Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

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?

recedite · 19-05-2019 3:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

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 ☺

I do believe in evolution, and you raise an interesting point (but as you say, it risks going somewhat off topic)
Basically, not every aberrant behaviour is a disadvantage to the society overall, though it may be a disadvantage to the individual.
For example in an primitive society, the insomniac "night owl" would have been useful to have around as a guard, in case of prowling animal or human attacks.
The overly adventurous/ hyperactive/ attention deficit disorder personality is useful for pioneering new territory, and finding out here new hazards (eg locating shark infested waters by swimming into them)
The homosexual man may have been a useful person to leave guarding the women and children while the other men were out hunting (can't be leaving a heterosexual man behind with the ladies

)

Then there is another class of people who evolution may select for in the same way it selects for predators and parasites. These would be the psyhopaths, the paedophiles, thieves, con-men and other nasty types.
They exploit the altruistic behaviour of society around them, taking from it but contributing nothing. This kind of aberrant behaviour is the opposite to the first kind. It may confer an advantage on the individual (eg a free ride) but disadvantage on their society. Hence, like predators and parasites, the host society can only bear a small number of them before it either reacts against them or fails.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you hold to naturalistic ToE?

I have no idea what that means, unfortunately.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 5:45pm

Troyzer wrote:

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

Only peripherally. The reasoning is completely different. The Nazis saw homosexuality as inferior. Whereas there will be people who were homosexuals in heaven (it appears as if sexuality full stop won't be a feature of heaven, however counter-intuitive that sounds).
Its unrepenant sinners of whatever hue who will be unfit for heaven.

And those in hell will have, of course, chosen to be there ... which is markedly different to homosexuals who ended up in Auschwitz.

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

Its not about my wanting it. Folau is quoting scripture accurately. It is about religion until demonstrated otherwise.

What your point that is perpetually missed?

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

Unacceptable to a those with a secular belief system which pretends to include but reveals its true colours when push comes to shove.

Belief system A decides that belief system B can't express.

There are certain inalienable rights that we believe in as western societies

Inalienable implies objective: true at all times and places. There are no inalienable rights since there is no way to objectivize them. There are rights considered rights by the dominant mood of the times in a particular place and time is all.

and no amount of "But my religion says" can counter that.

Just as no amount of secular religion (belief/faith based) can support it.

You've got might is right. Is all.

You live in a secular society, not a theocratic one. Your views are not more important just because they're religious.

I accept that at this point the secular religion is dominant. That might is right, right now.

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

Which is a nonsense. Like that Nazi nonsense. The whole matters. Not the edited highlights.

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.

I accept that there is a utility argument: sometimes its wise to keep schtum. But only because its self beneficial if that's your priority, not because there isn't something that you are entitled to say.

Standing up against secular religion might not get you burnt at the stake. But it can your career.

We

.. secular churchgoers

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

a.k.a. a heretic in another age

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

Thus sayeth the lord.

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 6:11pm

recedite wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

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 ☺

I do believe in evolution, and you raise an interesting point (but as you say, it risks going somewhat off topic)
Basically, not every aberrant behaviour is a disadvantage to the society overall, though it may be a disadvantage to the individual.
For example in an primitive society, the insomniac "night owl" would have been useful to have around as a guard, in case of prowling animal or human attacks.
The overly adventurous/ hyperactive/ attention deficit disorder personality is useful for pioneering new territory, and finding out here new hazards (eg locating shark infested waters by swimming into them)
The homosexual man may have been a useful person to leave guarding the women and children while the other men were out hunting (can't be leaving a heterosexual man behind with the ladies )

Then there is another class of people who evolution may select for in the same way it selects for predators and parasites. These would be the psyhopaths, the paedophiles, thieves, con-men and other nasty types.
They exploit the altruistic behaviour of society around them, taking from it but contributing nothing. This kind of aberrant behaviour is the opposite to the first kind. It may confer an advantage on the individual (eg a free ride) but disadvantage on their society. Hence, like predators and parasites, the host society can only bear a small number of them before it either reacts against them or fails.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you hold to naturalistic ToE?

I have no idea what that means, unfortunately.

