Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

robinph · 21-05-2019 5:31pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I hope you'd agree that it's the nub of the issue. If it's not true then Christians are definitely deluded, arguably hateful, and really quite pitiful. If it is true, then Christianity sets the terms for what is true and loving, and something you should probably give serious consideration to.

Either way you are still going to have to explain the definition of loving where eternal damnation in hell awaits for homosexuals.

ChrisJ84 · 21-05-2019 5:50pm

robinph wrote: »

Either way you are still going to have to explain the definition of loving where eternal damnation in hell awaits for homosexuals.

Sure, and I and others have tried at length to engage with you on that. Maybe we are just hateful and nasty, but the invitation to come along to a church and find out for yourself still stands.

ChrisJ84 · 21-05-2019 6:41pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Its full or errors and contradictions

Any specific contradictions you'd care to point out?

antiskeptic · 21-05-2019 7:02pm

troyzer wrote: »

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Deny the way God made you or he's sending you to hell.

But yeah, God is good.

Everyone is a sinner in need of salvation, and no-one is a worse sinner than anyone else. This is a basic and central Christian belief.

By your logic Christians must hate everyone, and not just homosexuals?

My logic is that there is no logic.

I said it earlier in the thread; if God is all powerful and all knowing then he is also all responsible.

Your belief system states that God made me the way I am with all of my flaws and virtues. He didn't make me gay but he did make people I know gay. He made them gay and also made them lustful and struggle with repressing their nature. In many cases he made them not want to repress their nature and reject the notion that there's something wrong with being gay.

God is responsible for all of this. There can be no free will in a world where a prime mover plans everything out in advance. It's deterministic. How can we be held accountable for the things we do when they're not our fault? It's particularly galling that the one who punishes us is the one who is actually responsible.

Apart from the madness in the bible and all of its inspired atrocities, the central tenant of an all powerful God trying to save us from something he did is just illogical.

And even if it is all true, he certainly isn't worthy of respect because he's not loving and benevolent.

He's the "Stop hitting yourself" God.

God is responsible for a situation where we have choices. (e.g repent in a global sense or not)

He isn't responsible for whether we repent or not.

He permitted the serpent into the garden. He permitted choice being made there. He is not responsible for the choice made.

Being responsible for enabling choice is not the same as being responsible for the choice of those enabled.

robinph · 21-05-2019 7:06pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Sure, and I and others have tried at length to engage with you on that. Maybe we are just hateful and nasty, but the invitation to come along to a church and find out for yourself still stands.

Been there, done that, gave the t-shirt back.

Is it too complicated a definition to explain here?

ChrisJ84 · 21-05-2019 7:41pm

robinph wrote: »

Been there, done that, gave the t-shirt back.

Is it too complicated a definition to explain here?

Hell is not for homosexuals, it is for everyone who does not put their faith in Jesus Christ. That's an important distinction, but one you are determined to ignore. Funny, it almost seems like you're doing it on purpose.

God is loving because he gave us life and sustains our every moment. The only reason you can keep shaking your fist at him is because he lovingly indulges it. More than that, he sent his son to die so that anyone can have eternal life, regardless of who we are or what we've done. God has more than adequately demonstrated that he is loving.

Love does not equate to endless indulgence and if we refuse his love and mercy he will, in the end, give us what we want. Which is to be away from him forever, which is what hell is.

But since you think the whole thing is nonsense I'm not sure why you're asking a question you already know the answer to?

It's also a bit of a laugh that you think Christians are the intolerant ones when you've consistently avoided my questions and responded with snark and sarcasm.

Turtwig · 21-05-2019 7:52pm

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.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2019 8:22pm

Cabaal wrote: »

First off, to rate people based on a ring is a pretty weird tactic to take.
As you#ve clearly pointed out its flawed heavily and yet you are silly enough to veer towards the person with the ring

:rolleyes:

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.

ChrisJ84 · 21-05-2019 8:22pm

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.

robinph · 21-05-2019 8:40pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Hell is not for homosexuals, it is for everyone who does not put their faith in Jesus Christ. That's an important distinction, but one you are determined to ignore. Funny, it almost seems like you're doing it on purpose.

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.

uptherebels · 21-05-2019 8:57pm

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 · 21-05-2019 9:06pm

uptherebels wrote: »

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

Or if the only way to have kids was to be married, or the only way to be married was to have kids, or the only way to be able to wear jewellery on a particular finger was to be married...

