Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

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.

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 12:46pm

theological wrote: »

This is the interesting point.

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

Hardly,
You are looking for it to be acceptable to hate gay people. This isn't acceptable in a modern society.

Do you think people should have the rights to hate black people as well?
:rolleyes:

theological · 20-05-2019 12:50pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Hardly,
You are looking for it to be acceptable to hate gay people. This isn't acceptable in a modern society.

Do you think people should have the rights to hate black people as well?
:rolleyes:

Disagreeing with the ethics of a particular act doesn't mean I "hate" someone.

I can disagree with having sex outside of marriage without hating those who do so.

This is unhelpful hysteria, and it is pretty uncharitable.

sydthebeat · 20-05-2019 12:52pm

theological wrote: »

Disagreeing with the ethics of a particular act doesn't mean I "hate" someone.
.

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

recedite · 20-05-2019 12:59pm

Cabaal wrote: »

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

And now heterosexual men are marrying each other for tax reasons.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wedding-for-tax-reasons-3758560-Dec2017/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-85-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413129.html

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 1:16pm

recedite wrote: »

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

Lobby.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whats your point exactly?
Marriage was always about money, property, livestock and power

This idea its somehow super sacred is utter nonsense, its always been about the above. Even the idea of marrying for love is a relatively modern idea in the history of our species.

recedite · 20-05-2019 1:18pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

We all have our own opinions, and we are entitled to hold them.
That does not translate into an entitlement to interfere with other people.
As I said earlier...

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.

Going back to Israel Folau, he has an opinion, but who has he interfered with?

Name the gay player who has been excluded from the team, or victimised in any way by him.

sydthebeat · 20-05-2019 1:20pm

recedite wrote: »

And now heterosexual men are marrying each other for tax reasons.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wedding-for-tax-reasons-3758560-Dec2017/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-85-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413129.html

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

apart from the ridiculous reductive aspect of this....

if you think marriage has only existed for financial status in recent years, then you really need a history lesson. Marriages have occurred for finances and status since time immemorial...... long before any 'LGBT agenda' existed

recedite · 20-05-2019 1:21pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Lobby.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Whats your point exactly?
Marriage was always about money, property, livestock and power

This idea its somehow super sacred is utter nonsense, its always been about the above. Even the idea of marrying for love is a relatively modern idea in the history of our species.

That may be your opinion of it, but you have just confirmed my point. The LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator.

sydthebeat · 20-05-2019 1:23pm

recedite wrote: »

We all have our own opinions, and we are entitled to hold them.
.

but you should not be entitled to broadcast those opinions, if those opinions cause hurt and pain to people who can do nothing about it.... which is exactly what this thread is about, in a nut shell.

sydthebeat · 20-05-2019 1:25pm

recedite wrote: »

The LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator.

they must have succeeded in time travel too then?? because people have married for money WAY before there was any LGBT lobby.

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 1:29pm

recedite wrote: »

Going back to Israel Folau, he has an opinion, but who has he interfered with?

He broke the code of conduct he agreed to. That is a fact.
If he didn't like the code of conduct then he shouldn't have agreed to it.

He can have a view, but his employers don't have to accept him if he expresses that viewpoint in a very, very public manner. Maintaining an acceptable not hateful image inline with the code of conduct is part of his job, he failed to do that.

I feel this is very basic stuff and surely you can understand such basic stuff like this, do we need to spell it out for you even more?

If he said all black people should burn in hell nobody would be trying to defend him, but because you think its ok to have the same viewpoint as him towards gay people here you are trying to defend a position which is not defensible.
:rolleyes:

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 1:32pm

recedite wrote: »

That may be your opinion of it, but you have just confirmed my point. The LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator.

Sorry thats not my opinion, the information is available for all to see in history books and via academic research/

Marriage was always more about money, power and alliances then love for the VAST majority of human history. Again this is really basic stuff that I'd expect anybody to know if they even did a tiny bit of research on the subject.