Thanks for the reply. I understand you to understand homosexual aberrance as disadvantageous for society ( a view I share from a utility point of view)

Maybe some other time we can probe. I've always wondered about the basis for a coherent evolutionist taking any strong stance on anything since surely he has the blind evolutionary march helicoptoring his thinking. 'Ce sera sera' is the national anthem of ToE afterall.

Some other time perhaps.

Naturalistic ToE is life without any divine input

antiskeptic · 19-05-2019 6:36pm

troyzer wrote: »

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.

I was just noting the secular faith system has the same m.o. as the religious faith system.

No real surprise (since they are both faiths and faiths held dearly tend, naturally, to want to propagate themselves).

That would make you en Evangelical Secularist ☺

recedite · 19-05-2019 9:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I understand you to understand homosexual aberrance as disadvantageous for society ( a view I share from a utility point of view)...

Naturalistic ToE is life without any divine input

Well no I didn't say it was disadvantageous to society, I put it in the first group containing (natural) aberrations that could conceivably be beneficial to society.
The disadvantageous second group would be the psychopaths, paedophiles etc.. which are also natural aberrations, but harmful to the society they prey on.
Key to all this is that the selfish gene operates on the level of wider society, but also at the level of the individual. So in the long run, an altruistic society that works together to provide support for children, injured and weaker members can beat a society made up of a collection of selfish individuals.

But when one or two of the psychopaths infiltrate the co-operative society, they can do well for themselves because they find easy pickings. Hence their genes are also successful, and are also passed down through the generations.

What exactly do the letters ToE stand for though?

troyzer · 19-05-2019 9:23pm

recedite wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I understand you to understand homosexual aberrance as disadvantageous for society ( a view I share from a utility point of view)...

Naturalistic ToE is life without any divine input

Well no I didn't say it was disadvantageous to society, I put it in the first group containing (natural) aberrations that could conceivably be beneficial to society.
The disadvantageous second group would be the psychopaths, paedophiles etc.. which are also natural aberrations, but harmful to the society they prey on.
Key to all this is that the selfish gene operates on the level of wider society, but also at the level of the individual. So in the long run, an altruistic society that works together to provide support for children, injured and weaker members can beat a society made up of a collection of selfish individuals.

But when one or two of the psychopaths infiltrate the co-operative society, they can do well for themselves because they find easy pickings. Hence their genes are also successful, and are also passed down through the generations.

What exactly do the letters ToE stand for though?

Theory of evolution.

recedite · 19-05-2019 10:03pm

troyzer wrote: »

Theory of evolution.

Interesting, I must look it up some time

AngryHippie · 19-05-2019 10:20pm

recedite wrote: »

But when it gets to the stage where we are not even allowed to express a disapproval of any kind of homosexual activity

You really don't get that its none of your damned business do you ?

recedite · 19-05-2019 11:08pm

troyzer wrote: »

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

Would it be any different? There's a name for your kind of argument; its called an ad hominem.

troyzer · 20-05-2019 1:08am

recedite wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

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

Would it be any different? There's a name for your kind of argument; its called an ad hominem.

I'm asking you would it be any different.

It wouldn't to me because I don't care about Folau's religion. Though I suspect it would very much matter to you.

It's not an ad hominem argument. I'm trying to illustrate that we are having seperate discussions. By we I mean the religious people defending him and the likes of myself who are delighted he was sacked.

People like yourself genuinely think we're gunning for Jesus when we're not.

theological · 20-05-2019 6:51am

troyzer wrote: »

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?

I disagree. It's untrue to say that the New Testament was either "created" or "edited" at the council.

One can only say that the Gospel of Thomas pre-dates the Gospel of John if the earliest date for the Gospel of Thomas is taken with the latest date for the Gospel of John. We need more data.

The dating for the Gospel of Thomas seems to range from anywhere from 40AD to 250AD which makes certainty highly doubtful. For John's gospel the date spectrum is narrower at 90 - 110AD.

The church fathers and usage within the early church test also authenticates the Gospel of John in that it was widely used and quoted by them.

Do I see a problem with using the only source texts that we know have been extensively used from the early church? No.

troyzer wrote: »

I'm asking you would it be any different.