ChrisJ84 · 21-05-2019 9:52pm

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

Pissartist · 21-05-2019 9:55pm

I think this whole thing is farcical, that guy losing his contract is so unfair, I lived in Australia so even more surprised they had an issue.

AngryHippie · 21-05-2019 10:17pm

theological wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

robinph · 21-05-2019 10:19pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

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

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.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2019 10:38pm

robinph wrote: »

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

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

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.

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

If he said the flying spagetti monster was going to fire lasers from space at homosexuals, would he have lost his job.

Apparently 'society' gives more credence to God than the spagetti monster afficiandos around here do

antiskeptic · 21-05-2019 10:40pm

uptherebels wrote: »

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.

Are you familiar with the term "on average"?

AngryHippie · 21-05-2019 10:46pm

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 ?

AngryHippie · 21-05-2019 10:49pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you familiar with the term "on average"?

Unfortunately very familiar.

I hear it all the time from people making sweeping generalizations to back up their gut feeling by tying it to some sort of "fact".

Its a form of confirmation bias.

Here is some food for thought

ChrisJ84 · 21-05-2019 10:49pm

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?

troyzer · 21-05-2019 10:57pm

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.

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.

recedite · 21-05-2019 11:47pm

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.

uptherebels · 22-05-2019 12:07am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you familiar with the term "on average"?

Yes I am, which I why I can say your point doesn't make any sense.

troyzer · 22-05-2019 12:23am

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?

AngryHippie · 22-05-2019 12:28am

recedite wrote: »

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.

Like it or not, what he has done would constitute gross misconduct, particularly as he had been warned about it previously.
Gross misconduct being a sack-able offence.

Social Media posts are classified as a "Public Act" under Australian law, and as I mentioned previously at length, his post (because of the attached picture) and as it could cause vilification, ridicule, contempt or offense it constitutes hate speech.

It would be an unwise test case for an appeal, he could probably crowd-fund and throw money at a court appeal or a wrongful dismissal case, but realistically it would prove to be a deeply unpopular move that would just turn into a money grab.

Its a strange and sad end to a spectacular professional sports career.

Out of curiosity, how would the RCC feel about his non-trinitarian beliefs ? would that mean he goes to Catholic Hell and Spooky Mormon Hell (for leaving) but gets into the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Heaven ?

ChrisJ84 · 22-05-2019 7:54am

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

ChrisJ84 · 22-05-2019 7:58am

AngryHippie wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how would the RCC feel about his non-trinitarian beliefs ? would that mean he goes to Catholic Hell and Spooky Mormon Hell (for leaving) but gets into the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Heaven ?

Not trying to be argumentative, but he doesn't have non-Trinitarian beliefs. My understanding is that Folau was raised Mormon (so non-Trinitarian) but later converted to Pentecostal Assemblies of God (Trinitarian, and in the broad Protestant tent).

Roman Catholics, Protestants, Mormans (and atheists for that matter) all make exclusive claims about the nature of religious truth. That's not exactly news, is it?

robinph · 22-05-2019 9:35am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

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.

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.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

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?

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.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

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?

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

theological · 22-05-2019 11:35am

A few questions that might help us get to the heart of the matter:

What is the highest authority in this world?

Why does that matter?

What impact should that have on my life?

If it is true that rejecting God leads to judgement and hell - how can it be hateful to try to stop people going there?

If God is the highest authority, then why would we put his Word second to the world's standards when they are opposed to Him?

If God is the highest authority, then shouldn't we be much more concerned about what He says is acceptable?

If the Bible is God's word, how do you think we can change it?

What evidence do you have that the Bible has been "edited"?

Why do you think Christians are going to accept that we should change the Bible because you don't like it? Since when did you become God?

Why do you believe the Bible has errors and contradictions? What are they?

Why does it matter if I offend you by my religion?

All sinners are welcome in church. Part of being a Christian means that we repent and change and live according to what God has spoken. We're welcomed in, but God calls us to repent.

I've not mentioned the specific word that I'm apparently obsessed by in any of my posts. Why is that? Could that be because everything I've said is applicable to everyone?

Specific sins plural (whatever they are) are only symptomatic of the root cause which is our rejection of God.

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Comments