Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

troyzer · 17-05-2019 1:04pm

Nick Park wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Did anyone stop him from doing this? No.

In that way, it enjoys the same privileges of other forms of speech. You want a super duper class of speech which means you're not allowed to criticise religious speech and react to it.

Being religious doesn't mean it's sacred to everyone.

No, I want people (including atheists and homosexuals) to be able to exercise their basic human rights without being prosecuted, discriminated against, or sacked for doing so.

For what it's worth, I think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, but he has the right to do so - as do you. He should be free to say what he said, without losing his job. And you should be free to advocate removing his human rights without you losing your job (if you have one). I supported the removal of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution - but woe betide anyone who blasphemes against our secular sensitivities.

Alright well I'll ask you then.

Would you extend the same courtesy to an open and proud Nazi?

You're completely ignoring that a core function of his role is to be an ambassador for the sport and country. He doesn't flip burgers at the back of McDonald's. He's an incredibly public figure who has a fiduciary responsibility to both his employer and his sponsors.

Not only did he know this but it's exactly WHY he felt so emboldened to do it

Dirkziggler · 17-05-2019 1:36pm

amcalester wrote: »

If you want to follow the word of god then read the koran, otherwise you’re just reading someone’s interpretation (of an interpretation).

The Q’uran is as fiction as the rest of the religious books or whatever you want to call them.

theological · 17-05-2019 1:38pm

Being a Bible believing Christian is the new blasphemy. The gospel is offensive because the gospel calls people to listen to hard truths that we have rejected God and we've lived in a way that is displeasing to Him. (Romans 3:23)

People interpret the Christian gospel as being "I am better than you". However, that isn't the case. Christians are simply those who have heard God and realised that they need His mercy, and as a result of that want the same for others too. (1 Peter 3:15).

Given the bedrock assumptions of the Christian faith, it is loving to call people away from sin that leads to destruction in our lives here and now and in the life to come to a new life with Christ which provides us with a right relationship with God both now and into eternity. (2 Corinthians 5:17, Romans 12:1)

Worshipping sexuality or anything else instead of God is just bound to lead to disappointment - because they aren't God.

They bound to fall short because they cannot fill God's place. Unrealistic expectations lead to unnecessary disappointments. Instead of chasing after things that provide temporal satisfaction, perhaps we should find the one who helps us to see everything else in it's right place and find our satisfaction in Him and in the gospel of His Son.

I'm not hugely interested in what the world regards as being "righteous", because ultimately it doesn't matter. God is the one who will have the final say (Psalm 2).

Mark 8:34-38 wrote:

And calling the crowd to Him with his disciples, He said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Respect where respect is due. Israel Folau has understood his Bible when it tells us of sacrificing our lives for Christ.

In an atheistic worldview - right and wrong is only a matter of subjective preference and as a result an utterly meaningless basis for living by. I'm much more concerned about the objective judgement of Jesus Christ when He returns to judge the living and the dead. That's the only judgement that matters.

amcalester · 17-05-2019 1:44pm

Dirkziggler wrote: »

The Q’uran is as fiction as the rest of the religious books or whatever you want to call them.

Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.

salmocab · 17-05-2019 1:45pm

theological wrote: »

In an atheistic worldview - right and wrong is only a matter of subjective preference and as a result an utterly meaningless basis for living by. I'm much more concerned about the objective judgement of Jesus Christ when He returns to judge the living and the dead. That's the only judgement that matters.

Meaningless to you just like an atheist thinks following teachings of something that doesn’t exist is meaningless.

homer911 · 17-05-2019 1:49pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

directly from god???

no he didnt. 100% no he did not.

directly from a book written by man, many different men, long long ago..... men you have accepted can be corrupted and be fallible.... absolutely.

were those words homophobic and hateful... 100% yes absolutely.
is israel folau hypocritical in his selection of who to threaten with hell... as a tattooed man, who gets haircuts (leviticus 19:28) yes 100% he is.

The irony here of someone quoting the bible, who doesn't understand what the bible is saying. Israel quoted from Galatians, from a letter written to Christians reminding them of behaviours that are not consistent with the Christian faith. Homosexual behaviour was included in a list of behaviours. Where is the hatred in this passage? If I am one of the cohorts on this list should I be upset or offended? If I am, why? Do I consider myself a Christian and Paul is telling me I need to change?

Or are you suggesting that Israel usurped this passage to "his own homophobic ends"? I don't think so. If I see someone about to step out into the road in front of a truck, do I intervene?

Wheety · 17-05-2019 1:51pm

I know this is the Christianity forum and I may get in trouble for saying this but it always strikes me when religious people say stuff like this and have other people defend them. It's just pure luck that you were born into your religion. If you were born into or raised by a different family, you'd probably believe a different God was the one and only. What makes you think you're correct now?

It's better for religious nuts to not damn others to hell in public and keep their beliefs to themselves. What made Folau decide to broadcast this opinion? Because that's all it is. If I followed a cult which said all black people are going to hell and I was in a position to broadcast this on social media to thousands of followers, I'd be rightly chastised for it.

Dirkziggler · 17-05-2019 1:56pm

amcalester wrote: »

Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.

Religion is realistically mans understanding of another mans understanding.

sydthebeat · 17-05-2019 2:03pm

homer911 wrote: »

Or are you suggesting that Israel usurped this passage to "his own homophobic ends"?

no i am not, i am saying the words he used are inherently homophobic.
Words that the majority of right minded christians do not accept as being truth.
Words that modern society completely refutes and does not accept, and rightly so.

i ask you homer....
do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?

if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

so please answer my question.... do you?

theological · 17-05-2019 2:12pm

Who said that Christian beliefs are always determined on the basis of upbringing? That isn't necessarily true, and I'd argue it's increasingly untrue. Judging on the basis of my Christian friends, and a lot of people in my church, their beliefs differ to their family in many cases, and many have come to faith on the basis of their own investigating of the eyewitness accounts that we have of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

It's potentially true to say that if Christianity isn't based on God's word that it isn't worth listening to. The inverse is that if Jesus Christ was who He said He was and who people witnessed Him to be in history then a lot depends on what He has said including our eternal destiny. That isn't a mere "opinion" as much as you'd like to say it is. In that scenario the "chastisement" of disgruntled people is worth bearing for the better cause of offering them salvation.

As for whether or not his words are "inherently homophobic" - I used to care a lot about this kind of name calling, but at this stage it's just boring. We've heard it all before. Following Jesus is more important than following you. If that's what you want to call my faith, go for it. I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late.

Dirkziggler · 17-05-2019 2:17pm

homer911 wrote: »

If I see someone about to step out into the road in front of a truck, do I intervene?

What about? You see the most susceptible and vulnerable of society believe harmful doctrine and then spreading harmful doctrine.

Would you intervene?

sydthebeat · 17-05-2019 2:18pm

theological wrote: »

I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late.

your belief that they actually have something to repent from is the basis for society seeing your belief as hateful.

you might think you are lovingly "asking them to repent" but you may as well be asking them to stop breathing.

your belief is hateful.... and i feel sorry for you that you dont see this.

Wheety · 17-05-2019 2:19pm

Why did you not use your normal account to say this instead of setting up a new one?

hots · 17-05-2019 2:34pm

Dirkziggler wrote: »

But he’s not he has signed a non discriminatory and To not bring R.A into disrepute both conditions are breached by his words. If a Garda signs a contract when joining the AGS not to mix or associate with subversives and does so he gets sacked.

I was agreeing with you, he needs to live with the consequences of his words.

recedite · 17-05-2019 2:51pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?
if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

There are many kinds of aberrant sexual beviours; homosexuals, sado-masochists, gimps, paedophiles. I don't want to delve into all these, nor do I care too much what all these people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they are all consenting adults.
But I refuse to accept these as "normal" behaviour when they are not. They are all deviant in some way. I don't need a holy book to tell me that.
The LGBT agenda seeks to normalise that which is not normal.

It started off with decriminalising gay sex, which was fine. Then it moved on to civil partnerships, which was also fine.
Then it moved on to saying a homosexual marriage is the exact same as a heterosexual marriage, which is untrue. Two homosexuals cannot produce children without the help of a third person.
Then it turned its attention to the kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes. Folau has been harassed and bullied just because he quoted scripture.

The LGBT community are entitled to hold and express their views, but equally others are entitled to hold and express a different view.

amcalester · 17-05-2019 2:58pm

recedite wrote: »

There are many kinds of aberrant sexual beviours; homosexuals, sado-masochists, gimps, paedophiles. I don't want to delve into all these, nor do I care too much what all these people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they are all consenting adults.
But I refuse to accept these as "normal" behaviour when they are not. They are all deviant in some way. I don't need a holy book to tell me that.
The LGBT agenda seeks to normalise that which is not normal.

It started off with decriminalising gay sex, which was fine. Then it moved on to civil partnerships, which was also fine.
Then it moved on to saying a homosexual marriage is the exact same as a heterosexual marriage, which is untrue. Two homosexuals cannot produce children without the help of a third person.
Then it turned its attention to the kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes. Folau has been harassed and bullied just because he quoted scripture.

The LGBT community are entitled to hold and express their views, but equally others are entitled to hold and express a different view.

That's a very long winded way of outing yourself as a homophobe.

recedite · 17-05-2019 3:09pm

Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes

Right on cue....

amcalester wrote: »

That's a very long winded way of outing yourself as a homophobe.

But its water off a duck's back at this stage. Label away...

homer911 · 17-05-2019 4:23pm

amcalester wrote: »

Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.

Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret

troyzer · 17-05-2019 4:29pm

homer911 wrote: »

amcalester wrote: »

Absolutely, but it at least claims to be the literal word of god whereas the bible has undergone I don't know how many translations and iterations.

Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

amcalester · 17-05-2019 4:37pm

homer911 wrote: »

Oh please! Get informed before you start repeating this drivel. Modern translations of the bible all go back to the oldest scripts available and are translated into a modern understanding wheras the muslim scriptures are shown to be highly contradictory and difficult to interpret

Do you not see any irony in criticising the koran for being contradictory?

And those oldest scripts were written how long after the death of Jesus?

Even translating into a modern understanding implies that the understanding has changed over time, so how can someone say they follow the literal word of god when you've admitted it's the current best guess of what was written down years after he died.

Not exactly a solid foundation.

homer911 · 17-05-2019 4:38pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

no i am not, i am saying the words he used are inherently homophobic.
Words that the majority of right minded christians do not accept as being truth.
Words that modern society completely refutes and does not accept, and rightly so.

i ask you homer....
do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?

if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

so please answer my question.... do you?

I have a number of gay friends and colleagues, just as I have straight friends and colleagues. We are all sinners. If I choose to use the bible to point out the need for Christ to my straight friends, why should I not do this to my gay friends, in a way that is appropriate to each of them?

I serve an unchanging God, who exists outside of time and space, having created them both. Forgive me for holding to biblical teaching when its not "politically correct".

The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?

homer911 · 17-05-2019 4:39pm

amcalester wrote: »

Do you not see any irony in criticising the koran for being contradictory?

And those oldest scripts were written how long after the death of Jesus?

Even translating into a modern understanding implies that the understanding has changed over time, so how can someone say they follow the literal word of god when you've admitted it's the current best guess of what was written down years after he died.

Not exactly a solid foundation.

Let's politely agree to disagree until you have done your research

amcalester · 17-05-2019 4:42pm

homer911 wrote: »

The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?

And the church had a fairly large role in perpetuating that subjugation of women.

I don't think it's any coincidence that as the church's influence wanes women's right have been recognised more and more.

amcalester · 17-05-2019 4:45pm

homer911 wrote: »

Let's politely agree to disagree until you have done your research

Why don't you point out where I have said something that isn't correct?

troyzer · 17-05-2019 4:53pm

homer911 wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

no i am not, i am saying the words he used are inherently homophobic.
Words that the majority of right minded christians do not accept as being truth.
Words that modern society completely refutes and does not accept, and rightly so.

i ask you homer....
do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?

if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

so please answer my question.... do you?

I have a number of gay friends and colleagues, just as I have straight friends and colleagues. We are all sinners. If I choose to use the bible to point out the need for Christ to my straight friends, why should I not do this to my gay friends, in a way that is appropriate to each of them?

I serve an unchanging God, who exists outside of time and space, having created them both. Forgive me for holding to biblical teaching when its not "politically correct".

The pendulum swings back and forth. It wasn't so long ago that society thought it was perfectly fine to objectify women, or make lewd comments about them or to harass them. Where was your righteous morality then?

So you're saying it's better now that women aren't objectified? That was due to the advance of moral relativism and secular ethics in spite of Christian moralising.

smacl · 17-05-2019 6:02pm

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I want people (including atheists and homosexuals) to be able to exercise their basic human rights without being prosecuted, discriminated against, or sacked for doing so.