Clearly you've not.

recedite · 20-05-2019 2:19pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Sorry thats not my opinion, the information is available for all to see in history books and via academic research/

Marriage was always more about money, power and alliances then love for the VAST majority of human history. Again this is really basic stuff that I'd expect anybody to know if they even did a tiny bit of research on the subject. Clearly you've not.

If you want to discount procreation, and love, and religious reasons (as you are) then money is all that is left.
Even primitive tribes have marriages, and at it's most basic it is a commitment by a heterosexual couple that they will stay together, made in public and in front of their community. And a large part of that is to protect the family and any future kids. If the man was to skip away after the first night leaving the woman pregnant, he would not have invested anything but she would have invested a lot.

That is the historical background, but nowadays we have social welfare so arguably that aspect has become less important.

Gays already had the option of sex without commitment, and subsequently they had civil partnerships which introduced the commitment element, if they wanted it.
Now that civil marriage is reduced to a tax arrangement, and is available to all (including heterosexual male couples) we finally have true marriage equality. For what its worth, which isn't much any more.

theological · 20-05-2019 2:26pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

but you should not be entitled to broadcast those opinions, if those opinions cause hurt and pain to people who can do nothing about it.... which is exactly what this thread is about, in a nut shell.

The real issue at stake seems to be who gives me liberty to do what?

God gives us life, and freedom in Him. Freedom from destructive desires, freedom from human opinion, freedom from judgement. Freedom for what however? To serve God fully and completely.

Romans 6:17-18 wrote:

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness

Jesus says it's silly to fear men.

Luke 12:4-7 wrote:

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Christians are to respect human authority (Romans 13:1), but ultimately Christians are to respect God's authority. We see this in the ministry of the apostles. Pretty early on in their ministry, they get arrested for telling the people of Jerusalem about Jesus. Read the answer they gave them.

Acts 5:27-31 wrote:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

They say no, "we must obey God rather than men" and proceeds to tell them about it too. Why? They want forgiveness of sins for all people everywhere because they love them.

1 Peter 2:11-12 wrote:

Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

People claim Christians "hate" people for disagreeing with what God says no to. The Bible actually tells us this will happen in the passage above. Christians actually love the world enough to tell them they are wrong and need a Saviour.

sydthebeat · 20-05-2019 2:44pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

@theological
can you answer my question please

homer911 · 20-05-2019 3:16pm

I think that question has been answered many times through this thread

Iscreamkone · 20-05-2019 3:40pm

The gays seem to own all the offence on this one.
As an atheist I'm disappointed that we are not deemed worthy to warrant this backlash.
However, on the other hand I'm not to bothered about getting an after death banishment to fairyland's naughty step.

Not too many adulterers on giving out either it seems

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 3:42pm

Iscreamkone wrote: »

The gays seem to own all the offence on this one.
As an atheist I'm disappointed that we are not deemed worthy to warrant this backlash.
However, on the other hand I'm not to bothered about getting an after death banishment to fairyland's naughty step.

Not too many adulterers on giving out either it seems

Neither am I, still, its messed up to want people to burn and suffer for being who they are.

Iscreamkone · 20-05-2019 3:51pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Neither am I, still, its messed up to want people to burn and suffer for being who they are.

What he did say was unchristian as he went against the "treat others etc" company line.

More christians should come out and say that he was out of line.
But are they allowed?, "Let those without sin, cast the first stone etc."

It's very complicated this bible thing.
Best to just follow the one commandment... "Don't be a dick"

robinph · 20-05-2019 4:15pm

theological wrote: »

Disagreeing with the ethics of a particular act doesn't mean I "hate" someone.

I can disagree with having sex outside of marriage without hating those who do so.

This is unhelpful hysteria, and it is pretty uncharitable.

Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "I don't think that you should have sex before marriage" and "all of group X will go to hell".

One is OK and we can have a debate about, the other is hate speech.

Squatter · 20-05-2019 4:20pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Neither am I, still, its messed up to want people to burn and suffer for being who they are.

