Religion Folau

[chelseacarlton]

All these ancient civilizations had their version of gods

The Chinese?
Did they?
They wrote rules according to their deities wishes did they?
Very interesting, please do elaborate?

 

[Opine]

And it's obvious to me that you have been (metaphorically, of course) bent over and royally rogered by a superior intellect, who has read more than one book. You really must clean up the spelling you use for you're, your etc. It makes you even more incomprehensible than usual.

Nothing wrong with being bent over and rogered at one time or another (metaphorically, of course) happens to the best, and worst, of us.

 

[Chief]

Yes. They are teachers. In a Christian school. Is it not obvious that people charged with such a position be expected to follow the doctrine upon which the institution itself was founded? Meanwhile, Folau’s beliefs have zero impact on his duties as a professional athlete, nor upon the founding principles of the ARU. It’s a poor analogy.

The idea that sinners go to hell isn’t one Folau just came up with. It’s not a belief held only by Christians either. So it really comes down to a question of religious tolerance. Are people allowed to believe in these religious doctrines? And if yes, are they allowed to publicly express their beliefs?

I’d say a “no” to either of these questions is a scary proposition.

It's not that simple.

But it is this simple:

1. Hold whatever beliefs you like.

2. But if you've agreed as part of a multi-million dollar contract NOT to use social media to express the nastier beliefs of your religion, then don't do it or you're breaking the terms of the contract.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Who were the secularists that led abolition?

Abraham Lincoln

 

[chelseacarlton]

A whole lot of Christophobia on display round here. Is that a new word we can add alongside Islamophobia, homophobia etc? Or is this particular phobia not a thing? Perhaps theres a sliding scale of obias where one trumps the other and/or renders it invalid? Please help I'm so confused.

It’s not irrational to have a fear of the proponents of the degenerate god of Abraham.
Yes, you’re confused.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I certainly don't dispute that. Furthermore, that is precisely where I believe the opportunity for common ground resides.

The validity of any text is as sound as the level of human understanding at the time it was penned; which is why I don't believe that a religious doctrine should reside in a biblical text, but rather in a religious body entrusted with the ongoing development and understanding of that doctrine. In that scenario, in much the same way as Australia's constitution developed to implicitly influence expressed text, so could, and should, religious doctrine.

The point I've been making is that it is more constructive to influence the implicit aspects of a religious doctrine, than to attack and belittle the existence of that doctrine altogether.

The King James Version of the bible, which is the predominant version used by modern Christianity was written in the 1600’s.
Also to be noted, that King James was a gay man, he also banned homosexuality, but given he was King, he was immune to his new law.
History is a wonderful thing!

 

[Crankitup]

The King James Version of the bible, which is the predominant version used by modern Christianity was written in the 1600’s.
Also to be noted, that King James was a gay man, he also banned homosexuality, but given he was King, he was immune to his new law.
History is a wonderful thing!

Myth.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Was-King-James-A-Homosexual

 

[Opine]

The King James Version of the bible, which is the predominant version used by modern Christianity was written in the 1600’s.
Also to be noted, that King James was a gay man, he also banned homosexuality, but given he was King, he was immune to his new law.
History is a wonderful thing!

Yes, conversely the Catholic doctrine is distinct, and perhaps maligned by followers of the KG bible, on a major ground that religious doctrine resides in the church administration; rather than the biblical text. But these are points well outside the scope of this current discussion.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I certainly don't dispute that. Furthermore, that is precisely where I believe the opportunity for common ground resides.

The validity of any text is as sound as the level of human understanding at the time it was penned; which is why I don't believe that a religious doctrine should reside in a biblical text, but rather in a religious body entrusted with the ongoing development and understanding of that doctrine. In that scenario, in much the same way as Australia's constitution developed to implicitly influence expressed text, so could, and should, religious doctrine.

The point I've been making is that it is more constructive to influence the implicit aspects of a religious doctrine, than to attack and belittle the existence of that doctrine altogether.

Your nuance is admirable, but is sadly lacking in so many of religious faith. As you would be aware, fundamentalism is one of the major causes of strife in today's world.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Now your stretching it

Well, no. Look at David Marr's article in today's Guardian. I linked it earlier.

 

[Echoes]

Not sure how any of this theological back and forth relates to a garden variety workplace relations contractual dispute, but anyway.

 

[Sainteric]

I'd have voted for Fr. Rod Bower if I could have done.

