Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
You are now going to suggest being gay and being a paedophile are the same thing?

Have you no bloody shame what so ever?

Nice deflection.
But no I did not say they were the same thing. The RCC describes both as intrinsically disordered, which is much the same as what I said the other day; both are aberrant in some way, in that they both deviate from normal sexuality.



I went on to make a further distinction, putting paedophiles in a category with psychopaths, being people who are harmful to society. Predators.
AFAIK no religion makes that second distinction. Gays are not necessarily harmful to society.


But now that you mention it, there does seem to be an unhealthy level of crossover. Why is this 11 year old so popular among gay men?
What's your attitude to gay paedophiles?

Nobelium

recedite wrote: »

The RCC describes both as intrinsically disordered, which is much the same as what I said the other day; both are aberrant in some way, in that they both deviate from normal sexuality.

Just for the purposes of criticizing them accurately - their CCC refers to the acts as being intrinsically disordered rather than the person. Other acts are considered intrinsically disordered as well, including wank1ng . . . if that's your thing.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

What about paedophiles? Is it OK to criticise them for being born paedophile?

The RCC views both gays and paedophiles as being "intrinsically disordered" but is quite prepared to shelter both, if they commit to not acting on their sexual impulses.
Folau seems to be following along similar lines with his message of hope and repentance.



BTW I'd also dispute that we are "not born atheist"; maybe we are, but its mostly only the individuals born with a large dose of scepticism that remain so. And the poor things can't help themselves for being born so sceptical.

I'd say we are naturally born agnostic. It's the default position on everything from food to porn. You don't know what you like until you know more about it. You can't have an informed belief/non belief from birth.

Paedophilia is clearly genetic to some extent but the reason why so many priests are paedophiles probably has more to do with the dysfunctional nature of the church's relationship with sex. It's not normal to abstain from all forms of sex, it's no wonder people get messed up.

Having said that, I honestly can't find myself to have that much rage towards paedophiles. I mean, they are bastards who should control their urges but their urges aren't their fault. They need to be removed from society to protect the innocent, something you can't say about being gay but ultimately most of the rage should be reserved for the learned men who left them in a position where they could commit further crimes.

A lot of this also applies to my views on drug addiction. Addiction in general really.

AngryHippie

theological wrote: »

The dating for the Gospel of Thomas seems to range from anywhere from 40AD to 250AD which makes certainty highly doubtful.

Delicious Ironing :rolleyes:

AngryHippie

troyzer wrote: »

Paedophilia is clearly genetic to some extent

There are some indicators that there are some genetic pre-cursors, but that evidence is absolutely drenched in a wave of confirmation bias at this point in time as it hasn't been verified by similar testing to confirm that an equal portion of the population with similar genetic traits do not have paedophilic tendencies.

There is far more convincing evidence coming from the CBT field pointing towards them not progressing through puberty in a typical fashion and not developing emotionally beyond the early pubescent stage.

I wont go into the implications of what this would mean for an organization that uses guilt, shame and sin in an effort to explain sexuality to young people, nor the great harm that such an organization could do by employing people with an already distorted view of sexuality as something unclean or sinful to influence young people. :mad:

troyzer wrote: »

but the reason why so many priests are paedophiles probably has more to do with the dysfunctional nature of the church's relationship with sex. It's not normal to abstain from all forms of sex, it's no wonder people get messed up.

It is definitely a factor. It attracts men who find justification and reason in sex being sinful and dirty. Then it gives them a position and authority to spread that viewpoint to the vulnerable.

Again, just to frame that, there are plenty of good honest humans that are devoted in their faith and serve a useful and honest position in the clergy. Their inaction and silence (and often protection) about the abuses that were perpetrated leaves their good acts shattered in fragments on the ground around them. Cleaning house and rebuilding from that is the challenge facing the church today.
Not getting homosexuals to convert or repent, certainly not by further alienating those that are prepared to acknowledge the value of the church by defending the clownish behavior of Israel Folau or the Westboro Baptists or any other organization that is clearly just looking for attention.:(

recedite

Nobelium wrote: »

Just for the purposes of criticizing them accurately - their CCC refers to the acts as being intrinsically disordered rather than the person. Other acts are considered intrinsically disordered as well, including wank1ng . . . if that's your thing.

The CCC? Are they the people who make the rugby clothing? :pac:
You are right about the ****.

Anyway, the homosexual act is "intrinsically disordered" but the inclination is also "objectively disordered" apparently.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

I'm not seeing any substantial difference between this and what Folau said.

recedite

AngryHippie wrote: »

There are some indicators that there are some genetic pre-cursors, but that evidence is absolutely drenched in a wave of confirmation bias at this point in time as it hasn't been verified by similar testing to confirm that an equal portion of the population with similar genetic traits do not have paedophilic tendencies.

There is far more convincing evidence coming from the CBT field pointing towards them not progressing through puberty in a typical fashion and not developing emotionally beyond the early pubescent stage.

So, cutting through the bullcrap here, are you saying they choose to be paedophiles or not?
And if not, how is that any different to a homosexual saying they did not choose to be homosexual?

AngryHippie

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

You think that shows respect, compassion, and sensitivity. ?

I'd hate to see or hear it when you get a bit preachy or rude.....:rolleyes:

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

So, cutting through the bullcrap here, are you saying they choose to be paedophiles or not?
And if not, how is that any different to a homosexual saying they did not choose to be homosexual?

They do choose their victims because they are emotionally unwell and undeveloped to the point where they are not capable of connecting with an adult.

It is very very different to a homosexual, most of whom manage to work their way to a mature emotional position on their sexuality despite society.

I cannot believe you have the gall to compare the two. I'm done responding to you until you take a step back from that comparison as it has vile implications and shows exactly where you are prepared to steer what was an amicable discussion.

recedite

AngryHippie wrote: »

They do choose their victims because they are emotionally unwell and undeveloped to the point where they are not capable of connecting with an adult.

It is very very different to a homosexual, most of whom manage to work their way to a mature emotional position on their sexuality despite society.

I cannot believe you have the gall to compare the two. I'm done responding to you until you take a step back from that comparison as it has vile implications and shows exactly where you are prepared to steer what was an amicable discussion.

No, I didn't ask whether they choose their victims, I asked whether they chose their sexuality.


You say they are "unwell". That implies they will get better soon. That, unfortunately, is just not true. They are what they are.

recedite

AngryHippie wrote: »

You think that shows respect, compassion, and sensitivity. ?

I'd hate to see or hear it when you get a bit preachy or rude.....:rolleyes:

Folau says "God loves you and is giving you time to turn away from sin and come to Him". If not hell awaits.
The RCC says "These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.." but the implication is still there that if they don't, then hell awaits. How is RCC hell any different?

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

No, I didn't ask whether they choose their victims, I asked whether they chose their sexuality.

Sexuality is a sexual attraction to a sex. i.e Male or Female
They are in some cases indiscriminate, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Again.

recedite wrote: »

You say they are "unwell". That implies they will get better soon. That, unfortunately, is just not true. They are what they are.

It was a euphemistic way of stating that they are too sick, too broken, too messed up to fulfill a role in normal human society, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Again.

AngryHippie

recedite wrote: »

Folau says "God loves you and is giving you time to turn away from sin and come to Him". If not hell awaits.
The RCC says "These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.." but the implication is still there that if they don't, then hell awaits. How is RCC hell any different?

I'm done responding to you until you take a step back from that comparison above.

recedite

Anyway, just to wrap the basic points here; homosexuals say they are entitled to be offended by Folau because they are born that way, unlike atheists drunks, fornicators etc..
I merely point out that there are probably genetic predispositions to most of these things at some level.


Those who are 100% homosexual did not choose their sexuality, just like paedophiles did not choose theirs. But that's not a reason for society to accept such behaviours. As excuses go, its a red herring.
If we accept homosexual behaviour its because its between consenting adults and is not harming anyone else.


If the LGBT agenda starts interfering with kids, devaluing marriage or shutting down free speech, then the rest of us are perfectly entitled to react against it.
Cheers.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, just to wrap the basic points here; homosexuals say they are entitled to be offended by Folau because they are born that way, unlike atheists drunks, fornicators etc..
I merely point out that there are probably genetic predispositions to most of these things at some level.


Those who are 100% homosexual did not choose their sexuality, just like paedophiles did not choose theirs. But that's not a reason for society to accept such behaviours. As excuses go, its a red herring.
If we accept homosexual behaviour its because its between consenting adults and is not harming anyone else.


If the LGBT agenda starts interfering with kids, devaluing marriage or shutting down free speech, then the rest of us are perfectly entitled to react against it.
Cheers.

That's a fairly twisted interpretation.

Being gay and being atheist are nothing like each other. You can't handwave it by saying that both of them have a genetic component without qualifying it. Being gay objectively is genetic with a potential nurturing component. Your religion is either something you develop during your life or something you are born into by coincidence of geography.

We don't accept paedophilia because it harms innocent people. It should be said that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Adult males taking catamites was extremely common in many cultures. As a modern society, we have decided that children are too young to consent and we value the innocence of childhood. This is a classic example of secular, moral relativism by the way.

Being gay doesn't harm anyone. It's a relationship between two people of the same sex, often loving and deeply committed. There is no objective, real world reason to be opposed to that.

Devaluing marriage is a red herring. The definition of marriage has constantly evolves through time. You're still allowed to have your Christian version of marriage in a Christian church. I would support your right to exclude gay marriages from that church incidentally.

I have no idea what you mean by interfering with kids though I do agree that the drag kid is child abuse. Kids shouldn't be sexualised in any context.

However, I do think there's a role in normalising gay relationships to kids. I grew up watching Disney princesses and princes, I don't see an issue with it being more representative of how societies actually work. Life, love and families are complicated. You don't have to get into the nitty gritty but I do think the world will be a better place when nobody gives a **** about the "gay agenda" anymore.

Unfortunately, that day won't come until we make it clear to bigots that their views are backwards and while you can shout them all you want, we're not letting you have a platform of being an idol to millions of Australians and rugby fans all around the world. Folau doesn't have a birthright to represent the Tahs or Wallabies don't forget.

He's allowed to have his backwards views, he's not allowed to have them free of consequences.

Young LGBT Australians are five times more likely to commit suicide. These are real people and real lives. They live in a world where people have a debate over whether or they're not disgusting filth, an abomination destined for eternal fires. A lot of these kids are repressed and live in ultra conservative households. It is important to send a signal to these vulnerable kids that we as a society do not ignore the bigotry of people who hate them. Just like we'd call for the sacking of racists, misogynists, homophobes and yes, people who hate Christians.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, just to wrap the basic points here; homosexuals say they are entitled to be offended by Folau because they are born that way, unlike atheists drunks, fornicators etc..
I merely point out that there are probably genetic predispositions to most of these things at some level.


Those who are 100% homosexual did not choose their sexuality, just like paedophiles did not choose theirs. But that's not a reason for society to accept such behaviours. As excuses go, its a red herring.
If we accept homosexual behaviour its because its between consenting adults and is not harming anyone else.


If the LGBT agenda starts interfering with kids, devaluing marriage or shutting down free speech, then the rest of us are perfectly entitled to react against it.
Cheers.

You should come over to the dar.. I mean, light, side

antiskeptic

troyzer wrote: »

That's a fairly twisted interpretation.

Being gay and being atheist are nothing like each other. You can't handwave it by saying that both of them have a genetic component without qualifying it. Being gay objectively is genetic with a potential nurturing component. Your religion is either something you develop during your life or something you are born into by coincidence of geography.

We don't accept paedophilia because it harms innocent people. It should be said that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Adult males taking catamites was extremely common in many cultures. As a modern society, we have decided that children are too young to consent and we value the innocence of childhood. This is a classic example of secular, moral relativism by the way.

Being gay doesn't harm anyone. It's a relationship between two people of the same sex, often loving and deeply committed. There is no objective, real world reason to be opposed to that.

Devaluing marriage is a red herring. The definition of marriage has constantly evolves through time. You're still allowed to have your Christian version of marriage in a Christian church. I would support your right to exclude gay marriages from that church incidentally.

I have no idea what you mean by interfering with kids though I do agree that the drag kid is child abuse. Kids shouldn't be sexualised in any context.

However, I do think there's a role in normalising gay relationships to kids. I grew up watching Disney princesses and princes, I don't see an issue with it being more representative of how societies actually work. Life, love and families are complicated. You don't have to get into the nitty gritty but I do think the world will be a better place when nobody gives a **** about the "gay agenda" anymore.

Unfortunately, that day won't come until we make it clear to bigots that their views are backwards and while you can shout them all you want, we're not letting you have a platform of being an idol to millions of Australians and rugby fans all around the world. Folau doesn't have a birthright to represent the Tahs or Wallabies don't forget.

He's allowed to have his backwards views, he's not allowed to have them free of consequences.

Young LGBT Australians are five times more likely to commit suicide. These are real people and real lives. They live in a world where people have a debate over whether or they're not disgusting filth, an abomination destined for eternal fires. A lot of these kids are repressed and live in ultra conservative households. It is important to send a signal to these vulnerable kids that we as a society do not ignore the bigotry of people who hate them. Just like we'd call for the sacking of racists, misogynists, homophobes and yes, people who hate Christians.

His position is that homosexuality is aberrant. Men have not been designed/evolved to have sex with men. Nor women with women. Now they can have sex with each other. You can also use the back of a fork to open a beer bottle. But it's aberrant

Now you can, as he has stated, tolerate the aberrance where it does no harm to others. Consenting adults and all that.

But his objection is centred on the normalising of the aberrance. Kids should not be taught that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, if it is aberrant. No more than any other aberrant behaviour ought be normalised.

The question isn't about proving what harm normalising can cause - when spannering on the norm you don't necessarily know what the outcomes might be over time. Science isn't good at predicting the future - as it's significant underestimating of the rate of climate change testifies to.

It's no big secret that women typically have a mothering self-sacrificial instinct that far exceeds that of a man. They care about nourishment, about dry clothes about not getting cold, about their childs emotional development. A gay man cannot have that mothering instinct which is born, in part, from the fact that she bore the child. The child is a part of her in a way it can't be for a dad.

It's no secret either than boy children, at the age of around 6 turn from their mother's apron strings and take more intense interest in their dads. Why? They realise they are boys and want to download the software necessary to become men themselves. And their dad's, hopefully, if often not, are the ones to provide that software.

A gay man cannot teach a boy how to be a man. He can teach him how to be a gay man (if the child is gay). But only that. He cannot teach his child how to fully relate to a woman because he has not fully related to a woman. The straight children of gay couples are denied lines of developmental "code" that gay people cannot provide them

Now I know the real world often doesn't hold to the ideal mom and dad. Neverthless, that is the potential. And a kid has a right to that potential. Homosexuals cannot ever provide that potential.

How is a woman supposed to be a dad?