For what it's worth, I think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, but he has the right to do so - as do you. He should be free to say what he said, without losing his job. And you should be free to advocate removing his human rights without you losing your job (if you have one). I supported the removal of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution - but woe betide anyone who blasphemes against our secular sensitivities.

Nick, can I ask why exactly you think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, if not for publicly advocating homophobia?

For what it is worth, I think it was acting like a jerk, via breach of contract, that lost him his job, and rightly so.

PopePalpatine · 18-05-2019 1:14pm

I give it a week before he finds a cushy number on the right wing speech circuit.

Turtwig · 18-05-2019 8:57pm

Mod Note:

Some posts carded, others could have been too.

This is the Christianity Forum. The purpose of this thread is to discussion Israel Folau's sacking and whether it was justfied. It is NOT a thread for a wider discussion on Christianity. It not a thread where Christian' should be expected to defend every aspect of their faith and it is most certainly not a thread for posters to liberally imply their faith is ficititious.
It is also not a place to label posters as bigots or homophobes.

A civil discussion can be had here. No need for personal labelling and ridiculing.

Thanks

(Thread re-opened)

robinph · 18-05-2019 9:00pm

Israel Folau is the one who has been sacked and made the initial comments.

Turtwig · 18-05-2019 9:05pm

robinph wrote: »

Israel Folau is the one who has been sacked and made the initial comments.

Ahem.
fixed.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2019 10:33pm

recedite wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you believe a sexual act between two loving men, or women, is an abomination?
if you do, they im sorry to tell you, but you are homophobic.

There are many kinds of aberrant sexual beviours; homosexuals, sado-masochists, gimps, paedophiles. I don't want to delve into all these, nor do I care too much what all these people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they are all consenting adults.
But I refuse to accept these as "normal" behaviour when they are not. They are all deviant in some way. I don't need a holy book to tell me that.
The LGBT agenda seeks to normalise that which is not normal.

It started off with decriminalising gay sex, which was fine. Then it moved on to civil partnerships, which was also fine.
Then it moved on to saying a homosexual marriage is the exact same as a heterosexual marriage, which is untrue. Two homosexuals cannot produce children without the help of a third person.
Then it turned its attention to the kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/03/tavistock-centre-gender-identity-clinic-accused-fast-tracking-young-adults

Now it seeks to punish anyone who does not share the LGBT view of things, labeling them as homophobes. Folau has been harassed and bullied just because he quoted scripture.

The LGBT community are entitled to hold and express their views, but equally others are entitled to hold and express a different view.

You succintly chart the progress of the LGBT agenda. You can add non-opt out teaching of primary school kids in the UK, normalising families with two mammies or daddies.

Question for you out of curiousity. (I don't want to derail the thread so won't further a discussion on a reply)

You see homosexuality as aberrant. On what basis do you conclude that? Physically not matched for sex, not able to produce offspring?

Do you hold to naturalistic ToE? If so, how can anything be aberrant? Whats fit survives and homosexuality has survived? So is clearly fit?

If homosexuality is gene based then the current spannering (by which homosexuals may be able to have more kids than before) would see homosexuality increase. The environment (social attitudes to homosexuality, surrogacy, etc. being mere selection factors rendering homosexuality fitter than before).

It's not like you hold evolution had stopped ☺

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 12:46am

smacl wrote:

Nick, can I ask why exactly you think Israel Folau acted like a jerk, if not for publicly advocating homophobia?

Probably because what he said was lacking in any nuance.

Unrepentent sinners might be going to hell, but by quoting a snippet of scripture he could expect folk, who are completely blind (i.e.the lost) to the wholer scheme, to insert their own unnuanced take. They read blame, punishment, condemnation into it. And react badly.

He ought have foreseen that - since one the first realisations of a person coming to see is that the world is, (as the bible makes clear), blind.

He ought have realised his limitations and, arguably kept his mouth shut.

Nevertheless, the warning is there , and insofar as a snippet goes, is valid.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 9:01am

sydthebeat wrote: »

theological wrote: »

I'm more interested in being faithful to God and His Word, and loving others enough to encourage them to repent before it is too late.

your belief that they actually have something to repent from is the basis for society seeing your belief as hateful.

you might think you are lovingly "asking them to repent" but you may as well be asking them to stop breathing.

your belief is hateful.... and i feel sorry for you that you dont see this.