I am sure he will offensive at some point

Well, no. Look at David Marr's article in today's Guardian. I linked it earlier.

Sorry David Marr writes hard left hypocritical bull sh@@te without fail.

Read Pru goward in fairfax

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Abraham Lincoln

Um, not disputing your point about secularists, but the US Civil War was some two decades after Britain abolished slavery.

 

[Gough]

Yes, conversely the Catholic doctrine is distinct, and perhaps maligned by followers of the KG bible, on a major ground that religious doctrine resides in the church administration; rather than the biblical text. But these are points well outside the scope of this current discussion.

As my mate Belfast Pete puts it, all that my god is better your god bollocks.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yes, conversely the Catholic doctrine is distinct, and perhaps maligned by followers of the KG bible, on a major ground that religious doctrine resides in the church administration; rather than the biblical text. But these are points well outside the scope of this current discussion.

King Gee?

 

[Gough]

King Gee?

Ken Cunningham.

 

[EasternTiger]

Time and time again, we warned the gay people of Australia that religious folk were barking mad, and a church was no place to celebrate your love for another human being.

"Bollocks!" they said. "We want to get married in a church like you breeders, and we shall have the right to do it."

And as if eternal damnation wasn't bad enough, those of you contemplating marriage will also have a mother-in-law and a neighbour called Bob to look forward to.

You threw $122 million dollars of our hard earned down the drain so you could join the club, and now here you are pissing and moaning about the very institution we told you to avoid like the plague.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's not that simple.

But it is this simple:

1. Hold whatever beliefs you like.

2. But if you've agreed as part of a multi-million dollar contract NOT to use social media to express the nastier beliefs of your religion, then don't do it or you're breaking the terms of the contract.

2a) As if religious beliefs can be compromised by a bloody contract. It's absurd for any organisation to even make the implication.
2b) Did he promote those beliefs on the RA website?

The idea of corporations having freedom of expression restrictions over a persons social time is Orwellian. There are things greater than marketing in this life. Some of you folks make exceptional free market capitalists for purported liberals.

Another thing, does anyone have an actual copy of this contract that they can post?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Sorry David Marr writes hard left hypocritical bull sh@@te without fail.

Read Pru goward in fairfax

Ah, jeez, and there I was thinking you were open-minded.

OK, seeing as it hurts your eyes to see actual facts if they're written in an article signed by David Marr, I'll paste it here for you -

One of those attacking the code this week was Sydney's Anglican Archbishop, Glenn Davies, who eloquently defended Folau’s “right as a citizen to speak of what he believes without threat to his employment”.


Really? Is this the same archbishop who compelled 34 Anglican headmasters and headmistresses last year to sign an open letter demanding the law continue to allow them to sack gay teachers and expel gay students?


I asked His Grace if this same citizens’ right extended to teachers in Anglican schools? No was the answer that came back from his spokesman, Russell Powell. “This case of non faith-related employment should not be conflated with others.”


How silly of me! There’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Folau is free as a footballer to vilify homosexuals without losing his job but were he coaching rugby at a Sydney Anglican school and tweeting approval of gays it might well see him shown the door.


Here’s another simple principle: if you are demanding rights for yourself which you won’t extend to others, that’s not freedom. It’s privilege.



All of those claims are easily verifiable.

Now, although I disagree that Folau is "vilifying" homosexuals, I would say that's a pretty clear case of hypocrisy.

But apparently you don't, because if you hear the words "David Marr" your fingers go into your ears and um...

 

[Opine]

As my mate Belfast Pete puts it, all that my god is better your god bollocks.

Your responses promote the notion that equality is alive and well; inflammatory comments spew from the mouths of those on all sides of the discussion.

 

[Borisdog]

172 pages.

When all that really needed to happen was everyone ignore the dickhead.

But no, everyone rushed to see who could be the most outraged.

And now look at it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Your responses promote the notion that equality is alive and well

It's alive, well and legally enforced.

This is really about gaining political power via irrational guilt.

 

[Opine]

King Gee?

Comfort is king

 

[Snake_Baker]

172 pages.

When all that really needed to happen was everyone ignore the dickhead.

But no, everyone rushed to see who could be the most outraged.

And now look at it.

Hey, tell that to GoFundMe and the ANZ bank.

This is now a libertarian issue.

 

[Bazzar]

No more donations accepted now its past the 2 million mark.