Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

robinph wrote: »

If the message itself is offensive then maybe it should be considered to be changed and admit that it is probably the wrong message to be giving if you want people to join your group.

You think I should change the message of the gospel to make it more palatable?

That's a pretty apt summary of this entire thread.

troyzer wrote: »

I never suggested that God controls everything directly, thought he can. It's curious that he used to perform miracles regularly in the past but won't intervene when an innocent child dies of brain cancer.....If God isn't responsible for the holocaust then he isn't all powerful.

I'm going to bow out. If you're really interested in getting answers to your objections and questions, then read a good book on apologetics. Sorry if you see that as handwaving, but if you're sincere then that's a better place to go than ranting at me on boards.

If your questions aren't sincere, then it's all just a convenient way to dismiss Christianity so that you can go on doing exactly what you want to do, and I'm wasting my time.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

I never suggested that God controls everything directly, thought he can. It's curious that he used to perform miracles regularly in the past but won't intervene when an innocent child dies of brain cancer.....If God isn't responsible for the holocaust then he isn't all powerful.

I'm going to bow out. If you're really interested in getting answers to your objections and questions, then read a good book on apologetics. Sorry if you see that as handwaving, but if you're sincere then that's a better place to go than ranting at me on boards.

If your questions aren't sincere, then it's all just a convenient way to dismiss Christianity so that you can go on doing exactly what you want to do, and I'm wasting my time.

These are really, really, really basic questions that you can't answer. I am genuinely interested in getting an answer, YOUR answer.

I'm interested in how individuals can justify the contradictions in their faith. I'm not interested in what some guy in America says should be the reason why. I'm interested to know exactly why you read what I say and continue being a Christian.

It's probably some combination of faith and dismissing me as not understanding. That's usually the way. But that isn't an intellectual position.

troyzer wrote: »

These are really, really, really basic questions that you can't answer. I am genuinely interested in getting an answer, YOUR answer.

I'm interested in how individuals can justify the contradictions in their faith. I'm not interested in what some guy in America says should be the reason why. I'm interested to know exactly why you read what I say and continue being a Christian.

It's probably some combination of faith and dismissing me as not understanding. That's usually the way. But that isn't an intellectual position.

Can't answer? Do you really think you're the first person to ask these questions? It's interesting that you think I'm telling you to read what some American has to say - because evangelical Christianity is just for American right wing knuckle draggers, amiright? I am merely suggesting that if you have sincere intellectual objections to Christianity then it might be an idea to read something that a Christian intellectual has written on the subject.

However, I will do my own half-baked best to being to give you an answer.

On God's sovereignty vs our free will, you're looking for a contradiction where there isn't one. God has chosen to create us with the ability to make real and significant moral decisions. That means he doesn't "dictate everything that we're going to do," at least not in the sense that you seem to think he does (or should). I touched on this above, when I mentioned God's knowledge vs his sovereignty. Has God in some sense chosen to limit his power in granting us free will? Maybe, but that's speculative. Scripture is unembarrassed about God's sovereignty and our freedom both being true at the same time, and so am I. That Christianity is not a deterministic religion is a simple matter of record.

You've also mentioned the problem of evil and suffering, which I think is the most significant objection to Christianity that there is. Why doesn't God just stop all the horrible things that happen? The short answer is that we don't know, but we do know that he is good and just and will put all wrong things right. To you that's just pie in the sky, and an abdication of intellectual responsibility, I get it.

But the problem of evil is a far greater problem for you than it is for me. If God isn't real then it's all just meaningless, there is no justice ultimately and nothing ever get's put right. In fact, what does the idea of evil even mean if we're just biological scum on the third rock form the sun?

And you're not totally wrong when you talk about lack of faith and not understanding. Those are both relevant, because Christianity is a spiritual matter, and spiritually discerned. Again, I'm sure you see that as a cop out but no-one has ever been argued into the kingdom of God.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its full or errors and contradictions

Any specific contradictions you'd care to point out?

robinph wrote: »

Well I actually think you should probably stop wasting your time arguing the case for something that doesn't exist

Mod:

That you believe doesn't exist. This is the Christianity forum, please reacquaint yourself with the forum charter. Discussion and debate on the existence of God is welcome. (Though probably not as much within the scope of this thread.) However, it is worth remembering that blanket definitive statements like that aren't helpful.

To use a parallel, it's like a Christian going into an atheist discussion and dismissing the atheist's sophisticated ethical arguments with a blanket statement like you're an atheist, morals have no meaning.

If you're not willing to accept posters holding faith and using that faith to discuss their views and morality then perhaps you should reconsider which forum you are posting in?

