Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Professor Moriarty · 22-12-2019 1:58pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm tempted to do bad things regularly, I think everybody is.
Does the fact that I've temptation to do bad things make me a bad person? I don't think it does but if I carried out the deed then I'd be a bad person.
I'm sure that's how it works. You can be born anything you like but if you act upon something that's considered a sin then you pay the price in the afterlife is how it goes it seems.
Anyways it's ridiculous so don't be getting upset about it and don't be asking too much either or you could end up becoming a Christian. I've seen this happen before.

There is zero chance of my becoming a 'Christian'. I think 'good' and 'bad' should be determined by the individual themselves and by a society designed for the benefit of all. No need for a 'God'.

theological · 22-12-2019 2:03pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But wouldn't it make more sense to assume there is no 'God'? That we just exist very briefly, as one of billions, on this tiny speck of dirt in a vast universe.

Rather than serve a judgemental 'God' created by other humans long since dead, in our very short opportunity to experience a life, should we not just be understanding of fellow human beings and their sexual orientations? What harm does do you or me if John sleeps with Tom or Mary sleeps with Anne?

Why would it make more sense to assume God doesn't exist? The existence of God accounts for our universe. More importantly it accounts for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I find things make less sense and are more confused in the absence of trust in God. It is because I'm convinced that God knows what is best in His created order that I accept what He says about sexuality and all other issues. Of course the creator has a clearer impression of why things are the way they are and how best we can live in our creation than we do. If you want me to become an atheist you need to make the case for it. The universe is vast and as a result it is more great that God is mindful of us (Psalm 8).

The reason why I abstracted the conversation to the nature of all sin was to point out that things are no different for me and the sins I struggle with. Sexuality is not a different category in this regard. The best answer is to submit to God and grow in Him instead of standing in opposition to Him.

eagle eye · 22-12-2019 2:04pm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

There is zero chance of my becoming a 'Christian'. I think 'good' and 'bad' should be determined by the individual themselves and by a society designed for the benefit of all. No need for a 'God'.

I agree with you but you have to respect people's beliefs too.

Professor Moriarty · 22-12-2019 2:13pm

theological wrote: »

Why would it make more sense to assume God doesn't exist? The existence of God accounts for our universe. More importantly it accounts for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I find things make less sense and are more confused in the absence of trust in God. It is because I'm convinced that God knows what is best in His created order that I accept what He says about sexuality and all other issues. Of course the creator has a clearer impression of why things are the way they are and how best we can live in our creation than we do. If you want me to become an atheist you need to make the case for it.

The reason why I abstracted the conversation to the nature of all sin was to point out that things are no different for me and the sins I struggle with. Sexuality is not a different category in this regard. The best answer is to submit to God and grow in Him instead of standing in opposition to Him.

I would see the universe as an eternal living entity. It's about the best theory that makes sense to me. However, this entity is not a judgemental 'God'. It doesn't offer Heaven or Hell. Those are man-made constructs. We have very brief opportunities to experience awareness of existence as a part of that entity. There is no evidence of soul. There is no evidence of afterlife. All we have is the sensed understanding that we exist.

In that context, as long as nobody is harmed, why not let other human beings exist as they see fit? Why condemn other human beings because of unproven theories thought up by people two thousand years ago? Why adhere to judgemental and negative thoughts about other human beings who are harming nobody?

Professor Moriarty · 22-12-2019 2:14pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I agree with you but you have to respect people's beliefs too.

I do as long as those beliefs don't harm other human beings.

salmocab · 22-12-2019 3:19pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I agree with you but you have to respect people's beliefs too.

Nobody is disrespecting others beliefs, I’ve only been scanning this lately as it’s moved on from the original topic to something I’ve no interest in but all I’ve seen is a handful of people having a discussion, people should be free to believe what they want and do what they want so long as it doesn’t harm others.

theological · 22-12-2019 9:52pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would see the universe as an eternal living entity. It's about the best theory that makes sense to me. However, this entity is not a judgemental 'God'. It doesn't offer Heaven or Hell. Those are man-made constructs. We have very brief opportunities to experience awareness of existence as a part of that entity. There is no evidence of soul. There is no evidence of afterlife. All we have is the sensed understanding that we exist.

In that context, as long as nobody is harmed, why not let other human beings exist as they see fit? Why condemn other human beings because of unproven theories thought up by people two thousand years ago? Why adhere to judgemental and negative thoughts about other human beings who are harming nobody?

Repeating the same point isn't going to give you a different response. We bring different assumptions to the table and therefore we get a different outcome.

If we are going to make any progress in this discussion it is by exploring our assumptions.

For example for you it is pretty obvious that you think there is no God or that the concept is constructed - very questionable to me. Why do you believe this?

Therefore all things are permissible. There is no objective morality. Again very questionable. Why do you believe this?

You hold to the notion that gender isn't significant and can be interchangeable. Questionable also. Why do you believe this? I think the rejection of God's word has led to gender confusion rather than more clarity. Why do you believe these things?

You hold that God must be negative and judgemental for telling us how we should live in His world. Christians regard that as loving. I don't think people are unharmed by sin, it leads to death and condemnation. That is harmful. I wonder why you think it is unharmful?

There are lots of avenues where we can take this conversation. However, if you want to repeat yourself in respect to a point we've heard but disagree with you on that is a cul we sac. Exploring these things and why you hold to them could be interesting however.

It's interesting to see that you have lots of belief in things. We both have faith in our assumptions. That's fascinating. That should make you think that you shouldn't assume your beliefs as a default. They need to be argued for like mine.

Professor Moriarty · 22-12-2019 10:27pm

theological wrote: »

Repeating the same point isn't going to give you a different response. We bring different assumptions to the table and therefore we get a different outcome.

Any response at all that addressed my points would be welcome. Please feel free to address them.

If we are going to make any progress in this discussion it is by exploring our assumptions.

Indeed.

For example for you it is pretty obvious that you think there is no God or that the concept is constructed - very questionable to me. Why do you believe this?

I have seen zero evidence that ghosts exist, though people believe in them because reasons. Ditto 'God', Mohammed, Jehovah etc.

Therefore all things are permissible. There is no objective morality. Again very questionable. Why do you believe this?

All things are not permissible. We have man-made laws for the common good created by those we elect.

You hold to the notion that gender isn't significant and can be interchangeable. Questionable also. Why do you believe this?

I never mentioned the word 'gender'.

I think the rejection of God's word has led to gender confusion rather than more clarity. Why do you believe these things?

I never used the words 'gender confusion. I think you are confusing gender and sexual orientation.

You hold that God must be negative and judgemental for telling us how we should live in His world. Christians regard that as loving.

So it's' loving' to condemn other human beings for behaving as they see fit and as makes them happy - even though that behaviour hurts no other human being? Nope. That's not love.

I don't think people are unharmed by sin, it leads to death and condemnation. That is harmful. I wonder why you think it is unharmful?

I don't believe in 'sin'. So no harm done.

There are lots of avenues where we can take this conversation. However, if you want to repeat yourself in respect to a point we've heard but disagree with you on that is a cul we sac. Exploring these things and why you hold to them could be interesting however.

Again, feel free to address the points I made.

It's interesting to see that you have lots of belief in things. We both have faith in our assumptions. That's fascinating. That should make you think that you shouldn't assume your beliefs as a default. They need to be argued for like mine.

I don't 'believe'. I apply logic to reality.

ChrisJ84 · 22-12-2019 11:38pm

smacl wrote: »

It is certainly one point of view, but not the only one and I'd respectfully suggest that there's been more than enough blood spilled in the history of Christendom between various Christians interpretation of what it means to be a 'true' Christian. I take your point on the desire for coherency but am of the opinion that we live in a changing world. Given that we're on a thread discussing tolerance for example, would you consider a man who is legally married to another man to be his husband? Would you consider a transgender man who was born female but identifies as a man to be a man or a woman? Would you consider a man who adopts a child to be that child's father or would you consider the child's biological father to be the father? These are three questions that address the specific examples of objective truth that you've raised but I'd assert whatever your answers might be, they would be subjective. (Feel free to consider the questions rhetorical and not answer, the intent is not to put you on the spot so much as illustrate the fallibility of considering belief objective).

Sorry, missed this when I was replying yesterday. I'm not denying for a moment that we can load any term with subjective meaning, the question is whether that meaning corresponds with reality. Is such a question even valid, in your view?

The gender example is probably the best to illustrate my understanding of your position. A Christian is anyone who considers themselves to be such; a man/woman is anyone who considers themselves to be such. Is that a fair summary of how you would define what a man or woman is?

For the record, I don't believe that two men or two women can really be married, whatever the state says. The state doesn't own marriage. Ditto on gender. And I wholeheartedly believe that an adoptive father is indeed a real father. Being tolerant, I'm happy for others to disagree with me on any of these points. Tolerance means granting other views an equal right to exist, not the right to be seen as equally valid.

theological · 23-12-2019 7:10am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Any response at all that addressed my points would be welcome. Please feel free to address them.

I have replied to them from my perspective. A perspective you don't like but nonetheless I have replied.

This conversation is a two way street because you also have questionable assumptions which I want to look at.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have seen zero evidence that ghosts exist, though people believe in them because reasons. Ditto 'God', Mohammed, Jehovah etc.

Just because you haven't seen evidence for Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. From my perspective we have eyewitness testimony concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus with specific historical details which was falsifiable for the first century of its existence. All of which was circulated at great risk to the lives of those who spread it.

Christianity ultimately centres on a real person in history Jesus Christ. How do you account for Him and for the empty tomb? Why don't we know where His body is concerning what a high profile execution it was? It is fine saying Christianity is rubbish but when it puts forward specific historical claims it requires an alternative explanation.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All things are not permissible. We have man-made laws for the common good created by those we elect.

Why are those man made laws binding? What gives them objective basis? What has law to do with morality?

From my perspective for example just because it is law to say that someone can kill an unborn child as a matter of choice doesn't mean that it is moral.

There are plenty more scenarios where states legislate for things that are immoral.

I just happen to have a concrete basis for it. The Lord of all creation declared it to be so.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I never mentioned the word 'gender'.

I never used the words 'gender confusion. I think you are confusing gender and sexual orientation.

You know as well as I do that redefining marriage involves a denial of the significance of gender. It is a denial of the complementary differences between men and women. It also ultimately says that a man can replace a mother and a woman can replace a father.

The Bible affirms that men and women are different but that their differences work together in the complementary union of marriage.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So it's' loving' to condemn other human beings for behaving as they see fit and as makes them happy - even though that behaviour hurts no other human being? Nope. That's not love.

It's loving to provide the diagnosis to a problem that leads to destruction in the same way it is loving to warn someone that they have a cancerous tumour. It will lead to death of it isn't resolved. Sin in its myriad forms leads to death and judgement.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't believe in 'sin'. So no harm done.

I don't care that you don't. I'm explaining how my assumptions work and where they come from. I think you do believe in it in a horizontal sense between people but not in a vertical sense between us and God. The problem is in the absence of God who speaks you have no objective basis for determining what good and evil even are. Atheism leads to confusion about morality as well as confusion about gender. Belief in God makes much more sense in this regard.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Again, feel free to address the points I made.

I have done.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't 'believe'. I apply logic to reality.

I've highlighted several areas where your beliefs are not logical precisely because your atheism backs you into a corner. Your beliefs are not self apparent and require explanation.

I'd like you to engage with my points. This conversation is a two way street and I'm entitled to question your views as well as you questioning mine.

Professor Moriarty · 23-12-2019 3:20pm

theological wrote: »

I have replied to them from my perspective. A perspective you don't like but nonetheless I have replied.

This conversation is a two way street because you also have questionable assumptions which I want to look at.

No, you didn't but that's okay.

Just because you haven't seen evidence for Christianity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. From my perspective we have eyewitness testimony concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus with specific historical details which was falsifiable for the first century of its existence. All of which was circulated at great risk to the lives of those who spread it.

Just because you haven't seen evidence for Islam doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have eyewitness testimony concerning the life and death of Muhammad with specific historical details which was falsifiable for the first century of its existence. All of which was circulated at great risk to the lives of those who spread it.

Christianity ultimately centres on a real person in history Jesus Christ. How do you account for Him and for the empty tomb?

That would depend on which version of a book, which took 1500 years to write, that you believe in. Then you must decide which interpretation you believe in: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc.

Why don't we know where His body is concerning what a high profile execution it was? It is fine saying Christianity is rubbish but when it puts forward specific historical claims it requires an alternative explanation.

This person, if he existed and died as you seem to believe, was a dangerous rebel. Dangerous rebels in those times were buried in unmarked graves. Anyway, historical accounts from Greco Roman times are notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Why are those man made laws binding? What gives them objective basis? What has law to do with morality?

Our laws, created by those we choose to elect, are intended to be for the good of society and the individual. The core motivation is the happiness and health of the individual. Kind of weird that you wouldn't see that as moral.

From my perspective for example just because it is law to say that someone can kill an unborn child as a matter of choice doesn't mean that it is moral.

That's your perspective as you say. That perspective is obviously governed by your beliefs.

There are plenty more scenarios where states legislate for things that are immoral.

From your perspective based on your belief system. From my perspective, laws should place the happiness and health of the individual to the fore. This is done by applying logic to reality. Hence I am content with same-sex marriage for instance.

I just happen to have a concrete basis for it. The Lord of all creation declared it to be so.

Couldn't disagree with you more. You have zero evidence for any "Lord of all creation" declaring anything at all. You just believe what someone else tells you to believe.

You know as well as I do that redefining marriage involves a denial of the significance of gender.

No. I reiterate, you are confusing 'gender' and 'sexual orientation'. Two men can get married. They remain men.

It is a denial of the complementary differences between men and women. It also ultimately says that a man can replace a mother and a woman can replace a father.

No. Again, you don't understand the concept of 'gender'. A child of two women or two men has two parents.

The Bible affirms that men and women are different but that their differences work together in the complementary union of marriage.

So what? What's that got to do with the billions of people who think it's meaningless?

It's loving to provide the diagnosis to a problem that leads to destruction in the same way it is loving to warn someone that they have a cancerous tumour. It will lead to death of it isn't resolved. Sin in its myriad forms leads to death and judgement.

So you're comparing homosexuality to a cancerous tumour? Wow. Would you not think that your own lack of 'Christian' compassion is a 'sin' or are you doing 'God's' will and making him proud?

I don't care that you don't. I'm explaining how my assumptions work and where they come from. I think you do believe in it in a horizontal sense between people but not in a vertical sense between us and God.

Spot on.

The problem is in the absence of God who speaks you have no objective basis for determining what good and evil even are. Atheism leads to confusion about morality as well as confusion about gender. Belief in God makes much more sense in this regard.

Sorry to be like a broken record. The only 'confusion about gender' is your own confusion about the word 'gender'. I am completely clear minded about my understanding of morality and my belief that I should apply logic to truth and reality. Belief in a 'God' for whom I have no evidence, other than some stories based on hearsay written on scraps of paper 2000 years ago, is nonsensical to me. I prefer my mind to be logical and reality based rather than be clouded by by others' interpretations of others' interpretations of what a human said 2000 years ago when claiming to be a 'God'.

I have done.

I've highlighted several areas where your beliefs are not logical precisely because your atheism backs you into a corner. Your beliefs are not self apparent and require explanation.

Please apply logic to my argument. Because the "Lord of all creation" says so is not a rational argument. It is magical thinking.

I'd like you to engage with my points. This conversation is a two way street and I'm entitled to question your views as well as you questioning mine.