How do you know that he wants it?

My understanding of his foolish tweet is that he was publicly professing his belief in a particular set of warnings as set out in his version of the Good Book.

As such his tweet was intended as a warning to sinners to repent and give up their auld sins!

I haven't indulged in any fornication, sodomy or bestiality since I read his tweet. So I'm in the Folau good books!

robinph · 20-05-2019 4:35pm

Squatter wrote: »

How do you know that he wants it?

Erm, because of what he said in his tweet.

Squatter · 20-05-2019 4:40pm

robinph wrote: »

Erm, because of what he said in his tweet.

Did you read it?

If so, then I suggest that you contact your local VEC and ask them if they run evening classes in English comprehension.

If not, then stop making a fool of yourself.

robinph · 20-05-2019 4:49pm

He made a statement about what will happen to certain groups of people. He want's them to repent, but equally he wants those who don't do as he says to go to hell.

He wan'ts both things to happen.

Squatter · 20-05-2019 4:51pm

robinph wrote: »

He made a statement about what will happen to certain groups of people. He want's them to repent, but equally he wants those who don't do as he says to go to hell.

He wan'ts both things to happen.

On your knees, folks! For the Almighty God in his goodness has sent us a mindreader.

robinph · 20-05-2019 5:00pm

Squatter wrote: »

On your knees, folks! For the Almighty God in his goodness has sent us a mindreader.

I thought it just required some simple understanding of English to know what Folau meant from his tweet?

Or are you now trying to claim that he doesn't want the things that his version of the religion he follows says will happen, to actually happen?

troyzer · 20-05-2019 5:45pm

Iscreamkone wrote: »

The gays seem to own all the offence on this one.
As an atheist I'm disappointed that we are not deemed worthy to warrant this backlash.
However, on the other hand I'm not to bothered about getting an after death banishment to fairyland's naughty step.

Not too many adulterers on giving out either it seems

The "gays" are right to be pissed off and so should we on their behalf.

As a fellow atheist, the reason why I'm not offended is because he's criticising what I think or rather what I don't think. Criticising what other people think and their views, opinions etc has always been fair game.

Criticising people for who they are, is not. You are not born an atheist, communist, Christian, Muslim, Nazi or anything else. You are however, born gay. If you are gay that is.

We don't negotiate on people's right to exist and be who they are, there are basic standards of decency. We don't let public figures rag on women, ethnic minorities or people with disabilities. Unless you're Trump of course. Equally, we don't let public figures rag on gay people.

Well, they can do it all they want. But they're going to get sacked if they were explicitly warned last time and told not to do it again.

recedite · 20-05-2019 6:57pm

troyzer wrote: »

Criticising what other people think and their views, opinions etc has always been fair game.
Criticising people for who they are, is not. You are not born an atheist..

What about paedophiles? Is it OK to criticise them for being born paedophile?

The RCC views both gays and paedophiles as being "intrinsically disordered" but is quite prepared to shelter both, if they commit to not acting on their sexual impulses.
Folau seems to be following along similar lines with his message of hope and repentance.

BTW I'd also dispute that we are "not born atheist"; maybe we are, but its mostly only the individuals born with a large dose of scepticism that remain so. And the poor things can't help themselves for being born so sceptical.

Cabaal · 20-05-2019 7:07pm

recedite wrote: »

What about paedophiles? Is it OK to criticise them for being born paedophile?

The RCC views both gays and paedophiles as being "intrinsically disordered" but is quite prepared to shelter both, if they commit to not acting on their sexual impulses.

Really?
You are now going to suggest being gay and being a paedophile are the same thing?

Have you no bloody shame what so ever?

Former Observer · 20-05-2019 7:20pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

but you should not be entitled to broadcast those opinions, if those opinions cause hurt and pain to people who can do nothing about it....

Dunno. Dave Kearney gets a lot of slack in the rugby forum but he can't do anything about it.

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments