salmocab wrote: Both sides apologised it means nothing from either side. Doors that were previously shut to him are still shut now.
eagle eye wrote: » Where did you get those facts?
salmocab wrote: What facts?
eagle eye wrote: » That all doors are shut.
salmocab wrote: I didn’t say all doors are shut but you work away with that
eagle eye wrote: » You said he won't ay in Australia again. Have you proof of that?
salmocab wrote: Again that’s not what I said
eagle eye wrote: » Well you made it sound like that.
sosndt wrote: » Not commenting on the article just your own words. Your beliefs n all things should be private and once you decide to make them public it is open season. You have brought it on yourself. You have no more right to say something then the next person. If you share an unpopular opinion and you share it you should expect and receive negative reactions. The fact that your beliefs are old do not protect them or you.
eagle eye wrote: » Yes I do. An apology like that suggests all doors are open for him I'd imagine.
theological wrote: » So effectively what you're saying is that people should only be allowed to express popular opinions? That sounds like a horrible world to me. That there are "consequences" if you say something that someone else doesn't like. From my standpoint saying things that others don't like is liberty. I understand that people may express opposition to what others say, but this isn't just expressing opposition is it? It seems like Rugby Australia weren't convinced enough of their position to let it have it's day in court either. I wonder why? Maybe they thought that they might lose?
sydthebeat wrote: » The fact that no one has picked him up already screams to his toxicity. I wouldn't be surprised to see him ending up playing with some obscure rugby league team
Yellow_Fern wrote: » The idea that opposing anal means you are closet gay is a clever but devious propaganda tool to normalize it. There is no evidence of this.
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Arguing that Australia Ruby are closed minded jerks for firing him is not the same as saying they have no right to fire him.
AngryHippie wrote: » He spoke to homosexuality. attraction to the same sex, male-male, female-female. But then considering the bible actually has next to nothing to say about either and both are completely absent from the gospels, getting preachy about it is all just devious propaganda anyway.
AngryHippie wrote: » It's not a freedom of speech argument, at best its a "time and place" argument.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » There really isn't a lot of mileage in this argument. The Bible has always been understood as prohibiting homosexual activity, and remains so today. Very few Christians who make an argument in favour of same sex marriage etc. do so on the basis of scripture; in my experience most do it by taking a step away from biblical authority and the universal applicability of what the Bible says.
“This debate is being framed as religious people being no voters with everyone else voting yes. This couldn’t be further from the truth. People of all faiths support sharing the freedom to marry with gay and lesbian couples. “The Christian tradition affirms the fundamental equality and dignity of all people, whether we are heterosexual or gay. Faith leaders should not marginalise or exclude people who are gay rather they should promote equality and inclusion.” She also highlighted the “progressive elements” within religious traditions, which she argued can be marshalled in support of a yes vote in the referendum. Among them were “concepts of dignity, justice, equality, human flourishing and well-being”. “This is the basis on which the moral case for marriage equality based on religious values can be established,” she added. Rev Canon Dr Ginnie Kennerley said the stance adopted by religious institutions may be related to “conflicts between factuality and scripture”. “There has always been disagreement on what is and is not permitted by the bible,” she said. “There have been conflicts between factuality and Scripture as we have understood it down the centuries – over the flat earth, over slavery, over evolution, over apartheid, over the position of women.”
Kind of agree with you here, as a conservative evangelical Christian I don't think Folau should have posted what he did. It was a stupid way to approach a very complex and sensitive subject, and I doubt anyone was rushing along to a church after reading it. Unless he is a complete idiot he must have known it would provoke this kind of reaction, and I really wonder what he thought he was going to achieve. That said, "don't say this outside of work or you will get fired" does make it a bit of a freedom of speech issue.
smacl wrote: » I wouldn't be so sure. From an IT article on the debate regarding marriage equality
“This is the basis on which the moral case for marriage equality based on religious values can be established,” she added."
“There has always been disagreement on what is and is not permitted by the bible,” she said. “There have been conflicts between factuality and Scripture as we have understood it down the centuries – over the flat earth, over slavery, over evolution, over apartheid, over the position of women.”
smacl wrote: » I agree it was stupid but the freedom of speech issue is somewhat moot as the social media platform he posted to was one where most of the followers are rugby fans (his work) and most of the other pictures are pictures of him in team gear playing rugby (work). He had also been warned against doing this by his employer.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Interesting article, but I would contend that Christians are on a hiding to nothing by conforming to the wider culture. Historically, Christianity has been at it's most vibrant when it has been clearly counter cultural.
To me, this is gobbledygook. If scripture is inerrant (orthodox, historical Christian position) then there is no conflict, really. We can misunderstand or misinterpret, but that's really our problem rather than the Bible's.