I have engaged with every point. Perhaps you could now start to do the same.

theological · 23-12-2019 5:31pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, you didn't but that's okay.

Anyone can see that I did reply to your posts.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just because you haven't seen evidence for Islam doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have eyewitness testimony concerning the life and death of Muhammad with specific historical details which was falsifiable for the first century of its existence. All of which was circulated at great risk to the lives of those who spread it.

I have my reasons for disagreeing with Islam. I am happy to discuss them on a more appropriate thread. My point is still valid. We do have eyewitness evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would depend on which version of a book, which took 1500 years to write, that you believe in. Then you must decide which interpretation you believe in: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox etc.

This isn't answering the question I put to you. Also - you seem to believe that Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy differ significantly as to who Jesus is. Why do you think that?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This person, if he existed and died as you seem to believe, was a dangerous rebel. Dangerous rebels in those times were buried in unmarked graves. Anyway, historical accounts from Greco Roman times are notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Why do you think Jesus was a dangerous rebel? Against whom? This doesn't answer why given it was such a high profile execution that people didn't know where Jesus was buried. From the actual historical account we do have the tomb was also carefully guarded. Yet, the body wasn't there. How do you account for this?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Our laws, created by those we choose to elect, are intended to be for the good of society and the individual. The core motivation is the happiness and health of the individual. Kind of weird that you wouldn't see that as moral.

And all countries have great and moral laws? What about despotic nations? How do you even determine what good and evil actually are without an objective standard? I didn't see a clear answer on this.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's your perspective as you say. That perspective is obviously governed by your beliefs.

It is governed by an objective God who has spoken into His creation, which is a clearer standard for moral reasoning than yours is. In a secular worldview morality is basically in the eyes of the beholder. As a result good can become evil and evil can become good pretty easily.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From your perspective based on your belief system. From my perspective, laws should place the happiness and health of the individual to the fore. This is done by applying logic to reality. Hence I am content with same-sex marriage for instance.

What is happiness? To be honest, I think Christianity provides a much more logical lens for viewing the world than atheism does. Atheism leads to confusion and I've pointed out how in respect to morality and gender.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Couldn't disagree with you more. You have zero evidence for any "Lord of all creation" declaring anything at all. You just believe what someone else tells you to believe.

I've got eyewitness evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, so it simply isn't true to say that we don't have this. You have no sound arguments for your claims about the nature of reality. You have no decent explanation for moral reasoning. Your worldview leads to confusion, not clarity.

I don't think you can speak to me about evidence.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. I reiterate, you are confusing 'gender' and 'sexual orientation'. Two men can get married. They remain men.

No. Again, you don't understand the concept of 'gender'. A child of two women or two men has two parents.

My point was pretty clear. The idea that we can substitute a man with a woman in marriage or in respect to parenting is about gender. It is saying that a mother can be replaced with a father with no consequence. It is saying that marriage is not a union between a man and a woman. That is about gender whether you like it or not.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you're comparing homosexuality to a cancerous tumour? Wow. Would you not think that your own lack of 'Christian' compassion is a 'sin' or are you doing 'God's' will and making him proud?

I'm comparing sin to a cancerous tumour. Yes because of its outcome. Death and condemnation. Repentance leads to life and a new relationship with God. I know what I'm choosing.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Spot on.

I presume you're also saying I'm spot on for saying you have no objective basis for moral claims. I was hoping you could enlighten me on that.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sorry to be like a broken record. The only 'confusion about gender' is your own confusion about the word 'gender'. I am completely clear minded about my understanding of morality and my belief that I should apply logic to truth and reality. Belief in a 'God' for whom I have no evidence, other than some stories based on hearsay written on scraps of paper 2000 years ago, is nonsensical to me. I prefer my mind to be logical and reality based rather than be clouded by by others' interpretations of others' interpretations of what a human said 2000 years ago when claiming to be a 'God'.

I've explained pretty clearly how confusion about gender is relevant to the topic. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. The gospels aren't hearsay, they are specific, detailed and concrete about the nature of what happened. Corroborated claims from different eyewitnesses concerning Jesus in history.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Please apply logic to my argument. Because the "Lord of all creation" says so is not a rational argument. It is magical thinking.

I'm explaining how the assumptions that I make work themselves out in respect to this argument. I'm not insisting that you change your mind. I'm simply explaining how God provides an objective basis for morality and how atheism, well, doesn't. Christianity is a worldview that leads to clarity rather than confusion. It is a rich worldview that enables us to make sense of the world.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I have engaged with every point. Perhaps you could now start to do the same.

Honestly you haven't. You have yet to answer my questions in any detail.

smacl · 23-12-2019 6:52pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Important to say that the Apostles Creed is illustrative, not exhaustive, of what Christians believe. The examples you give (the very young, the mentally infirm etc.) also show why it would be innapropriate for me to walk around with a copy of the creed under my arm, auditing where others stand with the lord. It's not my role to do so and, unless they are members of my local church, is really none of my business. It's also important not to limit God's goodness or mercy by over intellectualising belief. After all, a small child expressing simple faith in Jesus is every bit as much a Christian as the most learned theologian.

Nonetheless, and all things being equal, I would consider it odd for an adult who claims to have been a Christian for any length of time to either not understand or fail to see as important these sorts of foundational doctrines. There will always be exceptions (such as the thief on the cross), but they aren't the norm.