Telling them their God doesn't exist just isn't very helpful.

troyzer wrote: »

I don't bring any presuppositions to the table other than Christian theology. I'm using the premise of your faith to show how ridiculous it is.

Just thinking about this, and I didn't address it earlier. Of course you bring presuppositions to the table, we all do. I'm willing to admit what mine are (God exists, he has revealed himself in scripture, scripture is an accurate record of that revelation).Those are the basic building blocks that allow me to construct a world view, and that allow others to interact with my worldview. I'm guessing some of your are that God doesn't exist, material reality is all there is etc. If we can recognise those differences and acknowledge that they are (at least in theory) plausible then it makes it possible to have having a civil and productive conversation.

If, on the other hand, you just want to sneer at a straw man of Christianity you've made up in your own head then we should probably leave it there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

On average, the person who is married will have (or be able to display by virtue of their being married) attributes that the person who isn't married won't be able to display.

There is a difference between someone who has been trained, by having kids, in self-sacrifice compared to someone who can do as they please all the time. On average

You've heard of "exercise"? Well, it builds muscle.

If the only way to endure self sacrifice was to have kids you might actually have had a point.

robinph wrote: »

So which part of the statement "...homesexuals...hell awaits you, repent!" is the bit that is telling them that they are welcome? That statement is demanding that they changes and stop being homosexual, with the threat of hell if they do not comply.

I know that many people who are gay are also Christians, and that is fine. If they are OK with that and their church is OK with that then no problem whatsoever. But the statement made by Folau was absolutely not in any way shape of form a welcoming, loving, friendly message.

So we're back to Israel Folaus post now? At least it brings the thread back on topic. I've already said I think it was unwise, unhelpful and lacking important context.

But it's still nothing more than a direct quote of scripture, so true in so far as it goes. And saying that Folau shouldn't have posted something on social media is a long way from saying that the message is inherently unloving. That brings us back to the point I made earlier about everyone being a sinner and in need of salvation. At worst, Folau majored on truth at the expense of love.

Highlighting of sin and a call to repentance should be done boldly, but also sensitively and with compassion. Christians can, and frequently do, say and do things that are unhelpful. But you're going beyond that and imputing motives to Israel Folau that you can't possibly know to be true. And incidentally, the call to repentance is an invitation and not a "demand" as you put it.

As far as the Christian sexual ethic goes, I think you already know what I'm going to say. Any expression of sexuality outside monogomous heterosexual marriage is sinful. That's not exactly news, nor is it neccessarily and always unloving to talk about it and point it out

theological wrote: »

. Being silent while people are headed for hell is hate speech.

:rolleyes:

antiskeptic wrote: »

How could someone take, as a threat and warning, something they don't believe in?

If they couldn't take it as a warning, or a threat, then why spout the nonsense in the first place.

are you just pulling the rug out from under the whole message ?

robinph wrote: »

His message was displayed in the style of a warning and gave a clear threat, it shouldn't need to come along with a translation and a copy of the bible to make it appear as if he really meant a message of love. There are plenty of other words and images he could of used to get across that message if that were the one he was trying to get across.

All that this thread was ever about was Christians attempting to defend the post he made and claiming that they are being persecuted for not being able to persecute others. (Not that I think that is what you were claiming)

I know you stated previously that it was a foolish message which should never have been made, but that is all that was ever needed and to stop trying to defend his post.

Let me be clear. His post was a direct quote from the Bible so I believe it is true. Homosexual sex, like any sex outside of monogomous hetererosexual marriage is sinful, and deserving of God's just judgement. As are the other sins listed in that verse from Corinthians. However, do I think posting that verse in that way was helpful, or a useful tool for evangelism? Not particularly.

The claim that Christians are trying to persecute anybody is frankly bizarre. On the other hand, much of the rhetoric in response to the incident does seem to indicate a desire by many to erode the right to freedom of religion and religious expression (enshrined by the UN by the way). Hence the unease.

You want to class the mention of hell as a threat. Fine, I'll accept that, and the style of the post certainly leaves it open to that interpretation. But who is doing the threatening? If Israel Folau had said "I'm going to send some gays to hell!" then that would certainly qualify as hate speech. But that isn't what he said, and unless you're going to accuse God of hate speech (which you're entitled to do of course) then I really don't know where you're going with this. Are you happy for Christians to express Christian views publicly, as long as they censor the bits you find distasteful?

I have to be honest, I don't think your real objection is to Israel Folaus tone or lack of context. Isn't your problem with the content, in whatever manner it is expressed?

recedite wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

He was given a warning and told not to do it again. He did it again. He was sacked.