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

The LGBT agenda is long since expanded it's horizons beyond their own homes.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

And now heterosexual men are marrying each other for tax reasons.


https://www.thejournal.ie/wedding-for-tax-reasons-3758560-Dec2017/


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-85-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413129.html


That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

Which ties in neatly to the unforeseen circumstances that arise when you go spannering on things.

Turtwig

MOD:

The identity of "manhood" and "male" parenting has little to do with thread. This thread is about Israel Folau not whether gays make sufficient or insufficient parents.

As for the discussion on pedophilia. Please remember that's it a sensitive topic and where possible use other analogies to make a point. Homosexuals have spent years being contrasted to child abusers. There surely is little need for any associations, no matter how remote, in this thread?

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Lobby.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

They lobby. Hence lobby

Whats your point exactly?
Marriage was always about money, property, livestock and power

It wasn't for the two heterosexual men when it wasn't possible for them to get married.

I noticed my thoughts once, when interviewing candidates for a job, that one guy had a wedding ring on and the next guy didn't. I found myself veering towards the guy with the wedding ring.

The wedding ring spoke of a person prepared to commit, to take on the responsibility and self-sacrifice of kids, to be someone who had other significant priorities outside work (thus balanced, thus a better bet).

He could have had a crap marriage and beat his wife. He might not have or wanted kids. The other guy could have been married but happen not to be wearing his wedding ring. And could have had a bunch of kids for all I knew.

The point isn't the facts in their case. The point is what marriage has come to mean, such as to cause those taughts to arise.

Marriage is sacred. Not in the religious sense. But in the sense of what it makes of and says about, a person.

It's far more than your diminished view. And society thinks so too.

AngryHippie

antiskeptic wrote: »

He cannot teach his child how to fully relate to a woman because he has not fully related to a woman. The straight children of gay couples are denied lines of developmental "code" that gay people cannot provide them

Can you explain what you mean by "fully relate" to a woman?
I'm not sure I know what this means, are you talking about relationship advice, sexual advice or are you talking about the more subtle learned habits and traits that come from observing two people in a relationship your entire life.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now I know the real world often doesn't hold to the ideal mom and dad. Neverthless, that is the potential. And a kid has a right to that potential. Homosexuals cannot ever provide that potential.

How is a woman supposed to be a dad?

I don't necessarily agree with you there. Plenty of good humans out there that were raised by single mums and dads because the other half of the relationship never showed up.
There are also plenty of good humans out there that survived the grief and loss of having two parents only to be tragically separated by death or circumstance and being raised by one.

I think every child has a right to be raised by loving people who will nurture, support and provide for them, but I also think that any human who connects and loves the child is more than capable of stepping up and providing those needs, different isn't wrong. Its just different. Part of what makes up the amazing tapestry of humanity.

theological

robinph wrote: »

Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "I don't think that you should have sex before marriage" and "all of group X will go to hell".

One is OK and we can have a debate about, the other is hate speech.

God's spoken (2 Peter 1:20-21, Hebrews 1:1-2). What's "OK" (and what isn't) is based on what He's said (Isaiah 5:20).

By rejecting Him, we condemn ourselves (John 3:18). I should go to hell for my own sin (John 3:36). Seeing this is the first step to seeing the good news and accepting Christ.

He sent His Son to endure the cross. We can be forgiven and have eternal life (Romans 3:23-24). That's love (1 John 4:10).

God's right to judge our hate speech towards Him. He offers undeserved kindness to us Jesus despite how we've treated Him if we repent (Romans 5:8-9).

Saying hard, costly truths for the salvation of others is love speech. Being silent while people are headed for hell is hate speech.

We don't agree with you. That's "OK". Berating Christians for holding to the gospel is boring. We've heard it all before.

antiskeptic

AngryHippie wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by "fully relate" to a woman?
I'm not sure I know what this means, are you talking about relationship advice, sexual advice or are you talking about the more subtle learned habits and traits that come from observing two people in a relationship your entire life.




I don't necessarily agree with you there. Plenty of good humans out there that were raised by single mums and dads because the other half of the relationship never showed up.
There are also plenty of good humans out there that survived the grief and loss of having two parents only to be tragically separated by death or circumstance and being raised by one.

I think every child has a right to be raised by loving people who will nurture, support and provide for them, but I also think that any human who connects and loves the child is more than capable of stepping up and providing those needs, different isn't wrong. Its just different. Part of what makes up the amazing tapestry of humanity.

Mod has spoken on the off trackedness of bringing up parenting. Although I think he will let me close off and redirect to the central point being made thus.

The first half of that post spoke of aberrance. And whether it should be tolerated (it is) or promoted. The position is that you should not promote aberrant behaviours.

robinph

theological wrote: »

Saying hard, costly truths for the salvation of others is love speech. Being silent while people are headed for hell is hate speech.

We don't agree with you. That's "OK". Berating Christians for holding to the gospel is boring. We've heard it all before.

Religion is not the victim here.