Much is said about homosexuals not being able to help the fact they are homosexual. "They might as well be asked not to breathe"

Are you assuming holding the 'hateful' belief is any different? We are, after all, born again this way.

Maybe your starting point is that the bible is untrue, therefore all beliefs that arise in relation to it are really a choice.

Wouldn't that merely be inserting your beliefs onto my beliefs.

Since you can't show either my beliefs false or your beliefs true, things are somewhat stalemate.

You'd be left holding onto a majority view for your foundation. Not only is your view not even close to a majority in the world. But the might is right argument is very, very problematic.

amcalester · 19-05-2019 9:07am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Much is said about homosexuals not being able to help the fact they are homosexual. "They might as well be asked not to breathe"

Are you assuming holding the 'hateful' belief is any different? We are, after all, born again this way.

Maybe your starting point is that the bible is untrue, therefore all beliefs that arise in relation to it are really a choice.

Wouldn't that merely be inserting your beliefs onto my beliefs.

Since you can't show either my beliefs false or your beliefs true, things are somewhat stalemate.

You'd be left holding onto a majority view for your foundation. Not only is your view not even close to a majority in the world. But the might is right argument is very, very problematic.

Nobody is born believing in god, it’s learned behavior.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 12:10pm

amcalester wrote: »

Nobody is born believing in god

Indeed. They are born again though. Not for no reason that one of the many ways in which the transformation is described in the Bible includes this way of describing it. It's as fundamental a transformation as being born in the first place.

it’s learned behavior.

You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so.

But it's just a belief system.

* I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever.

amcalester · 19-05-2019 1:39pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. They are born again though

You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so.

But it's just a belief system.

* I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever.

Born again figuratively speaking I assume? It’s always important to establish whether religious people are speaking literally or figuratively because they’ve been known to pick and chose depending on what they’re saying and their particular religious text says.

No, it’s a fact that religion in all cases is learned behavior it’s not in anyway innate.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 1:51pm

Troyzer wrote:

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

☺

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 1:54pm

amcalester wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. They are born again though

You believe it's always* learned behaviour, you mean. Your worldview belief system leads you to conclude so.

But it's just a belief system.

* I'd agree that it's frequently, or perhaps even mostly learned behaviour: cultural Christianity or Islam or whatever.

Born again figuratively speaking I assume? It’s always important to establish whether religious people are speaking literally or figuratively because they’ve been known to pick and chose depending on what they’re saying and their particular religious text says.

No, it’s a fact that religion in all cases is learned behavior it’s not in anyway innate.

Literally. 'Again', because they were born once before. 'Born' because they were born spiritually for the first time.

How does one demonstrate this 'fact'?

troyzer · 19-05-2019 1:54pm

People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.

troyzer · 19-05-2019 1:56pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Troyzer wrote:

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

☺

You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration? Jesus was born in the summer.

C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 2:17pm

troyzer wrote: »

People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

I'm not sure what the nazi reference serves to achieve, other than to suppose every one need put his belief on a par with nazi beliefs?

We are defending hos religion (some because they share his religion and views (if not quite lacking the nuance his views lacked). Others, even if they don't share his religion or view, see that one belief system (secularism) is attempting to suppress another belief system.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.

Not sure how you figure that. He is expressing a religious belief.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 2:24pm

troyzer wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Troyzer wrote:

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

☺

You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration?

Exactly.

C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.

It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E.

Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming.

Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes.

Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past

troyzer · 19-05-2019 2:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

I'm not sure what the nazi reference serves to achieve, other than to suppose every one need put his belief on a par with nazi beliefs?

We are defending hos religion (some because they share his religion and views (if not quite lacking the nuance his views lacked). Others, even if they don't share his religion or view, see that one belief system (secularism) is attempting to suppress another belief system.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.

Not sure how you figure that. He is expressing a religious belief.

I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.

If you want to make it about his religion then fine, but you're completely missing the point.

He would have been sacked whether he was religious or a nazi. It's his views that are unacceptable.

There are certain inalienable rights that we believe in as western societies and no amount of "But my religion says" can counter that. You live in a secular society, not a theocratic one. Your views are not more important just because they're religious.

The content of your words are judged independently of their motivation. Be they theological, philosophical or just political.

If you stand up as a highly public figure with a job that relies on you having a positive public image and say "Women are inferior and shouldn't have the vote or hold political office" you are going to get sacked. It doesn't matter if you're saying it because you're a Muslim or just a gigantic arsehole.

