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: » 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: » 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: » 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: » 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.
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?
Cabaal wrote: » If a religious person claimed their religious beliefs meant they should refer to black people as n***ers and that they should say that all black people should burn in hell. Would you find this agreeable? Honest question. As I've said before, replace gay with black and we simply would not be having this discussion.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » I also think you are making a category error in comparing sexuality and race.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » A few follow up questions on this, if I may. Is it liberal western society specifically that has the final word on these things, or do other societies get to decide what's right for them? How do you know that our society is more enlightened than it was before, is there some other yardstick that you measure that against?
ChrisJ84 wrote: » I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes hate speech. If you've honestly and sincerely read everything that I've posted and still come to the conclusion it's hateful, then I can't force you to change your mind, nor would I want to. I think you're wrong, but that's ok.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » If we delve behind the disagreement over Folau's post, we're left with a clash of worldviews that goes well beyond the scope of this thread. I believe that my christian worldview makes best sense of all the available data (the world, ourselves etc.) and is fully consistent with that data. My worldview has some foundational presuppositions, that I've already outlined further up the thread (God exists, he has revealed himself etc.). I can only assume that you believe similar things about your atheistic worldview. My ambitions for a discussion like this are fairly limited, and if we both come away with a slightly better understanding of one another then it would be great. At a minimum I hope you see that Christians aren't hate filled homophobes who have commited intellectual suicide, but if that is your sincere conclusion then that's ok too.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Another potential fruitful area for reflection, and again beyond the scope of the thread, is on the nature and meaning of our sexuality. Christianity sees sexuality primarily in terms of what we do, whereas contemporary culture (at least in the west) increasingly sees it in terms of who we are. That is an important distinction, and brings us to even more fundamental questions of what it means to be human. Part of the reason we are talking past one another is because you think that Christians are asking people (specifically homosexuals) to deny who they are. Part of my response to that is "your idea of who and what we are, and of what makes us truly human, is mistaken." Again, I don't say any of this to be flippant or dismissive, and I realise that it's easy to forget there is a real person at the other side of a discussion forum. The Israel Folau incident does illustrate a growing desire to push Christianity out of the public square, and I hope you understand why that might be of concern to Christians.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » The thread started by asking a question of tolerance, and what it means today, using the Israel Folau post as a case in point. Tolerance has always meant acknowledging that other points of view have the right to exist, even those we find disagreeable. "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." Obviously tolerance needs to have some limits, with calls to violence being one. More recently, tolerance seems to have changed to mean that all views are equally valid "That's true for you, this is true for me". The limit of tolerance also seems to have changed, to exclude views that refute this notion and make exclusive claims, or suggest that others might be wrong. Your very first post on the thread says just that - "Some views just can't be tolerated."
recedite wrote: » You have made a very good point here. There is an ultra liberal viewpoint that is in vogue now, and it claims to be superior because of its great "tolerance" for all other viewpoints. But that tolerance evaporates as soon as anyone else disagrees with them. Basically, anything goes, but only if the dissenters keep their heads down. In medieval times, a similar sort of policy was in vogue.
Cabaal wrote: » Not at all, You are born as you are, be it black or gay. Many Christians look down on gay people inline with their god's word. The fact you find a religious person looking down on and being intolerance of black people as NOT agreeable but you don't appear to be the same towards looking down on and intolerance towards gay people I find disturbing.
robinph wrote: » If liberal western society is following the rule "don't be a dick" to each other then it's probably pretty well placed in the scale of defining the rights and wrongs of the world. Other societies obviously get to decide their own systems, but we would hope that over time they see the light and change. Are you really asking how do we know we are more enlightened today now that we don't allow homophobia to go unchallenged?
robinph wrote: » I completely see where your train of thought goes in thinking that you are actually telling someone that you love them when telling them they are going to hell. I get that. It is as 100% wrong as you think I am in saying god doesn't exist though. Actual people are affected by other people posting "warnings" on twitter about them going to hell, those people do not feel loved by christianity from those words. If I'm wrong about god then that's my problem when it comes to it, nobody else has been affected. If Folau is wrong about hell and god though then actual real living people have been affected by his comments and the message of hate. I don't believe for a moment that christians are hate filled homophobes. There are hate filled homophobes who are using chritianity to hide behind and christians should not be defending them. If you are not asking homosexuals to deny that they are homosexual, then what is it that you are asking of them... or what is it that you believe god is asking of them if you must?
zoobizoo wrote: » If there is a God, he made gay people. Why do religious question God's decision to create gay people? Are you questioning God's wisdom?
robinph wrote: » Whatever way you want to try and spin things, not being able to make hateful remarks against homosexuals anymore is not discrimination against you.Homophobia is no longer tolerated in western society. That you cannot be homophobic is not intolerance against you.
troyzer wrote: » I'd cancel my season ticket. A lot of people would
robinph wrote: » So what is it that you would like to be able to continue to say/ do to homosexuals that you can no longer do and so feel that your religious freedom to say such things to homosexuals is being denied?
Blueshoe wrote: » troyzer wrote: » I'd cancel my season ticket. A lot of people would Why though?
troyzer wrote: » Because I don't want him playing for my team. He's a toxic presence and doesn't represent the values of community and inclusion that are important to Leinster Rugby. Not that I'd ever have to, he'll never play rugby again except maybe Japan or possibly France in a few years.
troyzer wrote: » There are different perspectives on this which the title of this thread alludes to. Do you tolerate the intolerant? Personally I don't think so. Paddy Jackson was given the boot ultimately for the content of private texts. We have standards for our players.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » troyzer wrote: » There are different perspectives on this which the title of this thread alludes to. Do you tolerate the intolerant? Personally I don't think so. Paddy Jackson was given the boot ultimately for the content of private texts. We have standards for our players. It might help move things forward if you could define what you mean by tolerant and intolerant. Agree with you re. Paddy Jackson by the way, and public figures should be held to a high standard.
troyzer wrote: » So Paddy Jackson making derogatory comments about women and being sacked is fair enough but not derogatory comments about gay people? And I know what you're going to say: "They're not derogatory, they're out of love blah blah". Well I'm sorry but the vast majority of Ireland does not subscribe to that. When you start with the principle that there is something intrinsically wrong with the way another person was born, then I have no time for you.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » troyzer wrote: » So Paddy Jackson making derogatory comments about women and being sacked is fair enough but not derogatory comments about gay people? And I know what you're going to say: "They're not derogatory, they're out of love blah blah". Well I'm sorry but the vast majority of Ireland does not subscribe to that. When you start with the principle that there is something intrinsically wrong with the way another person was born, then I have no time for you. Christians believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with the way everyone was born, without exception, including ourselves. It really would be helpful if you could outline what you mean by tolerant and intolerant, but if you don't want to then that's absolutely fine.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » being confronted with the reality of who Jesus is,