That may well be the case, but a belief in what is stated in the Apostles Creed is the base line you've used to define who is or is not a Christian and coincidentally is also used for the same purpose in the forum charter. I raised it along with a few examples to illustrate that it isn't exactly definitive. The child expressing a simple faith may well grow into an adult expressing the same simple faith, but in my opinion simplicity of faith should not be confused with sincerity of faith. Given the collapse in church attendance in recent years the amount of religious instruction most people receive is rapid decline, as is their interest in receiving religious instruction. The implication yourself and others seem to take from this is that they've lost their faith but I'd suspect for many it is that they've returned to a simpler faith based on their understanding of what it means to be Christian in the context of their own conscience and traditions.

It's important to note that the creed presupposes the authority of scripture as that's where the content is drawn from. The question then becomes whether a position on human sexuality (or on anything) is in accordance with what scripture says, in context and in its totality.

As I say, I've no issue with limiting my use of the term Christian to those who are in broad agreement with the Apostles Creed. By the same token, I would take issue with stating that are either largely ignorant or in broad disagreement to your interpretation of the the scripture as not being Christian. For example of the former, the person that maintains a simple faith but rejects the church hierarchy. For example of the latter, the Bishop and Reverend for my previously linked article.

I think you're generally quite reasonable :-)

Thanks, I always make an attempt to be at least as reasonable as those I'm in conversation with, though don't always quite get there.

As @theological has said in other posts, a more fruitful conversation than a squabble over the definition of the word Christian might be to look at the reasons we differ on these sorts of matters in the first place, what presuppositions we bring to the table etc.

I think that in all honesty we're achieving both, albeit occasionally fractious. They key word in all of this from my perspective is tolerance.

smacl · 23-12-2019 7:30pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Sorry, missed this when I was replying yesterday. I'm not denying for a moment that we can load any term with subjective meaning, the question is whether that meaning corresponds with reality. Is such a question even valid, in your view?

The gender example is probably the best to illustrate my understanding of your position. A Christian is anyone who considers themselves to be such; a man/woman is anyone who considers themselves to be such. Is that a fair summary of how you would define what a man or woman is?

For the record, I don't believe that two men or two women can really be married, whatever the state says. The state doesn't own marriage. Ditto on gender. And I wholeheartedly believe that an adoptive father is indeed a real father. Being tolerant, I'm happy for others to disagree with me on any of these points. Tolerance means granting other views an equal right to exist, not the right to be seen as equally valid.

Also a bit late in the replies for the season that's in it. The approach I take to issues regarding sexual behaviour, gender identity and religious identity is to firstly consider who if anyone is being harmed by condoning it and conversely who is being harmed by objecting to it. Telling someone else how they should behave because their behaviour is an affront to your morality, which is what Folau is doing here, is both intolerant and greedy. Telling them they're going to hell, a concept they might well believe in themselves, on the basis of not adhering to your morality is hurtful and hence morally reprehensible.

I find it rather bizarre that those seeking to defend Folau are doing so on the basis of freedom of religious expression (i.e. a commonly accepted human right), while Folau's statements are homophobic and hence trampling on other people's human rights (freedom from discrimination).

With respect to reality, gay marriage and gender identity it is worth noting that these are real insofar as they're enshrined in our laws after going to the people to get their views on the matter. If, because of your religious beliefs, you don't consider a married gay couple to be 'really' married, or a transgender woman to be a 'real' woman I would suggest the problem is yours and not theirs. Nothing wrong with holding this belief but if you broadcast it and it causes serious offence to a lot of people is it unreasonable that you'll get judged on that basis?

ChrisJ84 · 24-12-2019 1:02am

smacl wrote: »

That may well be the case, but a belief in what is stated in the Apostles Creed is the base line you've used to define who is or is not a Christian and coincidentally is also used for the same purpose in the forum charter. I raised it along with a few examples to illustrate that it isn't exactly definitive. The child expressing a simple faith may well grow into an adult expressing the same simple faith, but in my opinion simplicity of faith should not be confused with sincerity of faith. Given the collapse in church attendance in recent years the amount of religious instruction most people receive is rapid decline, as is their interest in receiving religious instruction. The implication yourself and others seem to take from this is that they've lost their faith but I'd suspect for many it is that they've returned to a simpler faith based on their understanding of what it means to be Christian in the context of their own conscience and traditions.

I think the Apostles Creed is a good summary of central Christian doctrine, and has been used as a marker of Christian belief for many centuries. My point was simply that it is not exhaustive, and that it rests upon the presupposition that God has revealed himself in scripture. Of course, it can be absorbed into the same wholly subjective worldview that you suggest, and come to mean whatever an individual wants it to mean. But that just brings us back to the point at which our worldviews part ways.

smacl wrote: »

As I say, I've no issue with limiting my use of the term Christian to those who are in broad agreement with the Apostles Creed. By the same token, I would take issue with stating that are either largely ignorant or in broad disagreement to your interpretation of the the scripture as not being Christian. For example of the former, the person that maintains a simple faith but rejects the church hierarchy. For example of the latter, the Bishop and Reverend for my previously linked article.