Lots of people have been sacked and then got compo afterwards for an unfair dismissal.
The code of conduct he agreed to bans team members from engaging in religious and homophobic discrimination. So you can't sack somebody from the team based on their religious views, or based on them being gay.
So who has actually been discriminated against here? Who is the actual victim here? Go figure.

Here we go again, more obfuscation.

He was told not to post derogatory comments about gay people again. The religion was irrelevant.

He did it, he was sacked, end of story.

What would you have wanted here? For them to stand by him, losing all disciplinary credibility with staff and many of their sponsors? For what?

troyzer wrote: »

When I was a public servant it was written into my contract that I wasn't allowed to openly express my political views on social media so that people would feel their public service was impartial. I was in a graduate level job, zero public visibility. I never once interacted with a member of the public face to face, once or twice on the phone over the space of a year.

I was told by my employer before that not to post about my job or activities because of local opposition to the project and the company's sensitivity to bad social media. One of my colleagues posted a picture of her on a night out wearing the company jacket and she got an official warning. This job was higher profile in that we actively engaged with residents.

The idea that we're still arguing over whether or not this is a freedom of speech issue is ludicrous. Employment contracts always have limitations on what you can say and do outside of work. We might not be happy about it but ultimately when we strip it all back and remove any mention of his faith or even what he said it comes down to an employee did something which annoyed his employer. He was given a warning and told not to do it again. He did it again. He was sacked.

The thread started by asking a question of tolerance, and what it means today, using the Israel Folau post as a case in point. Tolerance has always meant acknowledging that other points of view have the right to exist, even those we find disagreeable. "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." Obviously tolerance needs to have some limits, with calls to violence being one.

More recently, tolerance seems to have changed to mean that all views are equally valid "That's true for you, this is true for me". The limit of tolerance also seems to have changed, to exclude views that refute this notion and make exclusive claims, or suggest that others might be wrong. Your very first post on the thread says just that - "Some views just can't be tolerated."

Ok, but what views and on what basis? You're (the collective you, not just you personally) are going to have to do a bit more work to convince me and other Christians that you're not just trying to shout down dissenting opinion because you don't like it.

troyzer wrote: »

Can we close the thread now? I'm getting bored of this and I found myself getting dragged into a theological discussion (my fault) which I swore to myself I'd never put myself through again. It's too painful.

Ok, we can park the rest of our conversation. For what its worth, I enjoyed the discussion

robinph wrote: »

He may have posted other things that were direct quotes from the bible, but "WARNING...Homosexuals... HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT!" wasn't one of them. That may be his interpretation of what a certain passage says, but it's not a direct quote from anyone other than Folau or whoever he got the JPG from.

Ok, fair enough. I should have been clearer. The list of sins that Israel Folau posted is lifted directly from 1 Corinthians 6, topped and tailed with a brief and blunt call to repentance / threat of hellfire. I've already made clear that while I believe what he said to be true, I don't think his manner or means of expressing it was helpful. I don't think his post is a good example of speaking the truth in love, something that Christians are called to do.

robinph wrote: »

But the whole thing is that Folau is wanting to be able to tell homosexuals that they are going to hell, society has determined that that is no longer acceptable behaviour, christians are then getting upset as they cannot tell homosexuals they are going to hell anymore.

So it's wrong because society says so? Does that mean that it used to be ok because society didn't have a problem with it?

Do you think there are things that people do or say that they should stop doing even if their society thinks it's ok?

robinph wrote: »

christians are then getting upset as they cannot tell homosexuals they are going to hell anymore.

So you do want to suppress freedom of religion then? Or is it just the bits you find disagreeable? So much for tolerance.

robinph wrote: »

If your religion is defined by the ability to shout and threaten homosexuals that hell awaits them, then yes your religious freedoms are being restricted. But maybe the religion needs to take a hard look at itself and find something better to get worried about. The world has moved on and whilst the UN may protect religion I don't think you will find they support any religions "right" to spread messages of hate against homosexuals.

Ah come on, Christianity is not defined by this and well you know it. Why are you so unwilling to interact with Christianity on its own terms? It comes across as wanting to shout down and silence dissent. You're absolutely free to do so of course, but at least be willing to put on your big boy pants and admit that's what you're doing.

If the world has moved on then why do you even care enough to post about this?

robinph wrote: »

God made me say it isn't a defence for spreading hateful messages. If he doesn't believe that gays should be going to hell then he could simply not have said it.

Again, not what I said.

robinph wrote: »

To an extent you are probably right in that his interpretation of what his deity wants is offensive however it is tried to be dressed up, but religion doesn't have to hate homosexuals or threaten them with hell.