We don't care that he's a Christian. We care that he's a bigot.

Stop pretending he's a martyr, he's not. Nobody cares why he's a disgrace, we care that he IS a disgrace.

theological · 19-05-2019 2:30pm

troyzer wrote: »

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

Let me provide some light fact checking on this point.

"The New Testament was literally designed by committee" - Not exactly. All of the New Testament texts were used throughout the history of the early church. One can see evidence of this through the texts that were cited extensively by the church fathers throughout the second century and others in the church.

Were the texts of the New Testament "designed" at the Council of Nicea? No.

Were the books of the New Testament agreed upon by the church at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

Was Jesus "decided" to be the Son of God at the Council of Nicea? No. This was clear from the early church from the New Testament letters and the New Testament gospels which date to the first century.

Was the Arian heresy (which denied that God the Son existed before the incarnation) condemned at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

You say these things as if we aren't familiar with the basics of Christian history, but that's not true. If we've decided to live for Jesus in an age that holds it in derision then you can be sure we've done our homework before stepping up to the plate. Jesus was clear, count the cost before following Him. (Luke 14:25-33)

troyzer wrote: »

People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.

You're correct. I wouldn't defend Nazi views.

Christianity bears no similarity to Nazism which was a political system which oppresses others. Christianity isn't a political religion. Jesus Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" when questioned by Pilate (John 18:36). I don't agree that it should be made into a political religion either.

In this scenario, declaring Christian faith and belief doesn't constitute genuine oppression. People can either engage with him or walk on by. That's the nature of free speech.

I'm not particularly interested in him specifically however. I am interested in defending the gospel and standing for Jesus Christ.

troyzer · 19-05-2019 2:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Troyzer wrote:

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

325 CE.

smacl taught me a new word recently: syncretic (the practice of new religions absorbing and adapting older systems by way of easing themselves in)

Secular belief systems (based on philosophy) seem to be doing the same adapting B.C. / A.D. as well as Xmas

☺

You mean the Christmas you took from the pagans as the solstice celebration?

Exactly.

C.E. or common era is actually a really good descriptor. Year of our lord hardly applies to people or even entire countries who don't share the Christian faith but due to many factors, mostly colonialism, share the same calendar. It's common to us all. The common era.

It was common to us all prior to 0 C.E.

Simple laying of the new religious view onto the old. The only sense it makes is avoiding the difficulty in actually wiping out the old system, given how embedded dates and centuries are centred around Christ coming.

Marathon becomes Snickers to suit the new mood. Nothing else changes.

Syncretism. Secularism showing the same tendencies as religions past

And religions show the tendencies of the religions before them.

I have no problem with this. Cultural appropriation is not exactly new. I can still enjoy Superman even though his entire character is heavily influenced by the character of Jesus who in turn was heavily influenced by Horus and a few other ancient deities who in turn were probably influenced by some proto Indo-European deity we have no written record of.

troyzer · 19-05-2019 2:37pm

theological wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

The new testament was literally designed by committee at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Mortal men, many of them politicians with agendas, editorialised the word of God.

This committee was also the one that decided that Jesus was the son of God.

Let me provide some light fact checking on this point.

"The New Testament was literally designed by committee" - Not exactly. All of the New Testament texts were used throughout the history of the early church. One can see evidence of this through the texts that were cited extensively by the church fathers throughout the second century and others in the church.

Were the texts of the New Testament "designed" at the Council of Nicea? No.

Were the books of the New Testament agreed upon by the church at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

Was Jesus "decided" to be the Son of God at the Council of Nicea? No. This was clear from the early church from the New Testament letters and the New Testament gospels which date to the first century.

Was the Arian heresy (which denied that God the Son existed before the incarnation) condemned at the Council of Nicea? Yes.

You say these things as if we aren't familiar with the basics of Christian history, but that's not true. If we've decided to live for Jesus in an age that holds it in derision then you can be sure we've done our homework before stepping up to the plate. Jesus was clear, count the cost before following Him. (Luke 14:25-33)

troyzer wrote: »

People keep avoiding my point.

You wouldn't be defending him if he was a nazi. You are not defending his views, you're defending his religion.

And this has nothing to do with his religion.

You're correct. I wouldn't defend Nazi views.

Christianity bears no similarity to Nazism which was a political system which oppresses others. Christianity isn't a political religion. Jesus Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" when questioned by Pilate (John 18:36). I don't agree that it should be made into a political religion either.