If someone believes in Jesus as saviour and lord they are a Christian, I don't think you can get much broader than that. But even that is an objective statement, and must remain such for a concept like "Christian" to have any meaning whatsover. Otherwise, all we have is an incoherent post-modern mess. Personally, I'm not too keen on that idea

smacl wrote: »

Thanks, I always make an attempt to be at least as reasonable as those I'm in conversation with, though don't always quite get there.

I think that in all honesty we're achieving both, albeit occasionally fractious. They key word in all of this from my perspective is tolerance.

Agreed. In its way, I think the discussion of specific terms is very useful. I struggle to see why the difficulty (I would say impossibility) of defining simple terms like "Christian", "man" and "woman" that is imposed by your worldview represents a step forward. As theological has said in other posts, confusion now reigns supreme. Do you think any of these terms have meaning other than what is granted to them by the individual? In other words, if I feel that I am X, then I am X?

smacl wrote: »

Also a bit late in the replies for the season that's in it. The approach I take to issues regarding sexual behaviour, gender identity and religious identity is to firstly consider who if anyone is being harmed by condoning it and conversely who is being harmed by objecting to it. Telling someone else how they should behave because their behaviour is an affront to your morality, which is what Folau is doing here, is both intolerant and greedy. Telling them they're going to hell, a concept they might well believe in themselves, on the basis of not adhering to your morality is hurtful and hence morally reprehensible.

Really? I agree that we don't need to be needlessly rude and insensitive, but I don't think it's reasonable to attach such deep importance to hurt feelings. The only to avoid hurting feelings is to avoid disagreement altogether, something that is de-facto impossible if all we have is subjective truth. I find snide comments regarding my faith to be hurtful, but so what?

From my perspective, this kind of conclusion comes from putting ourselves in the place of God. If I am God, then my feelings are supremely important because I'm now the arbiter of truth. However, I'm still not clear how this works if we're all little gods.

smacl wrote: »

With respect to reality, gay marriage and gender identity it is worth noting that these are real insofar as they're enshrined in our laws after going to the people to get their views on the matter. If, because of your religious beliefs, you don't consider a married gay couple to be 'really' married, or a transgender woman to be a 'real' woman I would suggest the problem is yours and not theirs. Nothing wrong with holding this belief but if you broadcast it and it causes serious offence to a lot of people is it unreasonable that you'll get judged on that basis?

I think it's important to draw a distinction between discussing these things in the abstract in a forum like this, and how we would interact with with real people, in person. Speaking the truth in love is difficult, costly, and time consuming, but definitely possible. I've seen it with my own eyes.

It's also important to say that Christianity isn't about getting people to act in a certain way, stop doing certain things or start doing others. Everyone, regardless of who they are, needs first and foremost to come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, through faith. After that, everything begins to change. Specific sins will need to be addressed, for sure, but that's no different to me or any other Christian who has ever lived.

One other thing, have a very merry Christmas!

smacl · 24-12-2019 6:08pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

If someone believes in Jesus as saviour and lord they are a Christian, I don't think you can get much broader than that. But even that is an objective statement, and must remain such for a concept like "Christian" to have any meaning whatsover. Otherwise, all we have is an incoherent post-modern mess. Personally, I'm not too keen on that idea

Yet by that definition a Jehovah's Witness is a Christian, as is any other Gnostic, Dualist or non-Trinitarian Christian of which there are many groups some of which are quite large. The purpose of the Apostle's Creed for example has been described as a mechanism by which Trinitarian Christians can discriminate against Gnostic Christians. Finding an objective definition of Christian that is acceptable to all those who sincerely consider themselves to be Christian is perhaps not quite so simple.

Agreed. In its way, I think the discussion of specific terms is very useful. I struggle to see why the difficulty (I would say impossibility) of defining simple terms like "Christian", "man" and "woman" that is imposed by your worldview represents a step forward. As theological has said in other posts, confusion now reigns supreme. Do you think any of these terms have meaning other than what is granted to them by the individual? In other words, if I feel that I am X, then I am X?

The issue I have is that if I say that I'm X by what right do have to say that I'm not X, particularly where such a claim causes needless harm? Having grown up in an Ireland with state mandated homophobia and excessive abuse of power and discrimination by a monolithic church I've seen first hand the damage this type of dogmatic approach has had. I've good reason to believe the same is true for the majority of people in this country who have come to abhor discrimination and bigotry in its many guises. The 'turn or burn' style Christianity of Israel Folau is a good example of this and something that I'd guess most people in this country would consider deeply Unchristian.

Really? I agree that we don't need to be needlessly rude and insensitive, but I don't think it's reasonable to attach such deep importance to hurt feelings. The only to avoid hurting feelings is to avoid disagreement altogether, something that is de-facto impossible if all we have is subjective truth. I find snide comments regarding my faith to be hurtful, but so what?

I suspect you've got a false equivalence there. Evangelical Christians seek to convert others to their faith, which is going to place that belief system under critical scrutiny by those who already hold contrary beliefs. The LGBT community aren't trying to convert anyone to join their ranks, where being gay or transgender is not a matter of choice.

From my perspective, this kind of conclusion comes from putting ourselves in the place of God. If I am God, then my feelings are supremely important because I'm now the arbiter of truth. However, I'm still not clear how this works if we're all little gods.

That presupposes people share your belief in God and how God is manifest. This may be true in some cases but is more generally not.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between discussing these things in the abstract in a forum like this, and how we would interact with with real people, in person. Speaking the truth in love is difficult, costly, and time consuming, but definitely possible. I've seen it with my own eyes.

It's also important to say that Christianity isn't about getting people to act in a certain way, stop doing certain things or start doing others. Everyone, regardless of who they are, needs first and foremost to come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, through faith. After that, everything begins to change. Specific sins will need to be addressed, for sure, but that's no different to me or any other Christian who has ever lived.

That kind of illustrates my previous point. Those who wish to share your faith might want to come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Those who have a contrary belief system obviously do not and pressing them to do so comes across as aggressive to the extent it will engender a strong negative reaction. Have you considered that other peoples beliefs are as considered and sincere as your own?

One other thing, have a very merry Christmas!

And a very Merry Christmas to your good self as well

theological · 24-12-2019 8:05pm

smacl wrote: »

Yet by that definition a Jehovah's Witness is a Christian, as is any other Gnostic, Dualist or non-Trinitarian Christian of which there are many groups some of which are quite large. The purpose of the Apostle's Creed for example has been described as a mechanism by which Trinitarian Christians can discriminate against Gnostic Christians. Finding an objective definition of Christian that is acceptable to all those who sincerely consider themselves to be Christian is perhaps not quite so simple.

The vast majority of Christians throughout the ages have been Trinitarians. That is why we say that it is orthodoxy. This is the best definition of working out what is historically Christian. What has been held to since the Apostles. The Bible is a pretty good way of working that out.

Disagreement isn't "discrimination".

smacl wrote: »

The issue I have is that if I say that I'm X by what right do have to say that I'm not X, particularly where such a claim causes needless harm? Having grown up in an Ireland with state mandated homophobia and excessive abuse of power and discrimination by a monolithic church I've seen first hand the damage this type of dogmatic approach has had. I've good reason to believe the same is true for the majority of people in this country who have come to abhor discrimination and bigotry in its many guises. The 'turn or burn' style Christianity of Israel Folau is a good example of this and something that I'd guess most people in this country would consider deeply Unchristian.

In a free society people have freedom of expression. People can feel whatever way they like about my beliefs or anyone else's. I still continue to hold them irrespective of what people say or think, including what you project onto the majority of Irish people.

I couldn't care less if I have minority beliefs.

smacl wrote: »

I suspect you've got a false equivalence there. Evangelical Christians seek to convert others to their faith, which is going to place that belief system under critical scrutiny by those who already hold contrary beliefs. The LGBT community aren't trying to convert anyone to join their ranks, where being gay or transgender is not a matter of choice.

And freedom of religion and freedom of expression in a free country mean freedom to evangelise.

smacl wrote: »

That kind of illustrates my previous point. Those who wish to share your faith might want to come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Those who have a contrary belief system obviously do not and pressing them to do so comes across as aggressive to the extent it will engender a strong negative reaction. Have you considered that other peoples beliefs are as considered and sincere as your own?

See above. I don't see why people and their feelings should trump the rights of others to express themselves freely. I think America has a better balance on this than we have in Europe.

smacl · 24-12-2019 11:13pm

theological wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians throughout the ages have been Trinitarians. That is why we say that it is orthodoxy. This is the best definition of working out what is historically Christian. What has been held to since the Apostles. The Bible is a pretty good way of working that out.

Disagreement isn't "discrimination".

Possibly due in no small part by the genocide of dualist Christian's by the papacy during the Albigensian crusade. Trinitarian Christianities superior numbers have been achieved through brutality throughout history.

Interesting you favour America over Europe, seems to be the home of right wing everything, Christianity included.

theological · 24-12-2019 11:19pm

smacl wrote: »

Possibly due in no small part by the genocide of dualist Christian's by the papacy during the Albigensian crusade. Trinitarian Christianities superior numbers have been achieved through brutality throughout history.

Interesting you favour America over Europe, seems to be the home of right wing everything, Christianity included.

And who is saying that violence is an acceptable way of doing anything? More importantly, who is saying that I advocate for it?
Forgive me, but I'm not going down this particular rabbit hole with you.

I'm simply speaking of the substance of what Christians have believed for thousands of years.

As for right and left, freedoms have nothing to do with either. Including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If everything that offended someone was prohibited we couldn't say very much in any direction.

eagle eye · 25-12-2019 12:22am

Happy Christmas all.

ChrisJ84 · 02-01-2020 10:29am

smacl wrote: »

Yet by that definition a Jehovah's Witness is a Christian, as is any other Gnostic, Dualist or non-Trinitarian Christian of which there are many groups some of which are quite large. The purpose of the Apostle's Creed for example has been described as a mechanism by which Trinitarian Christians can discriminate against Gnostic Christians. Finding an objective definition of Christian that is acceptable to all those who sincerely consider themselves to be Christian is perhaps not quite so simple.

Only if you start emptying these terms of their objective meaning again. My base assumption is that "Christian" means something specific, whether that is acceptable to us or not. We either conform to it, or we don't. If a JW says to me, "oh I believe in Jesus as well" then my response is to ask exactly what they mean by that, and who they think Jesus is. It pretty soon becomes clear that we do not believe the same things, even though we use some of the same language.