Disagreeing with certain behaviours, or even someones way of life does not mean that you hate them. You obviously disagree sharply with what I'm saying, does that mean I should conclude that you hate me?

robinph wrote: »

Many religions are perfectly fine in welcoming everyone without threats of eternal damnation because of who you happen to love.

That's as may be, but we're not talking about them. And Christianity does not threaten eternal damnation for anyone because of "who they happen to love." Our fundamental problem is that we reject God, everything else that we call sins are just symptoms of that fundamental problem, and flow from that root.

robinph wrote: »

It doesn't mean that it was OK before, just that society has become more enlightened and has corrected itself for previous errors in what is acceptable or not.

As for if there are things that are currently acceptable, which won't be in the future. Definitely.

A few follow up questions on this, if I may.
Is it liberal western society specifically that has the final word on these things, or do other societies get to decide what's right for them?
How do you know that our society is more enlightened than it was before, is there some other yardstick that you measure that against?

robinph wrote: »

It is not freedom of religion to spout hate speech against another group.

Absolutely, I know that is not what defines christianity. But why are you trying to defend Folau and his "right" to speak hate speech about people whilst hiding behind the banner of christianity then?
He has a right to hold whatever beliefs he likes, he doesn't have the right to shout about those threats to all and sundry though. If those views are not appropriate for christians to be spouting then other chritisans shouldn't be providing him with cover to do so.

So are you claiming that Folau is allowed to say what he likes because he is just repeating what he has interpreted it says in the bible, and he is therefore not responsible for those words?

I don't hate you and you are fully entitled to believe that homosexuals are going to hell. But I would consider that to be a hateful belief and you are not entitled to go and shout about that on the street, or on Twitter and expect to keep your job.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes hate speech. If you've honestly and sincerely read everything that I've posted and still come to the conclusion it's hateful, then I can't force you to change your mind, nor would I want to. I think you're wrong, but that's ok.

If we delve behind the disagreement over Folau's post, we're left with a clash of worldviews that goes well beyond the scope of this thread. I believe that my christian worldview makes best sense of all the available data (the world, ourselves etc.) and is fully consistent with that data. My worldview has some foundational presuppositions, that I've already outlined further up the thread (God exists, he has revealed himself etc.). I can only assume that you believe similar things about your atheistic worldview. My ambitions for a discussion like this are fairly limited, and if we both come away with a slightly better understanding of one another then it would be great. At a minimum I hope you see that Christians aren't hate filled homophobes who have commited intellectual suicide, but if that is your sincere conclusion then that's ok too.

Another potential fruitful area for reflection, and again beyond the scope of the thread, is on the nature and meaning of our sexuality. Christianity sees sexuality primarily in terms of what we do, whereas contemporary culture (at least in the west) increasingly sees it in terms of who we are. That is an important distinction, and brings us to even more fundamental questions of what it means to be human. Part of the reason we are talking past one another is because you think that Christians are asking people (specifically homosexuals) to deny who they are. Part of my response to that is "your idea of who and what we are, and of what makes us truly human, is mistaken."

Again, I don't say any of this to be flippant or dismissive, and I realise that it's easy to forget there is a real person at the other side of a discussion forum. The Israel Folau incident does illustrate a growing desire to push Christianity out of the public square, and I hope you understand why that might be of concern to Christians.

Cabaal wrote: »

If a religious person claimed their religious beliefs meant they should refer to black people as n***ers and that they should say that all black people should burn in hell.

Would you find this agreeable?

Honest question.

As I've said before, replace gay with black and we simply would not be having this discussion.

No, I would not find it agreeable in the slightest. People can and do hide behind religion to justify all manner of disgusting behaviour. I'm going to copy paste in something I just said below in another post:

"Another potential fruitful area for reflection, and again beyond the scope of the thread, is on the nature and meaning of our sexuality. Christianity sees sexuality primarily in terms of what we do, whereas contemporary culture (at least in the west) increasingly sees it in terms of who we are. That is an important distinction, and brings us to even more fundamental questions of what it means to be human. Part of the reason we are talking past one another is because you think that Christians are asking people (specifically homosexuals) to deny who they are. Part of my response to that is "your idea of who and what we are, and of what makes us truly human, is mistaken.""

My initial response to a racist religious person would probably take a similar track. I would imagine they see white people as somehow superior or "more truly human" than non-whites. That is clearly incorrect, and not in keeping with Christianity or a scripturally informed Christian worldview. I know that Christians in the past (in the US for example) have followed exactly this wrong line of thinking, and would simply say that they were wrong and sinful in doing so.

In short, I think both you and the racist religious person are wrong in your assessment of what it means to be human (not saying you are just like them BTW). I also think you are making a category error in comparing sexuality and race.