Blueshoe wrote: » With Rob Kearney pushing on and perhaps leaving Leinster for France in the summer I think Foleau would be a nice fit at full back. Serious talent Do you think people would just get over their outrage if this were to happen?
robinph wrote: » It doesn't mean that it was OK before, just that society has become more enlightened and has corrected itself for previous errors in what is acceptable or not. As for if there are things that are currently acceptable, which won't be in the future. Definitely.
robinph wrote: » It is not freedom of religion to spout hate speech against another group. Absolutely, I know that is not what defines christianity. But why are you trying to defend Folau and his "right" to speak hate speech about people whilst hiding behind the banner of christianity then? He has a right to hold whatever beliefs he likes, he doesn't have the right to shout about those threats to all and sundry though. If those views are not appropriate for christians to be spouting then other chritisans shouldn't be providing him with cover to do so. So are you claiming that Folau is allowed to say what he likes because he is just repeating what he has interpreted it says in the bible, and he is therefore not responsible for those words? I don't hate you and you are fully entitled to believe that homosexuals are going to hell. But I would consider that to be a hateful belief and you are not entitled to go and shout about that on the street, or on Twitter and expect to keep your job.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » So you do want to suppress freedom of religion then? Or is it just the bits you find disagreeable? So much for tolerance.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Ok, fair enough. I should have been clearer. The list of sins that Israel Folau posted is lifted directly from 1 Corinthians 6, topped and tailed with a brief and blunt call to repentance / threat of hellfire. I've already made clear that while I believe what he said to be true, I don't think his manner or means of expressing it was helpful. I don't think his post is a good example of speaking the truth in love, something that Christians are called to do.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » So it's wrong because society says so? Does that mean that it used to be ok because society didn't have a problem with it? Do you think there are things that people do or say that they should stop doing even if their society thinks it's ok?
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Ah come on, Christianity is not defined by this and well you know it. Why are you so unwilling to interact with Christianity on its own terms? It comes across as wanting to shout down and silence dissent. You're absolutely free to do so of course, but at least be willing to put on your big boy pants and admit that's what you're doing. If the world has moved on then why do you even care enough to post about this?
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Again, not what I said.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Disagreeing with certain behaviours, or even someones way of life does not mean that you hate them. You obviously disagree sharply with what I'm saying, does that mean I should conclude that you hate me?
robinph wrote: » He may have posted other things that were direct quotes from the bible, but "WARNING...Homosexuals... HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT!" wasn't one of them. That may be his interpretation of what a certain passage says, but it's not a direct quote from anyone other than Folau or whoever he got the JPG from.
robinph wrote: » But the whole thing is that Folau is wanting to be able to tell homosexuals that they are going to hell, society has determined that that is no longer acceptable behaviour, christians are then getting upset as they cannot tell homosexuals they are going to hell anymore.
robinph wrote: » christians are then getting upset as they cannot tell homosexuals they are going to hell anymore.
robinph wrote: » If your religion is defined by the ability to shout and threaten homosexuals that hell awaits them, then yes your religious freedoms are being restricted. But maybe the religion needs to take a hard look at itself and find something better to get worried about. The world has moved on and whilst the UN may protect religion I don't think you will find they support any religions "right" to spread messages of hate against homosexuals.
robinph wrote: » God made me say it isn't a defence for spreading hateful messages. If he doesn't believe that gays should be going to hell then he could simply not have said it.
robinph wrote: » To an extent you are probably right in that his interpretation of what his deity wants is offensive however it is tried to be dressed up, but religion doesn't have to hate homosexuals or threaten them with hell.
robinph wrote: » Many religions are perfectly fine in welcoming everyone without threats of eternal damnation because of who you happen to love.
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?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
troyzer wrote: » He was given a warning and told not to do it again. He did it again. He was sacked.
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.
antiskeptic wrote: » How could someone take, as a threat and warning, something they don't believe in?
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: » 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.
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.
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
theological wrote: » . Being silent while people are headed for hell is hate speech.
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.
uptherebels wrote: » If the only way to endure self sacrifice was to have kids you might actually have had a point.
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.
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.
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:
robinph wrote: » Well I actually think you should probably stop wasting your time arguing the case for something that doesn't exist
