Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Opine]

If it dawns on many Christians who drop in here that much of their belief set is logically indefensible, that is a good thing surely.

Since when has it been acceptable in Australia to advocate for expulsion and slaughter of Australians on the basis of their religious belief?

 

[Gethelred]

If it dawns on many Christians who drop in here that much of their belief set is logically indefensible, that is a good thing surely.

Do you really think any of the christians who've set foot in this thread have done anything other than double down?

 

[Gethelred]

Since when has it been acceptable in Australia to advocate for expulsion and slaughter of Australians on the basis of their religious belief?

I think you could - with adequate historical study - make a case for the mass imprisonment and containment of indigenous Australians on the basis of teaching them good Christian values.

It'd take substantial research to prove it, though.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Do you really think any of the christians who've set foot in this thread have done anything other than double down?

Can't say. Probably not. They tend to scurry off, never to be seen again, so who knows.

De-programming someone can take a long time (just look at me) but maybe if there are other things happening in their lives that are also causing them to examine their assumptions, it could have some sort of cumulative effect.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Since when has it been acceptable in Australia to advocate for expulsion and slaughter of Australians on the basis of their religious belief?

You are awesome.

 

[Gethelred]

It appears the type of place on social media referred to recently as a “cowards palace”. Hopefully, the recent finding in Voller will bring about much needed change.

Voller's case: High Court affirms media are liable for third party comments | Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers: Law Firm in Sydney, Melbourne & Perth

Sweeping changes in modern communication do not warrant relaxing the strictness of the common law regarding the publication of defamatory material. So the High Court has found, in a decision that should make all organisations hosting or facilitating online or social media content alert to the...

www.gtlaw.com.au

Makes for some interesting reading, but doesn't clarify the position of public posting unless someone sufficiently prominent is targeted and that person can demonstrate damage as a consequence; ie, the foundations of defamation remain the same.

The key point that allowed that case to move forward (in my relatively amateur legal opinion) is that it was media organisations cultivating content (1) and they (the defamed) could trace those comments to damages (2); this therefore satisfying the requirements for defamation.

I'd be interested to see how the posting in this thread could be ruled by this finding.

 

[Opine]

You are awesome.

you’re a hater

 

[Opine]

I think you could - with adequate historical study - make a case for the mass imprisonment and containment of indigenous Australians on the basis of teaching them good Christian values.

It'd take substantial research to prove it, though.

Making an exception to indefeasibility and really returning some of their land would be a good start.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

you’re a hater

?

 

[Evolved1]

Voller's case: High Court affirms media are liable for third party comments | Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers: Law Firm in Sydney, Melbourne & Perth

Sweeping changes in modern communication do not warrant relaxing the strictness of the common law regarding the publication of defamatory material. So the High Court has found, in a decision that should make all organisations hosting or facilitating online or social media content alert to the...

www.gtlaw.com.au

Makes for some interesting reading, but doesn't clarify the position of public posting unless someone sufficiently prominent is targeted and that person can demonstrate damage as a consequence; ie, the foundations of defamation remain the same.

The key point that allowed that case to move forward (in my relatively amateur legal opinion) is that it was media organisations cultivating content (1) and they (the defamed) could trace those comments to damages (2); this therefore satisfying the requirements for defamation.

I'd be interested to see how the posting in this thread could be ruled by this finding.

Have any real people been defamed in this thread? The closest I could see to meeting relevant criteria would be claims that certain religious figures are pedophiles, but then those figures would have to prove damages as a result of the posting in this thread. It wouldn't be worth the time or effort on their part.

vdubs, boston tiger, evolved1, gethelred, etc are anonymous online personas with separate offline identities that can't be damaged in reputation or in monetary terms as a result of posts here.

 

[Gethelred]

Have any real people been defamed in this thread? The closest I could see to meeting relevant criteria would be claims that certain religious figures are pedophiles, but then those figures would have to prove damages as a result of the posting in this thread. It wouldn't be worth the time or effort on their part.

vdubs, boston tiger, evolved1, gethelred, etc are anonymous online personas with separate offline identities that can't be damaged in reputation or in monetary terms as a result of posts here.