It's been rehashed a few times on this thread already, but Christians (and everyone) look to somewhere for our final authority. Evangelicals like me look to scripture; other Christians may look elsewhere. I realise this is of limited relevance to non-Christians like yourself, but it seems odd to me to say that you esteem the bible on the one hand, while ignoring what it says on the other.
Agree that it's somewhat different for Folau than joe punter, as he is a public figure and there isn't as clean a line between his work and private life. There are countless other ways he could have witnessed effectively to his faith.
smacl wrote: » I'd argue that one of the main reasons that Christianity is so pervasive is precisely that it is syncretic, borrowing from local culture and tradition and weaving this into local Christian practise.
smacl wrote: » That the Rev Kennerley takes a very different position serves to illustrate the variety of positions that different Christians take though. Is it reasonable to imply her's, or any position contrary to your own, is misinterpretation?
smacl wrote: » I'd argue whether it is reasonable to speak for all Christians and everyone though. While some might, I doubt everyone looks to a single source for final authority on everything. Rather they consider context, subjective understanding and moral sensibilities.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Rev Kennerly hints at that in the article, where she talks about the clash between "factuality and scripture". Clearly, "factuality" comes from somewhere else and is the final authority in this case.
And in reality, we all often shortcut the process and go straight to "it's wrong" or "it's right." I'm interested in what influences those decisions and why.
theological wrote: » I believe in a God of decency who conveys what that means in Scripture. I don't need a secular definition of that. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of decency shown towards the very people who hate Him. That's a much more powerful definition than what you, your mate or even the Revd can give me.
smacl wrote: » Purely speculation, but the argument that I've heard from another very religious friend is roughly as follows. Human decency is central to Christianity (e.g. love thy neighbour as thyself).
smacl wrote: » Very much the same. I'd imagine trust plays a major role, where trust in authority from the church is low and in the government not much better. There's no doubt more peer communication that at any time in the past, much of which is open to manipulation, which also exerts a significant influence.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » The immediate question is "How do we know what loving our neighbour looks like in situation x?" If we disagree on what the loving action is in a given circumstance, how do we figure out which of us is right (or more right)? Do you think that is even possible?
I believe it is, and that love good and right have been perfectly shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ, and that they are communicated to us today in the scriptures. I also believe that what Christianity has to offer is better than any of the alternatives, be it societal consensus, just following our heart or whatever. The bible calls those broken cisterns, that can't hold water. I think that about sums it up.
Totally agree. This is one of the reasons why placing ultimate trust in anything (including ourselves) other than God will ultimately lead to disappointment. Maybe not for every individual in this life, but your examples at least indicate that some of the places we've looked to in the past have been dead ends.
smacl wrote: » While it is subjective to a large degree, we can agree a minimum standard how we treat one another which we describe as basic human rights. My opinion is that any genuine form of love for someone will not breach their basic human rights. Of course love goes much further than this, but it is common ground for a starting point.
smacl wrote: » Holding that belief is a basic human right and offering to share it is perfectly reasonable. Saying anyone must share your belief isn't and is unfairly trampling on their beliefs. I don't share your beliefs just as you don't share mine but this is better as point of discourse rather than enmity. Going back to Folau for example, we see the imperative form of "turn or burn" Christianity which many people such as myself find unreasonable. Asking someone if they want to talk about Jesus is entirely reasonable, telling them to Repent! is not.
smacl wrote: » Personally, I'm not convinced that those who have ultimate trust in anything experience less disappointment than than those who are more generally stoical or even those who approach life with measured cynicism. I'd be suspicious that any statement that makes comments about everyone is guilty of hasty generalization.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » And again we ask where those standards come from. Either we are the authority, or we appeal to authority elsewhere. Or is it turtles all the way down?
Important to clarify what you mean by "must" here.
Christianity makes objective claims that are equally applicable to all people everywhere. For example, I believe that all people are lost apart from faith in Jesus Christ and would like to persuade them of that fact. In that sense, everyone must believe.
That doesn't mean that I get to be rude or arrogant, or shout you down, or try to force you to comply. But we do disagree, and Christianity in particular has some hard things to say that people will not always want to hear. Disagreeing on matters that we both believe to be very important while still being able to interact with one another in a civil way is the very definition of tolerance, and I want to share my faith winsomely and persuasively, without being a jerk
Christianity is not a path to an easy and pain free life, quite the opposite in fact. My point is that Christians have a hope that transcends our subjective experiences (whatever they are) and which simply can't be compared to anything the world has to offer. Pie in the sky to you, life and breath to me.
smacl wrote: » I don't doubt that you believe all the above to be true. At the same time I think other people may have a different understanding of human decency to the one you hold. You might take an "I'm right and they're wrong stance" but it remains a subjective position, as illustrated in the linked article.
theological wrote: » Those who reject God's word need to repent.