You have the right to believe in whatever deity you like, you do not have the right to inflict what you believe are their views on others, or to threaten others with eternal damnation. Nobody is being saved by being told that homosexuals will go to hell.

theological

robinph wrote: »

Religion is not the victim here.

You have the right to believe in whatever deity you like, you do not have the right to inflict what you believe are their views on others, or to threaten others with eternal damnation. Nobody is being saved by being told that homosexuals will go to hell.

We've returned to the question of who gives me the right to speak about God. I've answered this already.

Jesus is Lord, not you. That's the dividing line between the Christian and the atheist.

If you've got nothing new to add, I think we should stop here lest we continue in circles.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I noticed my thoughts once, when interviewing candidates for a job, that one guy had a wedding ring on and the next guy didn't. I found myself veering towards the guy with the wedding ring.

The wedding ring spoke of a person prepared to commit, to take on the responsibility and self-sacrifice of kids, to be someone who had other significant priorities outside work (thus balanced, thus a better bet).

He could have had a crap marriage and beat his wife. He might not have or wanted kids. The other guy could have been married but happen not to be wearing his wedding ring. And could have had a bunch of kids for all I knew.

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:

Marriage is sacred. Not in the religious sense. But in the sense of what it makes of and says about, a person..

Your idealistic sense towards marriage isn't backed up by reality,
For thousands of years it was about alliances, political unions, money and livestock.

But do continue to ignore reality and give some sort of weird twisted notion of how special you think it is, its amusing to see somebody in lala land.

Cabaal

theological wrote: »

We've returned to the question of who gives me the right to speak about God. I've answered this already.

Jesus is Lord, not you. That's the dividing line between the Christian and the atheist.

Words in a book edited by men, well, we've been told now!

If you've got nothing new to add, I think we should stop here lest we continue in circles.

So your answer is literally...."cause the bible says so"

robinph

theological wrote: »

We've returned to the question of who gives me the right to speak about God. I've answered this already.

Jesus is Lord, not you. That's the dividing line between the Christian and the atheist.

If you've got nothing new to add, I think we should stop here lest we continue in circles.

You have the right to say and do, almost, anything you like in your own home or on your own private island.

However, if you chose to live amongst the rest of society then as a group that society decides what can and can't be said or done to each other, and society has decided that spouting hate speech about a particular group of people is unacceptable. You are still free to believe in your version of your deity, and your rights are not being taken away in any form. Well other than the "right" to spout hate speech and hide behind religion as the reason for doing so.

ChrisJ84

Cabaal wrote: »

Words in a book edited by men, well, we've been told now!

This has already been discussed, and simply isn't true in the way you seem to mean it. All modern English translations are translated directly from the original languages, and the accuracy of these is attested to by the abundance of manuscripts that are extant. By any reasonable measure, the content of a modern English language bible is substantially the same as the Hebrew / Greek originals.

Cabaal wrote: »

So your answer is literally...."cause the bible says so"

In so far as it goes, yes. This does come down do a question of authority, who or what gets the final word when it comes to our lives, behaviour, desires etc. Christians believe that God is objectively real, whether we believe in him or not, and that he has revealed himself in the Bible (and most supremely in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ).

It shouldn't really come as a surprise that the Bible is the final authority for Christians.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

It shouldn't really come as a surprise that the Bible is the final authority for Christians.

Nope, but in the meantime whilst they are living in this world they need to abide by the rules decided by the inhabitants of this world, which includes them.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

Nope, but in the meantime whilst they are living in this world they need to abide by the rules decided by the inhabitants of this world, which includes them.

By that argument, Brunei and Saudi Arabia are quite right in their attitudes to homosexuality as them's the rules that have been decided. As a Christian, with my ultimate loyalty being to a higher authority, I can critique Brunei, Saudi Arabia (Ireland as well) by pointing to a better way.

I'm not surprised that Israel Folau got sacked, and I also strongly question the wisdom of his posting what he did in the way he did, with no context or nuance. Social media (and internet discussion forums) are not an ideal medium for Christians to speak the truth in love, or to give to anyone who asks a reason for the hope we have (to paraphrase Peter).

But I also strongly refute the notion that he spoke out of hate, or that the message itself is inherently hateful. Go along to a bible believing and teaching church on a Sunday and get to know some Christians, and decide for yourself if they are motivated by love or hate.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

By that argument, Brunei and Saudi Arabia are quite right in their attitudes to homosexuality as them's the rules that have been decided. As a Christian, with my ultimate loyalty being to a higher authority, I can critique Brunei, Saudi Arabia (Ireland as well) by pointing to a better way.

Yes, that is the society that they have decided to create for themselves, but those countries are also part of a wider society of other countries in the world, and other countries are in a position to tell them they are wrong and restrict their interactions and trade with them due to their position on human rights.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not surprised that Israel Folau got sacked, and I also strongly question the wisdom of his posting what he did in the way he did, with no context or nuance. Social media (and internet discussion forums) are not an ideal medium for Christians to speak the truth in love, or to give to anyone who asks a reason for the hope we have (to paraphrase Peter).

But I also strongly refute the notion that he spoke out of hate, or that the message itself is inherently hateful. Go along to a bible believing and teaching church on a Sunday and get to know some Christians, and decide for yourself if they are motivated by love or hate.

Religion is going to have to explain the loving part of the statement "homosexuals are going to hell" better then as it's clearly being missed. The visuals of the image that he posted were also not exactly renowned as being the colours and styles used when trying to present a loving message.

A statement of "homosexuals are welcome in our church" printed on an image of a pink fluffy cloud is a very different one to "homosexuals are going to hell" printed on a black and yellow warning sign in block capitals and red text.

troyzer

robinph wrote: »

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

By that argument, Brunei and Saudi Arabia are quite right in their attitudes to homosexuality as them's the rules that have been decided. As a Christian, with my ultimate loyalty being to a higher authority, I can critique Brunei, Saudi Arabia (Ireland as well) by pointing to a better way.

Yes, that is the society that they have decided to create for themselves, but those countries are also part of a wider society of other countries in the world, and other countries are in a position to tell them they are wrong and restrict their interactions and trade with them due to their position on human rights.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not surprised that Israel Folau got sacked, and I also strongly question the wisdom of his posting what he did in the way he did, with no context or nuance. Social media (and internet discussion forums) are not an ideal medium for Christians to speak the truth in love, or to give to anyone who asks a reason for the hope we have (to paraphrase Peter).

But I also strongly refute the notion that he spoke out of hate, or that the message itself is inherently hateful. Go along to a bible believing and teaching church on a Sunday and get to know some Christians, and decide for yourself if they are motivated by love or hate.

Religion is going to have to explain the loving part of the statement "homosexuals are going to hell" better then as it's clearly being missed. The visuals of the image that he posted were also not exactly renowned as being the colours and styles used when trying to present a loving message.

A statement of "homosexuals are welcome in our church" printed on an image of a pink fluffy cloud is a very different one to "homosexuals are going to hell" printed on a black and yellow warning sign in block capitals and red text.

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

But yeah, God is good.

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

Yes, that is the society that they have decided to create for themselves, but those countries are also part of a wider society of other countries in the world, and other countries are in a position to tell them they are wrong and restrict their interactions and trade with them due to their position on human rights.

Wrong on what basis? Because we find it distasteful? From a Christian worldview, I can say that Brunei and Saudi Arabia are objectively wrong in this matter (sinful, in fact) no matter what the weight of international opinion is one way or the other. By your logic, if the international community decides that we need oil more than we need to stand up for vulnerable minorities then it ceases to be a problem.

robinph wrote: »

Religion is going to have to explain the loving part of the statement "homosexuals are going to hell" better then as it's clearly being missed. The visuals of the image that he posted were also not exactly renowned as being the colours and styles used when trying to present a loving message.

A statement of "homosexuals are welcome in our church" printed on an image of a pink fluffy cloud is a very different one to "homosexuals are going to hell" printed on a black and yellow warning sign in block capitals and red text.

Your point about the need to explain these things clearly is well made, but the gospel message is inherently offensive and always will be. You also seem to be operating under the misconception that homosexuality (or even human sexuality more broadly) is central to the Christian message. It's not, and homosexuality or even sexual sin in general is not in some special category by itself. Apart from faith in Jesus, Christians believe that everyone is going to hell which is why evangelism and missionary activity has always been such an important part of Christianity

All people are made in God's image, are precious and valuable, and are also tragically marred by sin and in need of a saviour. Any church that is striving to be truly Christian will be clear that everyone is welcome, and that no-one is objectively more sinful than anyone else. It will also be clear that all are, in fact, sinners and in need of a saviour - Jesus Christ. That will have implications for every area of our lives, including our sexuality, but the primary and pressing need for everyone is to be in a right relationship with God, through faith in Jesus Christ. That is the core and kernel of Christian teaching, and has been since the 1st Century. It is also, as I noted above, inherently offensive as it humbles our pride and calls us to submit to a higher authority outside of ourselves.

ChrisJ84

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?

troyzer

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.

theological

troyzer wrote: »

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

But yeah, God is good.

You're not too far off actually.

Mark 8:34-38 wrote:

And calling the crowd to Him with His disciples, He said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Denying our own selfish interests to pursue God and to serve others is what the Christian is called to.

troyzer

theological wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

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

But yeah, God is good.

You're not too far off actually.

Mark 8:34-38 wrote:

And calling the crowd to Him with his disciples, He said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Denying our own selfish interests to pursue God and to serve others is what the Christian is called to.

But God made us selfish in the first place.

It's baffling to me that billions of people worship a supposedly loving God who toys with people by making them selfish sinners and then castigating them for doing exactly what he designed them to do.

Iscreamkone

I feel sorry for the gay atheists who cheat on their partners, they must be super offended

troyzer

Iscreamkone wrote: »

I feel sorry for the gay atheists who cheat on their partners, they must be super offended

Well God made them that way after all.

Cabaal

troyzer wrote: »

Well God made them that way after all.

yeah, but god will punish them for it to!

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Wrong on what basis? Because we find it distasteful? From a Christian worldview, I can say that Brunei and Saudi Arabia are objectively wrong in this matter (sinful, in fact) no matter what the weight of international opinion is one way or the other. By your logic, if the international community decides that we need oil more than we need to stand up for vulnerable minorities then it ceases to be a problem.

We can agree that their actions are wrong without needing to bring a deity and your/ their definition of sin into it.

We as the population of another country shape the view of that country on the world stage and if we the people decide that another country should be treated in a different way then it's down to us to make our voices heard to those who are running the country.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

... but the gospel message is inherently offensive and always will be....

Which brings us back to religious people being upset about how they can no longer be offensive to others like they used to be allowed to get away with. It isn't intolerant for society to not allow religious people to get away with being intolerant anymore.

It is offensive to state that homosexuals will go to hell, and hiding behind religion doesn't change that. Likewise, no amount of claiming "but we love everyone really" changes the fact that saying certain groups of people are unwelcome and are going to hell is a message of hate.

Iscreamkone

Cabaal wrote: »

yeah, but god will punish them for it to!

I'm still struggling with "free will" versus "the divine plan/works in mysterious ways". Anyone able to clarify for me?

ChrisJ84

troyzer wrote: »

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.

But that's not what Christians believe. It might be what you think we believe, or what you want us to believe because it makes Christianity easily refutable, but that's not how God reveals himself in scripture. God is sovereign and in control of all things. We have free will, and our decisions are real and have moral significance and moral consequences. Those are both unashamedly presented as being true at the same time, and not as in any way contradictory.

For what it's worth, I understand your perspective and if I wasn't a Christian I'd probably agree with you. What you're missing is that God isn't in the dock, you are (and me, and everyone other human being who has ever lived).

troyzer

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

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.

But that's not what Christians believe. It might be what you think we believe, or what you want us to believe because it makes Christianity easily refutable, but that's not how God reveals himself in scripture. God is sovereign and in control of all things. We have free will, and our decisions are real and have moral significance and moral consequences. Those are both unashamedly presented as being true at the same time, and not as in any way contradictory.

For what it's worth, I understand your perspective and if I wasn't a Christian I'd probably agree with you. What you're missing is that God isn't in the dock, you are (and me, and everyone other human being who has ever lived).

I know it's not what you believe. But it's the inevitable consequence of what you believe.

You can't say "God has a plan" and "God is all powerful" without accepting that there is no free will. It completely breaks Christianity as a belief system so naturally you reject it.

The nature of Christ sacrificing himself quickly becomes meaningless when you realise that the sin in the world was his fault in the first place.

He's like a super hero deliberately creating a horrible situation so he can be seen saving the day.

Everything you said is contradictory. You cannot have free will when you are designed by an all powerful being who creates you in such a way that you will make these choices.

We do have the illusion of choice. But God already knows what choices we'll make. He knows before he made me whether I'm going to hell or not. Not only that but he made me a person who is keenly interested in science, has pursued a career in science and as a result has generated a scepticism which makes accepting him impossible for me.

You are trying to blame humans for everything wrong and praise him for everything good. He's responsible for everything.

Seriously, even Spider-Man abides by these basic truisms.

"With great power, comes great responsibility".

Or, put another way:

"When you have the power to stop the bad stuff and then it happens, it happened because of you"

Or:

"All that is needed for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

These are values we all hold dear. That those who can help, should help. But God actually creates these situations were help is needed and then you give him a pass for not helping and it's actually our fault?

The fact that you accept my logic but ignore it is why people like me struggle to take Christians seriously when it comes to honest discussions and why the more strongly opinionated of us think you're all idiots. I don't think this but I do find it really hard to read the comment of someone like yourself who is clearly intelligent basically saying that my argument is air tight but it doesn't matter because God is great

ChrisJ84

robinph wrote: »

We can agree that their actions are wrong without needing to bring a deity and your/ their definition of sin into it.

We as the population of another country shape the view of that country on the world stage and if we the people decide that another country should be treated in a different way then it's down to us to make our voices heard to those who are running the country.

I feel like we're talking past one another, so maybe we should call it a day. On what basis can we agree that their actions are wrong? Because we've collectively decided? Frankly, so what and why should they care?

robinph wrote: »

Which brings us back to religious people being upset about how they can no longer be offensive to others like they used to be allowed to get away with. It isn't intolerant for society to not allow religious people to get away with being intolerant anymore.

It is offensive to state that homosexuals will go to hell, and hiding behind religion doesn't change that. Likewise, no amount of claiming "but we love everyone really" changes the fact that saying certain groups of people are unwelcome and are going to hell is a message of hate.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself. Christians are not to be offensive, the message itself is offensive. It's not that certain groups are going to hell, everyone is apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

ChrisJ84

troyzer wrote: »

I know it's not what you believe. But it's the inevitable consequence of what you believe.

You can't say "God has a plan" and "God is all powerful" without accepting that there is no free will. It completely breaks Christianity as a belief system so naturally you reject it.