That's ostensibly what I meant; you would have an extremely difficult time demonstrating damages to any party on this site.

Even the broadening/extrapolation of the rule in the mentioned case couldn't really allow for it, one would think. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Opine]

Have any real people been defamed in this thread? The closest I could see to meeting relevant criteria would be claims that certain religious figures are pedophiles, but then those figures would have to prove damages as a result of the posting in this thread. It wouldn't be worth the time or effort on their part.

vdubs, boston tiger, evolved1, gethelred, etc are anonymous online personas with separate offline identities that can't be damaged in reputation or in monetary terms as a result of posts here.

Are you worried?

 

[Opine]

That's ostensibly what I meant; you would have an extremely difficult time demonstrating damages to any party on this site.

Even the broadening/extrapolation of the rule in the mentioned case couldn't really allow for it, one would think. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

Some proscriptions don’t require need to prove damages, and may be aimed at class of persons.

 

[Opine]

That's ostensibly what I meant; you would have an extremely difficult time demonstrating damages to any party on this site.

Even the broadening/extrapolation of the rule in the mentioned case couldn't really allow for it, one would think. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

Don’t need to be a lawyer, just debate without vilifying.

 

[Evolved1]

Are you worried?

Not in the least. This isn't my first rodeo.

 

[Opine]

That's ostensibly what I meant; you would have an extremely difficult time demonstrating damages to any party on this site.

Even the broadening/extrapolation of the rule in the mentioned case couldn't really allow for it, one would think. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

The important thing is that in certain circumstances site facilitator may become joint publisher. The rest is whatever may follow. This site is generally excellent but for a small minority of hardcore bigots

 

[Evolved1]

I have a couple of colleagues who've been on leave since the vaccine mandate started to be enforced in Victoria, and they've cited religious (orthodox Christian) reasons for their refusal.

Can any Christians shed some light on why taking the covid vaccine would oppose their faith.

 

[Evolved1]

The important thing is that in certain circumstances site facilitator may become joint publisher. The rest is whatever may follow. This site is generally excellent but for a small minority of hardcore bigots

The SRP is chock full of bigots and partisanship.

 

[Gethelred]

Some proscriptions don’t require need to prove damages, and may be aimed at class of persons.

Do you have any cases you'd recommend, to demonstrate the precedent?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Don’t need to be a lawyer, just debate without vilifying.

Good, we’re all pretty safe here then.

 

[Boston tiger]

I have a couple of colleagues who've been on leave since the vaccine mandate started to be enforced in Victoria, and they've cited religious (orthodox Christian) reasons for their refusal.

Can any Christians shed some light on why taking the covid vaccine would oppose their faith.

For Catholics it would only be along the line of if using cell lines derived from a voluntary aborted fetus. That sort of thing

 

[carltonchelsea]

You're more than able to hold your own, so I'm not massively concerned.

Just letting you know: this thread is not a great place for discussion. It's a place in which atheists sit and claw at christians, and christians take whatever potshots they think they'll land before getting away as quickly as they can.

This thread is a sh*t place. No questions are asked worth a damn, and no answers are provided anyway.

Here endeth thine lesson!

 

[Opine]

For Catholics it would only be along the line of if using cell lines derived from a voluntary aborted fetus. That sort of thing

No.. Catholics don’t object at all. As for the grim reaper, he’s baiting, he doesn’t engage this topic in good faith.

 

[Evolved1]

No.. Catholics don’t object at all. As for the grim reaper, he’s baiting, he doesn’t engage this topic in good faith.

I'm genuinely curious to understand religious objection to the vaccine. Afaik there's nothing in the bible to suggest that any form of medicine is wrong. Boston tiger had a good point that medicines derived from aborted fetuses could be considered unethical.

 

[Number37]

It appears the type of place on social media referred to recently as a “cowards palace”. Hopefully, the recent finding in Voller will bring about much needed change.

Change such as?