It wouldn't to me because I don't care about Folau's religion. Though I suspect it would very much matter to you.

It's not an ad hominem argument. I'm trying to illustrate that we are having seperate discussions. By we I mean the religious people defending him and the likes of myself who are delighted he was sacked.

People like yourself genuinely think we're gunning for Jesus when we're not.

This whole situation is about his Christian faith. The situation involves a quotation from the Bible. Therefore it is important to discuss it.

troyzer · 20-05-2019 9:31am

theological wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

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?

I disagree. It's untrue to say that the New Testament was either "created" or "edited" at the council.

One can only say that the Gospel of Thomas pre-dates the Gospel of John if the earliest date for the Gospel of Thomas is taken with the latest date for the Gospel of John. We need more data.

The dating for the Gospel of Thomas seems to range from anywhere from 40AD to 250AD which makes certainty highly doubtful. For John's gospel the date spectrum is narrower at 90 - 110AD.

The church fathers and usage within the early church test also authenticates the Gospel of John in that it was widely used and quoted by them.

Do I see a problem with using the only source texts that we know have been extensively used from the early church? No.

troyzer wrote: »

I'm asking you would it be any different.

It wouldn't to me because I don't care about Folau's religion. Though I suspect it would very much matter to you.

It's not an ad hominem argument. I'm trying to illustrate that we are having seperate discussions. By we I mean the religious people defending him and the likes of myself who are delighted he was sacked.

People like yourself genuinely think we're gunning for Jesus when we're not.

This whole situation is about his Christian faith. The situation involves a quotation from the Bible. Therefore it is important to discuss it.

Okay so let's just unpack this for a moment.

There IS a debate over how old the gospel of Thomas is. This was the first century, we will never have exact dates. Nor do exact dates really matter because information doesn't travel instantly either. Therefore, your argument that the New testament is the way it is because they're the oldest isn't true. There is a debate to be had.

You didn't answer my critique of your circular logic by the way.

My point about the council of Nicaea was that at the time, lots of different gospels were used including the gospel of Thomas. Similar to a newspaper meeting, the various attendees at Nicaea DECIDED to exclude Thomas but include John, for whatever reason. They indeed might have included John because they thought it was older. The point is they used their OWN arbitrary criteria. There is no Jesus or God mandated reason why we read from John and not Thomas. That's why I say the book was designed by committee.

When you read a newspaper, the words of each piece are the author's own (you would say God inspired), I'm saying that that's true (for the sake of argument) but that what piece goes on the front page and which pieces get dropped is very much in the hands of normal people (bishops and even non-Christians at the time like Constantine). Ergo, the new testament as we know it was assembled by normal humans.

By the way, this completely ignores the potential issues of other gospels simply not surviving the ravages of time. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that only a handful of devotional works about the life of Jesus were written in the decades after his death.

The issue is NOT his Christian faith. This is getting really frustrating now. I've explained in detail why his faith is irrelevant to why he was sacked.

The only way it can be made to be about his faith is if you genuinely feel that Christian criticism of homosexuality should be protected more than a secular criticism of homosexuality.

theological · 20-05-2019 9:59am

The Bible is how God speaks to us, and it is how we know His character. If there is incorrect claim about His character (in the example you offered Arianism), then His word and what He has spoken in Scripture is the place to look at least from a Christian perspective. If someone claims the Bible says X and it says Y, it isn't circular to point this out.

I've not said anything about the legal ins and outs of this case. That's for the courts in Australia to find out. I'm more interested in defending the gospel and Jesus Christ.

The issue that is at the heart of this is that he stated a Biblical position on a number of different issues that Christianity regards as being sinful. Therefore it is about Christianity.

People don't like what the Bible says. That is hardly a surprise to me.

If I had to be drawn on whether or not all speech should be protected. Yes, I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist with perhaps the exceptions of incitement to violence and libel.

salmocab · 20-05-2019 10:04am

theological wrote: »

I've not said anything about the legal ins and outs of this case. That's for the courts in Australia to find out. I'm more interested in defending the gospel and Jesus Christ.