The more error that is introduced the more the truth gets obscured, so if someone in a JW group or non-Trinitarian church does come to saving faith then my advice would be to leave, and find a home somewhere more orthodox.

smacl wrote: »

The issue I have is that if I say that I'm X by what right do have to say that I'm not X, particularly where such a claim causes needless harm? Having grown up in an Ireland with state mandated homophobia and excessive abuse of power and discrimination by a monolithic church I've seen first hand the damage this type of dogmatic approach has had. I've good reason to believe the same is true for the majority of people in this country who have come to abhor discrimination and bigotry in its many guises. The 'turn or burn' style Christianity of Israel Folau is a good example of this and something that I'd guess most people in this country would consider deeply Unchristian.

It is a very effective rhetorical device in our culture to paint biblical Christianity (or any objective belief system) in this way, but it's just as much an abuse of terms like "discrimination" and "harm" as how you've used the term "Christian." You don't need to define these words in any way, merely using them is enough.

smacl wrote: »

I suspect you've got a false equivalence there. Evangelical Christians seek to convert others to their faith, which is going to place that belief system under critical scrutiny by those who already hold contrary beliefs. The LGBT community aren't trying to convert anyone to join their ranks, where being gay or transgender is not a matter of choice.

So some hurt feelings are sacrosanct, and others aren't? Who decides this and why?

smacl wrote: »

That presupposes people share your belief in God and how God is manifest. This may be true in some cases but is more generally not.

No, it presuppose that the God of the bible is real whether anyone believes in him or not.

smacl wrote: »

That kind of illustrates my previous point. Those who wish to share your faith might want to come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Those who have a contrary belief system obviously do not and pressing them to do so comes across as aggressive to the extent it will engender a strong negative reaction. Have you considered that other peoples beliefs are as considered and sincere as your own?

Of course, but I still believe that they are sincerely wrong. I understand fully why you recoil from that kind of statement, I just don't buy into your subjective premises.

I believe that the things Christianity has to say about us, God and the life and death of Jesus Christ are objectively true regardless of what anyone wants or feels about the matter. The best thing that anyone can do is to come and see that these things are true, so it's hardly surprising that I'd want to tell others about them.

ChrisJ84 · 31-01-2020 9:46pm

Israel Folau has found a new club after all: https://www.planetrugby.com/israel-folau-finds-new-club-in-super-league/

but there are already signs that this story probably hasn't run its course:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/31/super-league-clubs-endorse-legal-action-warning-catalans-dragons-israel-folau-sponsorship

Rodin · 31-01-2020 9:49pm

We're far too kind to those believing in spirits in the sky as it is.

sydthebeat · 31-01-2020 10:05pm

It's hilarious that this outspoken Christian signs a big money contract which stipulates he has to shut up.... So much for his precious "freedom of speech"

The common thread through all of folaus career has been money.... I wonder how does that sit with his evangelicalism

Salary Negotiator · 31-01-2020 10:11pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

It's hilarious that this outspoken Christian signs a big money contract which stipulates he has to shut up.... So much for his precious "freedom of speech"

The common thread through all of folaus career has been money.... I wonder how does that sit with his evangelicalism

Folau is just a bigot and a homophobe who uses religion to justify his prejudices. He has no issue picking and choosing which parts of the bible he follows yet criticises others for living their lives.

eagle eye · 31-01-2020 10:59pm

Salary Negotiator wrote:

Folau is just a bigot and a homophobe who uses religion to justify his prejudices. He has no issue picking and choosing which parts of the bible he follows yet criticises others for living their lives.

Can you post a quote supporting your statement please.
And I don't want a quote from the Bible posted by him as proof because in many people's opinion it's not.
I want you to show me where he actually said something bigoted and something homophobic.

ChrisJ84 · 31-01-2020 11:03pm

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Folau is just a bigot and a homophobe who uses religion to justify his prejudices. He has no issue picking and choosing which parts of the bible he follows yet criticises others for living their lives.

And yet, from what I know about him I don't think any of the other clubs planned responses (holding LGBT events when they play the Dragons etc.) will bother or offend him in the slightest. Kind of puts the lie to the idea that he's a mouth breathing homophobe, doesn't it?

And I'm pretty sure the Super League didn't care in the slightest about the LGBT community until it made business sense to do so.

Salary Negotiator · 31-01-2020 11:19pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Can you post a quote supporting your statement please.
And I don't want a quote from the Bible posted by him as proof because in many people's opinion it's not.
I want you to show me where he actually said something bigoted and something homophobic.

Nah, he’s said what he’s said and other religious people or homophobes won’t have an issue with it or agree that it was homophobic so I’m not going to bother.

Salary Negotiator · 31-01-2020 11:24pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

And yet, from what I know about him I don't think any of the other clubs planned responses (holding LGBT events when they play the Dragons etc.) will bother or offend him in the slightest. Kind of puts the lie to the idea that he's a mouth breathing homophobe, doesn't it?

And I'm pretty sure the Super League didn't care in the slightest about the LGBT community until it made business sense to do so.

I’ll judge him by his words and actions not some random internet poster’s opinions of him. Particularly when you share a belief system that actively discriminates against gays, women amongst others.

ChrisJ84 · 31-01-2020 11:41pm

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I’ll judge him

I hope the irony of this isn't lost on you?!

And I'm pretty sure we're all just random internet posters, offering our opinions.

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments