Religion Folau

[Allikat]

I wonder if Julian Assange will get picked up by an AFL club now that he's not stuck in an Ecuadorian embassy?

Because clearly the ability to play the game isn't important if you're questioning whether Folau should get another go.

 

[snitzel]

I wasn't suggesting he was, I was saying that believing in what your parents taught you is a valid excuse at 11, but by 30 you are old enough to have seen the world and formed your own opinions.

His parents are 2 people most likely over the age of 30. There are people in the world teaching their children this stuff.

Yes its pathetic all this fairy tale stuff. More people then not grow old and die believing a religion is correct.

 

[iBeng]

The bloke is an oxygen thief, so, by his own belief system he is attempting to convert everyone else too, he is going to hell himself.

 

[Johnny Karate]

Re. The thread topic.

No, he will not play AFL again.

He was sacked not because of his religion and not even for that post in isolation. He was sacked because he did it the past and recently signed a contract agreeing not to do it again. He had been previously warned about this. Many Australians who work for big companies have social media obligations written into their contracts as a matter of employee code of conduct. If they repeatedly breach said conditions they can expect to be reprimanded or even sacked. This is what has happened to Folau.

Should companies/employers be able to effectively hire/fire based on conduct outside of work? Perhaps that’s a debate worth having? However, the reality is that in the current zeitgeist they do, and I would urge everyone to be careful what they post on social media under their own names.

 

[Taylor]

Religion isn't a choice?
He's a grown adult, dealing with the consequences of his actions. You don't get a free pass simply because of belief.

I disagree. And I'll use an extreme example to highlight my point.

A man born into a culture, surrounded by the culture, living in a community that validates the culture moves into another place.

That place doesn't have the same values, let's say a man comes to Australia and has zero value for women, he treats them how he always has - that is unacceptable here but that doesn't mean he is as culpable and evil as someone raised in this culture with the values here disregarding those values to behave identically to the new member of the society.

Context is absolutely pivotal and like a dog, you are trained to behave how your community expects. That doesn't get turned off by walking through a door.

That doesn't diminish the impact of the actions if someone is victimised, but understanding the context of the action must be considered in dealing out justice.

I'd argue that we are talking about the public speaking of someone from a cult.

 

[Baird]

Wow how cucked is the ARU

 

[RUNVS]

Liars - is some situations telling a lie is illegal, in other situations it isn't.

I am lying to myself right now about the state of the Swans list.

 

[juss]

I wasn't suggesting he was, I was saying that believing in what your parents taught you is a valid excuse at 11, but by 30 you are old enough to have seen the world and formed your own opinions.

Being provocative here*, but members of society are happy to dismiss those that believe in unproven faiths as being silly and possibly mentally deranged believing in fairytales, but society is more than happy to support someone being born a certain sex such as male, and then getting to their adulthood and deciding that they are a female (despite biological and anatomical proof otherwise) and should have the rights of a female?

It's okay to criticise the stupidity of the thought process of one but you are a biggot if you criticise the thought process of the other?

*Using an extreme example to highlight the double standards about what is considered acceptable to believe or not.

 

[Ricketz]

I think your assumption of motives cheapens the entire debate, pushing someone into an established box for convenience really helps someone not hear a message or another point of view, it's dangerous.

Not in this circumstance but it's the exact same response to political opinions. Something challenges your preconceptions and that's scary, you might need to look at whether you need to change, or you can label the person making you uncomfortable as something that affords you the luxury of discounting their opinion and moving on in life without facing a truth.

Using words like "hate" to drama up some disapproval of a behavior or attitude has cheapened the word and inflamed the tensions.

In my opinion, not many people read the thoughts of others without ascribing a motivation to them. For many, it is incomprehensible that you could publicly judge and condemn complete strangers to an eternity of pain and suffering without an element of hate. It is more reasonable to suspect hate as a motivation than diligence to a belief system - especially when publication of those beliefs constitutes a direct contravention of your belief system's own laws.

Call it whatever you like though, but it wasn't nice whatever his motivation was.

 

[Ricketz]

Actually - it's not an argument at all - just a social observation

Interestingly I would hold similar social views (not to folau to be clear).

No need to introduce other religions that deserve their own specific criticism, then?

 

[Mofra]

I disagree. And I'll use an extreme example to highlight my point.

A man born into a culture, surrounded by the culture, living in a community that validates the culture moves into another place.

That place doesn't have the same values, let's say a man comes to Australia and has zero value for women, he treats them how he always has - that is unacceptable here but that doesn't mean he is as culpable and evil as someone raised in this culture with the values here disregarding those values to behave identically to the new member of the society.

Context is absolutely pivotal and like a dog, you are trained to behave how your community expects. That doesn't get turned off by walking through a door.

That doesn't diminish the impact of the actions if someone is victimised, but understanding the context of the action must be considered in dealing out justice.

I'd argue that we are talking about the public speaking of someone from a cult.

Respectfully, that is bunk.

He is a grown adult who has been exposed to a wide variety of opinions, living in a largely free and open society. He hasn't grown up on an Amish farm or on a cult compound separated from wider society. He hasn't been raised in a strict theocracy.

 

[Taylor]

In my opinion, not many people read the thoughts of others without ascribing a motivation to them. For many, it is incomprehensible that you could publicly judge and condemn complete strangers to an eternity of pain and suffering without an element of hate. It is more reasonable to suspect hate as a motivation than diligence to a belief system - especially when publication of those beliefs constitutes a direct contravention of your belief system's own laws.

Call it whatever you like though, but it wasn't nice whatever his motivation was.

I saw it as someone pointing at the cliff and saying that you better change your direction or you'll go off the bridge, not him sending anyone over the edge.

It seems you saw it as him pushing people off the cliff.

 

[Taylor]

Respectfully, that is bunk.

He is a grown adult who has been exposed to a wide variety of opinions, living in a largely free and open society. He hasn't grown up on an Amish farm or on a cult compound separated from wider society. He hasn't been raised in a strict theocracy.

My own context affords me contact with people who appear otherwise normal who are actually members of a fundamentalist and isolationist cult. So I have seen first hand how people are raised and indoctrinated, then had that belief validated repeatedly in their community.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I am lying to myself right now about the state of the Swans list.

That's not lying, that's called optimism or delusion, lol.

 

[Mofra]

My own context affords me contact with people who appear otherwise normal who are actually members of a fundamentalist and isolationist cult. So I have seen first hand how people are raised and indoctrinated, then had that belief validated repeatedly in their community.

Were they sports stars who travelled the world and exist outside of their own community bubble?

 

[Bearded Clam]

Dear Mr Folau

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your position, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to New Zealanders, but not Indonesians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Indonesians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is there a Government department that will do it?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

 

[Ricketz]

I saw it as someone pointing at the cliff and saying that you better change your direction or you'll go off the bridge, not him sending anyone over the edge.

It seems you saw it as him pushing people off the cliff.

No, I think he was assessing the worth of the current lives of a few hundred million people. What a jerk, to be honest.

He clearly passed judgement - strictly forbidden by baby Jesus himself. He shouldn't do it by his own religious belief system. By virtue of this fact, your argument that he is doing his religious duty is false.

 

[Taylor]

Were they sports stars who travelled the world and exist outside of their own community bubble?

We are talking about the same Israel Folau who was told by his family to take the AFL job because it was great money even though he didn't want to?

That's consistent with my observations of people in cultish groups.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Homosexuality, sexual preference is not a wilful choice. That is why it has been singled out for discussion.

Are you now going to answer my original question?

 

[nineteen eighty]

He should be able to say whatever he believes.

I don't agree with him, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to say it.

Free speach does not give people the right to incite hatred and put down others. There has to be some level of filter...even under the free speach umbrella.

 

[iBeng]

I disagree. And I'll use an extreme example to highlight my point.

A man born into a culture, surrounded by the culture, living in a community that validates the culture moves into another place.

That place doesn't have the same values, let's say a man comes to Australia and has zero value for women, he treats them how he always has - that is unacceptable here but that doesn't mean he is as culpable and evil as someone raised in this culture with the values here disregarding those values to behave identically to the new member of the society.

Context is absolutely pivotal and like a dog, you are trained to behave how your community expects. That doesn't get turned off by walking through a door.

That doesn't diminish the impact of the actions if someone is victimised, but understanding the context of the action must be considered in dealing out justice.

I'd argue that we are talking about the public speaking of someone from a cult.

One has to wonder how much people use culture to mask their lack of moral compass when it comes to other people.

Raised in a culture that treats women like animals, I would like to think some people have enough humanity in them to realise thats disgusting behavior, but humans are a weird species.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

We are talking about the same Israel Folau who was told by his family to take the AFL job because it was great money even though he didn't want to?

That's consistent with my observations of people in cultish groups.

Yep, I heard the same re Folau's family being after the money.

 

[Mofra]

We are talking about the same Israel Folau who was told by his family to take the AFL job because it was great money even though he didn't want to?

How very Christian of him.

Rich man, temple of god, eye of needles etc etc.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

No need to introduce other religions that deserve their own specific criticism, then?

Actually - there is a whole heap of minorities that can be afforded criticism (or not).

In fact I mentioned two others. You just clung to 1 - that in itself is interesting.

As we saw last week - eating a democracy sausage at the election in a few weeks is highly offensive to a small minority of Australians. However that minority is dismissed. Yet when other minorities are offended - we launch into a social defence.

My comments are a social observation - not a statement of right or wrong.

 

[Bearded Clam]

He has been taught to believe it and now he does. Shouldn't lose your job over it.

He signed the contract he did... no one forced him to. In that contract it stated that there would be repercussions from posting on social media if the posts were discriminatory in nature.

He signed on to his contract knowing full well what was in that contract and his responsibilities... he breached that contract.. so he only has himself to blame in the end..