The issue that is at the heart of this is that he stated a Biblical position on a number of different issues that Christianity regards as being sinful. Therefore it is about Christianity.

.

This isn’t about Christianity it’s about the legal ins and outs, he effectively broke a contract he signed up for and lost his job. Not because of his faith but because he broke the contract. I find people suggesting this is an attacking on faith to be either disingenuous or lacking in understanding of what happened.

recedite · 20-05-2019 10:10am

troyzer wrote: »

My point about the council of Nicaea was that at the time, lots of different gospels were used.....

The only way it can be made to be about his faith is if you genuinely feel that Christian criticism of homosexuality should be protected more than a secular criticism of homosexuality.

How about both religion and homosexuality being protected from hate speech, but neither being immune to criticism?

You have made several long and detailed criticisms on this (Christianity) thread regarding scripture and the gospels, including the one quoted (in part) above.
Isn't it great that you are allowed to do that?
Would anyone be allowed to criticise homosexual behaviour in the Atheism and Agnosticisms forum?

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 11:51am

recedite wrote: »

Would anyone be allowed to criticise homosexual behaviour in the Atheism and Agnosticisms forum?

People have plenty of times,
:rolleyes:

Also you've just compared the criticism of an idea and some words written by men in a book to being hateful towards people for being they way they were born.
The two things are not equal by any stretch of the imagination.

People are born gay regardless of their country or location on this planet, people end up being christian because of what they are indoctrinated into during their life and accordingly in certain areas of the planet the odds of being christian are many times more then other locations.

robinph · 20-05-2019 12:11pm

recedite wrote: »

Would anyone be allowed to criticise homosexual behaviour in the Atheism and Agnosticisms forum?

How do you want to criticise?

If you want to complain about a Pride parade taking over a town and shutting down streets then go ahead. If you want to criticise them for what they do in the privacy of their own home and telling them that they are all going to hell, then no.

recedite · 20-05-2019 12:24pm

Cabaal wrote: »

..in certain areas of the planet the odds of being christian are many times more then other locations.

In certain regions the odds of being gay or having "gender dysphoria" are also vastly increased.
Even the most fundamentalist of Christians would have no issue with a celibate gay priest who devoted his life to helping others.
But from there on up, we have a whole range of increasingly contentious issues which should not become immune from any criticism.

For example, at the opposite extreme we have...

A drag queen group called "glitter hole" trying to read LGBT stories to children in a Dublin library.

Children being subjected to irreversible surgery and hormonal treatments to "change their gender" even though it is biologically impossible for a male to to become a female or vice versa.

Vulnerable foster kids being placed in a harmful environment.

An 11 year old boy whose mother says he is "a professional drag performer" at gay bars.

In each case, anyone criticising was labelled as "a homophobe".
Why does this kind of stuff only happen in certain countries?

theological · 20-05-2019 12:44pm

robinph wrote: »

How do you want to criticise?

If you want to complain about a Pride parade taking over a town and shutting down streets then go ahead. If you want to criticise them for what they do in the privacy of their own home and telling them that they are all going to hell, then no.

It seems like expressing a Christian position on this subject is the new blasphemy.

For decades the liberal left were campaigning for more rights to criticise particular religions, and rightfully so, but now it seems it has reached full circle.

They aren't satisfied with this, now the speech of those who disagree with them must be censured instead. Which means they have taken the place of those who were censuring speech.

I choose to take the simpler position. I'll believe what I want to believe about sexuality and marriage. Others will believe what they want to believe. We can do that without censoring opinions - and that is actually genuine tolerance in the traditional sense.

We agree to disagree. I choose to believe in God and what He has spoken in Scripture. I will offer that to anyone. You don't. Understood. Now what?

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 12:44pm

recedite wrote: »

In certain regions the odds of being gay.....are also vastly increased.

Yeah, funny how the lack of threats such as
- Prison
- Beatings
- Death
- Your family disowning you as instructed by the local religion.

Will allow a person to be how they are rather then hide and lie about who they are.
:rolleyes:

It wasn't long ago that gay people in Ireland married men/women because of ingrained teachings from the catholic church.

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments