, but also sensitively and with compassion. Christians can, and frequently do, say and do things that are unhelpful. But you're going beyond that and imputing motives to Israel Folau that you can't possibly know to be true. And incidentally, the call to repentance is an invitation and not a "demand" as you put it. As far as the Christian sexual ethic goes, I think you already know what I'm going to say. Any expression of sexuality outside monogomous heterosexual marriage is sinful. That's not exactly news, nor is it neccessarily and always unloving to talk about it and point it out
robinph wrote: » ChrisJ84 wrote: » So we're back to Israel Folaus post now? At least it brings the thread back on topic. I've already said I think it was unwise, unhelpful and lacking important context. But it's still nothing more than a direct quote of scripture, so true in so far as it goes. And saying that Folau shouldn't have posted something on social media is a long way from saying that the message is inherently unloving. That brings us back to the point I made earlier about everyone being a sinner and in need of salvation. At worst, Folau majored on truth at the expense of love. Highlighting of sin and a call to repentance should be done boldly, but also sensitively and with compassion. Christians can, and frequently do, say and do things that are unhelpful. But you're going beyond that and imputing motives to Israel Folau that you can't possibly know to be true. And incidentally, the call to repentance is an invitation and not a "demand" as you put it. As far as the Christian sexual ethic goes, I think you already know what I'm going to say. Any expression of sexuality outside monogomous heterosexual marriage is sinful. That's not exactly news, nor is it neccessarily and always unloving to talk about it and point it out His message was displayed in the style of a warning and gave a clear threat, it shouldn't need to come along with a translation and a copy of the bible to make it appear as if he really meant a message of love. There are plenty of other words and images he could of used to get across that message if that were the one he was trying to get across. All that this thread was ever about was Christians attempting to defend the post he made and claiming that they are being persecuted for not being able to persecute others. (Not that I think that is what you were claiming) I know you stated previously that it was a foolish message which should never have been made, but that is all that was ever needed and to stop trying to defend his post.
uptherebels wrote: » antiskeptic wrote: » On average, the person who is married will have (or be able to display by virtue of their being married) attributes that the person who isn't married won't be able to display. There is a difference between someone who has been trained, by having kids, in self-sacrifice compared to someone who can do as they please all the time. On average You've heard of "exercise"? Well, it builds muscle. If the only way to endure self sacrifice was to have kids you might actually have had a point.
antiskeptic wrote: » How could someone take, as a threat and warning, something they don't believe in?
antiskeptic wrote: » Are you familiar with the term "on average"?
robinph wrote: » His message was displayed in the style of a warning and gave a clear threat, it shouldn't need to come along with a translation and a copy of the bible to make it appear as if he really meant a message of love. There are plenty of other words and images he could of used to get across that message if that were the one he was trying to get across. All that this thread was ever about was Christians attempting to defend the post he made and claiming that they are being persecuted for not being able to persecute others. (Not that I think that is what you were claiming) I know you stated previously that it was a foolish message which should never have been made, but that is all that was ever needed and to stop trying to defend his post.
troyzer wrote: » He was given a warning and told not to do it again. He did it again. He was sacked.
recedite wrote: » troyzer wrote: » He was given a warning and told not to do it again. He did it again. He was sacked. Lots of people have been sacked and then got compo afterwards for an unfair dismissal. The code of conduct he agreed to bans team members from engaging in religious and homophobic discrimination. So you can't sack somebody from the team based on their religious views, or based on them being gay. So who has actually been discriminated against here? Who is the actual victim here? Go figure.
recedite wrote: » Lots of people have been sacked and then got compo afterwards for an unfair dismissal. The code of conduct he agreed to bans team members from engaging in religious and homophobic discrimination. So you can't sack somebody from the team based on their religious views, or based on them being gay. So who has actually been discriminated against here? Who is the actual victim here? Go figure.
troyzer wrote: » When I was a public servant it was written into my contract that I wasn't allowed to openly express my political views on social media so that people would feel their public service was impartial. I was in a graduate level job, zero public visibility. I never once interacted with a member of the public face to face, once or twice on the phone over the space of a year. I was told by my employer before that not to post about my job or activities because of local opposition to the project and the company's sensitivity to bad social media. One of my colleagues posted a picture of her on a night out wearing the company jacket and she got an official warning. This job was higher profile in that we actively engaged with residents. The idea that we're still arguing over whether or not this is a freedom of speech issue is ludicrous. Employment contracts always have limitations on what you can say and do outside of work. We might not be happy about it but ultimately when we strip it all back and remove any mention of his faith or even what he said it comes down to an employee did something which annoyed his employer. He was given a warning and told not to do it again. He did it again. He was sacked.
troyzer wrote: » Can we close the thread now? I'm getting bored of this and I found myself getting dragged into a theological discussion (my fault) which I swore to myself I'd never put myself through again. It's too painful.
AngryHippie wrote: » Out of curiosity, how would the RCC feel about his non-trinitarian beliefs ? would that mean he goes to Catholic Hell and Spooky Mormon Hell (for leaving) but gets into the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Heaven ?
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Let me be clear. His post was a direct quote from the Bible so I believe it is true. Homosexual sex, like any sex outside of monogomous hetererosexual marriage is sinful, and deserving of God's just judgement. As are the other sins listed in that verse from Corinthians. However, do I think posting that verse in that way was helpful, or a useful tool for evangelism? Not particularly.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » The claim that Christians are trying to persecute anybody is frankly bizarre. On the other hand, much of the rhetoric in response to the incident does seem to indicate a desire by many to erode the right to freedom of religion and religious expression (enshrined by the UN by the way). Hence the unease.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » You want to class the mention of hell as a threat. Fine, I'll accept that, and the style of the post certainly leaves it open to that interpretation. But who is doing the threatening? If Israel Folau had said "I'm going to send some gays to hell!" then that would certainly qualify as hate speech. But that isn't what he said, and unless you're going to accuse God of hate speech (which you're entitled to do of course) then I really don't know where you're going with this. Are you happy for Christians to express Christian views publicly, as long as they censor the bits you find distasteful?
ChrisJ84 wrote: » I have to be honest, I don't think your real objection is to Israel Folaus tone or lack of context. Isn't your problem with the content, in whatever manner it is expressed?