In this scenario, declaring Christian faith and belief doesn't constitute genuine oppression. People can either engage with him or walk on by. That's the nature of free speech.

I'm not particularly interested in him specifically however. I am interested in defending the gospel and standing for Jesus Christ.

I didn't mean to imply that it was written at the council. By designed I mean created, edited. It was assembled at the council by normal people with agendas.

The reason why some books are considered gospel and others aren't is entirely arbitrary and motivated by the politics of the day.

You may call Arianism heresy now, but to many back then it wasn't. The fact remains that a lot of people say in a room and decided, by committee, that Jesus was the son of God and that's now official policy. The new testament they put together reflected this.

The point being that a lot of the absolutely core principles of Christianity were very much after the fact.

theological · 19-05-2019 2:43pm

troyzer wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply that it was written at the council. By designed I mean created, edited. It was assembled at the council by normal people with agendas.

The reason why some books are considered gospel and others aren't is entirely arbitrary and motivated by the politics of the day.

You may call Arianism heresy now, but to many back then it wasn't. The fact remains that a lot of people say in a room and decided, by committee, that Jesus was the son of God and that's now official policy. The new testament they put together reflected this.

The point being that a lot of the absolutely core principles of Christianity were very much after the fact.

The New Testament wasn't "created" at the Council of Nicea. Nor was the text "edited". The texts of the New Testament preexist the Council by centuries. All that was agreed at the Council of Nicea was which texts are a part of the Biblical canon.

The reason why the New Testament texts are read to this day are because they were the authoritative texts from the first century. That's basic. The gnostic gospels and other texts were written much later. That's the reason why we don't use them.

I can say that Arianism is a heresy based on the first century New Testament documents. I don't have to rely on anybody in a room, I can check these things based on what God has spoken in His Word.

recedite · 19-05-2019 2:43pm

troyzer wrote: »

I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.

So what. A nazi might make the trains run on time. Does that mean a proper train service is undesirable?
Its obvious what you are up to here. Anyone who opposes your view is being labelled as a nazi.

troyzer · 19-05-2019 2:54pm

theological wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply that it was written at the council. By designed I mean created, edited. It was assembled at the council by normal people with agendas.

The reason why some books are considered gospel and others aren't is entirely arbitrary and motivated by the politics of the day.

You may call Arianism heresy now, but to many back then it wasn't. The fact remains that a lot of people say in a room and decided, by committee, that Jesus was the son of God and that's now official policy. The new testament they put together reflected this.

The point being that a lot of the absolutely core principles of Christianity were very much after the fact.

The New Testament wasn't "created" at the Council of Nicea. Nor was the text "edited". The texts of the New Testament preexist the Council by centuries. All that was agreed at the Council of Nicea was which texts are a part of the Biblical canon.

The reason why the New Testament texts are read to this day are because they were the authoritative texts from the first century. That's basic. The gnostic gospels and other texts were written much later. That's the reason why we don't use them.

I can say that Arianism is a heresy based on the first century New Testament documents. I don't have to rely on anybody in a room, I can check these things based on what God has spoken in His Word.

You're not actually disagreeing with me. You say they designed the canon of the Bible. That's all I'm saying. They editorialised and decided what goes in the book and what doesn't.

Not all of the current gospels were written in the first century, you know this. Most biblical scholars think John for example was a much later than the other three, none of which were written around or even shortly after the death of Jesus.

Not all of the gnostic gospels are later as well. There is controversy over the Gospel of Thomas which may actually be older than John. It's at most the same age. Certainly it would have been circulated at the same time.

Why is Thomas not in there but John is? There's no obvious reason why other than the fact that it doesn't say Jesus is the son of God.

Your logic is circular here. You say you know Arianism is wrong because it says it in the book. The book designed by the same committee which decided that Arianism was wrong.

You don't see a problem with this?

troyzer · 19-05-2019 2:55pm

recedite wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

I'm not saying he's a Nazi. But his views are consistent with something a Nazi might say.

So what. A nazi might make the trains run on time. Does that mean a proper train service is undesirable?
Its obvious what you are up to here. Anyone who opposes your view is being labelled as a nazi.

I have no idea what you mean about the trains and no, I'm not trying to call him a Nazi.

Let's use another term. Let's say he was a scientologist who thought homosexuality was a sin, would you be defending him then?

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments