Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

robinph wrote: »

but the moment that you are singling out homosexuals as being a particular group that is destined for hell then by definition you are being homophobic.

Really? Surely you would have to be disadvantaging them in some way, or attacking them, or inciting others towards actual gay bashing?
And what do you say about all the other groups that were also "singled out" (or should I say multipled out)
Is that Drunkophobia, Fornicatophobia, and Atheistophobia too?

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

Really? Surely you would have to be disadvantaging them in some way, or attacking them, or inciting others towards actual gay bashing?
And what do you say about all the other groups that were also "singled out" (or should I say multipled out)
Is that Drunkophobia, Fornicatophobia, and Atheistophobia too?

Some solid whataboutery there mate.

Homosexuals don't wake up one morning and decide to be homosexual as an atheist would when they figure out the man in the sky is made up to help people deal with their emotions.
They don't have a treatable illness like an alcoholic or sex addict.
Any others you want to throw in there ?

homer911

Jesus commands us to deny our sinful nature if we want to follow him. We ALL have a sinful nature, even Christians. Its whether we let it rule us/define us or not that matters - God know our hearts. I'm no better than any other sinner in this regard.

https://biblehub.com/matthew/16-24.htm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Some solid whataboutery there mate...
Any others you want to throw in there ?

They were all mentioned by Folau.

So no he didn't single out one group more than the other.
And no its not "whataboutery" to mention them. But it is cherrypicking when you don't mention them.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

They were all mentioned by Folau.

So no he didn't single out one group more than the other.
And no its not "whataboutery" to mention them. But it is cherrypicking when you don't mention them.

So go back to his original tweet and substitute black in place of homosexual.

Would you be defending him then? Would you be trying to deflect and say "but he mentioned drunks as well'?

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

They were all mentioned by Folau.

So no he didn't single out one group more than the other.
And no its not "whataboutery" to mention them. But it is cherrypicking when you don't mention them.

It absolutely is whataboutery when they are not innate or born character traits.
It was your mob that threw them together btw.

robinph wrote: »

So go back to his original tweet and substitute black in place of homosexual.

Would you be defending him then? Would you be trying to deflect and say "but he mentioned drunks as well'?

This has been pointed out to recedite countless times, here, here and here.

So lets ask again so we can watch recedite ignore it again, recedite would you be defending him if he said black people should burn in hell?

Cabaal wrote: »

This has been pointed out to recedite countless times, here, here and here.

So lets ask again so we can watch recedite ignore it again, recedite would you be defending him if he said black people should burn in hell?

I answered that question here. You didn't like or agree with the answer, but it is an answer.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I answered that question here. You didn't like or agree with the answer, but it is an answer.

So once we wade through the waffle, you then seem to be claiming that homosexuality is a choice?

robinph wrote: »

So once we wade through the waffle, you then seem to be claiming that homosexuality is a choice?

No, not at all. Sexual orientation appears to be an innate characteristic of a person, analogous to race. Sexual behaviour is a choice, which is what scripture has in mind when talking about sexuality of any kind.

This has been said previously in this thread, multiple times.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

No, not at all. Sexual orientation appears to be an innate characteristic of a person, analogous to race. Sexual behaviour is a choice, which is what scripture has in mind when talking about sexuality of any kind.

This has been said previously in this thread, multiple times.

So being heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference?

Just that homosexuals are not allowed to practice?

There is no point asking "What if Folau had said blacks will burn in hell unless they change colour" becuse he did not say that. It's a complete red herring.

There is no point saying "homosexuals should be in a completely different category to drunks, fornicators and atheists because homosexuality is not a choice". Paedophia is not a choice either but we don't say to paedophiles "OK in that case, go right ahead, after all its the way you were born and you can't help yourself".
Civil society has changed to allow homosexuals follow their instincts so long as they are consenting adults.
Religion on the other hand, clings to the belief that these instincts are intrinsically disordered (which seems entirely logical) and it focuses on trying to help the afflicted, by encouraging them to behave in such a way that they will ultimately enter the gates of heaven.

If you happen to be a homosexual, an atheist, a fornicator or a drunk, you can always ignore this advice, and just carry on.
Why this obsession with punishing the guy who is giving religious advice in good faith?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

There is no point asking "What if Folau had said blacks will burn in hell unless they change colour" becuse he did not say that. It's a complete red herring.

There is no point saying "homosexuals should be in a completely different category to drunks, fornicators and atheists because homosexuality is not a choice". Paedophia is not a choice either but we don't say to paedophiles "OK in that case, go right ahead, after all its the way you were born and you can't help yourself".
Civil society has changed to allow homosexuals follow their instincts so long as they are consenting adults.
Religion on the other hand, clings to the belief that these instincts are intrinsically disordered (which seems entirely logical) and it focuses on trying to help the afflicted, by encouraging them to behave in such a way that they will ultimately enter the gates of heaven.

If you happen to be a homosexual, an atheist, a fornicator or a drunk, you can always ignore this advice, and just carry on.
Why this obsession with punishing the guy who is giving religious advice in good faith?

Did you just compare homosexuals to pedophiles there Rec? For shame, that goes beyond the usual face-palm stuff. Seriously dude.

As for children, it is absolutely fine for them to be gay which is something actively taught in the modern curriculum. Like heterosexual people, it is not acceptable for them to engage in sexual activity before a certain age.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I answered that question here. You didn't like or agree with the answer, but it is an answer.

I wasn't aware that you spoke for recedite,
By saying you answered something that was posed to recedite are you suggesting you are recedite ?

recedite wrote: »

There is no point saying "homosexuals should be in a completely different category to drunks, fornicators and atheists because homosexuality is not a choice". Paedophia is not a choice either but we don't say to paedophiles "OK in that case, go right ahead, after all its the way you were born and you can't help yourself".

Shame on you to make such a comparison,
May you burn in hell unless you repent for making such a comparison.

smacl wrote: »

Did you just compare homosexuals to pedophiles there Rec? For shame, that goes beyond the usual face-palm stuff. Seriously dude.

I reject your shame, and hand it back to you.
What do you suggest paedophiles should do with their sexuality?
Practice it, or not?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I reject your shame, and hand it back to you.
What do you suggest paedophiles should do with their sexuality?
Practice it, or not?

Seek help, obviously. Are you really struggling to understand the difference between a disorder that leads adults to prey on and molest children, and the entirely normal and socially acceptable state of being gay, which does not involve any victim beyond the person themselves when dealing with homophobia such as is visible in this thread?

smacl wrote: »

Seek help, obviously.

What kind of help? Conversion therapy?

Cabaal wrote: »

I wasn't aware that you spoke for recedite,
By saying you answered something that was posed to recedite are you suggesting you are recedite ?

Sorry for butting in!

I was asked the same question previously, and sought to provide an answer from a Christian perspective.

But if you would like recidite's opinion, specifically, then you're quite right. That would need to come from him/her.

Henry Ford III

People are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wish.

The problem is the soapbox that is Twitter.

Had they kept their opinions private and stayed off that site we'd have nothing to get offended about.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

People are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wish.

The problem is the soapbox that is Twitter.

Had they kept their opinions private and stayed off that site we'd have nothing to get offended about.

So you want to shut down Twitter? And then everyone will be happy.

Smacl has gone off to try and find some statistics on the successful rehabilitation of paedophiles into "normal" heterosexual individuals. He might be gone for some time.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote:

Did you just compare homosexuals to pedophiles there Rec? For shame, that goes beyond the usual face-palm stuff. Seriously dude.

No. He noted the similarity between not being able to suppress sexual attraction. He is not saying that homosexuals are paedophiles.

robinph wrote: »

So being heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference?

Makes no difference to what exactly? It doesn't make a single iota of difference to any individuals need of salvation, from a Christian perspective.

robinph wrote: »

Just that homosexuals are not allowed to practice?

What do you mean by "not allowed"?

- If you mean by me or by society at large, then I think anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, within the law.
- If you mean by God, then in one sense he also allows us to do whatever we want. We have free will after all.
- If you mean "allowed and have that affirmed as good and pleasing in God's sight", then no.

The real question is whether certain things are seen, or should be seen, as good, bad or morally neutral. And who has the right to decide that.

As a Christian, I base that assessment on what God has revealed in scripture. You clearly see that as ridiculous, but it is what I and other Christians believe. I'm curious to know how you make similar moral assessments?

eagle eye

recedite wrote:

I reject your shame, and hand it back to you. What do you suggest paedophiles should do with their sexuality? Practice it, or not?

Are you insane? Are you suggesting that kids should be allowed consent to being raped? Or that it's ok to rape children?

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you insane? Are you suggesting that kids should be allowed consent to being raped? Or that it's ok to rape children?

No, he asked a question.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

No, he asked a question.

He said he rejected his shame at comparing being gay with paedophilia.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

He said he rejected his shame at comparing being gay with paedophilia.

Because he didn't. He noted the similarity of having to repress sexual urges that you are born with. Just because there is an aspect of similarity doesn't mean that it is identical.

There is no shame in pointing out facts. If I said that straight people are born that way sexually inclined and paedophiles are born that way sexually inclined would you say shame on me for comparing the two?

Trying to create outrage and offence where there is none

recedite wrote: »

I reject your shame, and hand it back to you.
What do you suggest paedophiles should do with their sexuality?
Practice it, or not?

You can't hand back something that can't be hold in your hands.
:rolleyes:

Keep digging on that utterly shameful behavior, only a despicable human being would compare being gay to such a thing.