The nature of Christ sacrificing himself quickly becomes meaningless when you realise that the sin in the world was his fault in the first place.

He's like a super hero deliberately creating a horrible situation so he can be seen saving the day.

Everything you said is contradictory. You cannot have free will when you are designed by an all powerful being who creates you in such a way that you will make these choices.

We do have the illusion of choice. But God already knows what choices we'll make. He knows before he made me whether I'm going to hell or not. Not only that but he made me a person who is keenly interested in science, has pursued a career in science and as a result has generated a scepticism which makes accepting him impossible for me.

You are trying to blame humans for everything wrong and praise him for everything good. He's responsible for everything.

Seriously, even Spider-Man abides by these basic truisms.

"With great power, comes great responsibility".

Or, put another way:

"When you have the power to stop the bad stuff and then it happens, it happened because of you"

Or:

"All that is needed for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

These are values we all hold dear. That those who can help, should help. But God actually creates these situations were help is needed and then you give him a pass for not helping and it's actually our fault?

I think you're confusing God's knowledge with his sovereignty. He does indeed know all things, but that is not the same as saying that he is the direct and immediate cause of all things. I also think you might be confused about the nature of our free will, which isn't free in an absolute sense. There's any number of books, articles and websites that explain these things much more competently than I can. But to suggest that Christianity is necessarily deterministic is simply untrue.

Christianity is clear that God is not the author of sin as you suggest above. It is also clear that sin is real, and that God has done something about it in the person of Jesus. It's up to you (really, even though I believe in predestination! ) whether you are going to believe that or not.

troyzer wrote: »

The fact that you accept my logic but ignore it is why people like me struggle to take Christians seriously when it comes to honest discussions and why the more strongly opinionated of us think you're all idiots. I don't think this but I do find it really hard to read the comment of someone like yourself who is clearly intelligent basically saying that my argument is air tight but it doesn't matter because God is great

I'm not accepting your logic unconditionally, and I don't think your argument is watertight. I'm saying that it's plausible, given the presuppositions you bring to the table.

I have more than adequate evidence (from scripture and my own experience) that God is good, trustworthy and just. Does that mean that every question I have is answered in fully exhaustive detail? Of course not. At it's most basic, Christianity is founded on a relationship with a person, and at some point we need to decide whether we're going to trust he is who he says he is. That probably sounds like foolishness and nonsense to you, but there it is.

robinph

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I feel like we're talking past one another, so maybe we should call it a day. On what basis can we agree that their actions are wrong? Because we've collectively decided? Frankly, so what and why should they care?

Again, at the risk of repeating myself. Christians are not to be offensive, the message itself is offensive. It's not that certain groups are going to hell, everyone is apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

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.

troyzer

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

I know it's not what you believe. But it's the inevitable consequence of what you believe.

You can't say "God has a plan" and "God is all powerful" without accepting that there is no free will. It completely breaks Christianity as a belief system so naturally you reject it.

The nature of Christ sacrificing himself quickly becomes meaningless when you realise that the sin in the world was his fault in the first place.

He's like a super hero deliberately creating a horrible situation so he can be seen saving the day.

Everything you said is contradictory. You cannot have free will when you are designed by an all powerful being who creates you in such a way that you will make these choices.

We do have the illusion of choice. But God already knows what choices we'll make. He knows before he made me whether I'm going to hell or not. Not only that but he made me a person who is keenly interested in science, has pursued a career in science and as a result has generated a scepticism which makes accepting him impossible for me.

You are trying to blame humans for everything wrong and praise him for everything good. He's responsible for everything.

Seriously, even Spider-Man abides by these basic truisms.

"With great power, comes great responsibility".

Or, put another way:

"When you have the power to stop the bad stuff and then it happens, it happened because of you"

Or:

"All that is needed for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing"

These are values we all hold dear. That those who can help, should help. But God actually creates these situations were help is needed and then you give him a pass for not helping and it's actually our fault?

I think you're confusing God's knowledge with his sovereignty. He does indeed know all things, but that is not the same as saying that he is the direct and immediate cause of all things. I also think you might be confused about the nature of our free will, which isn't free in an absolute sense. There's any number of books, articles and websites that explain these things much more competently than I can. But to suggest that Christianity is necessarily deterministic is simply untrue.

Christianity is clear that God is not the author of sin as you suggest above. It is also clear that sin is real, and that God has done something about it in the person of Jesus. It's up to you (really, even though I believe in predestination! ) whether you are going to believe that or not.

troyzer wrote: »

The fact that you accept my logic but ignore it is why people like me struggle to take Christians seriously when it comes to honest discussions and why the more strongly opinionated of us think you're all idiots. I don't think this but I do find it really hard to read the comment of someone like yourself who is clearly intelligent basically saying that my argument is air tight but it doesn't matter because God is great

I'm not accepting your logic unconditionally, and I don't think your argument is watertight. I'm saying that it's plausible, given the presuppositions you bring to the table.

I have more than adequate evidence (from scripture and my own experience) that God is good, trustworthy and just. Does that mean that every question I have is answered in fully exhaustive detail? Of course not. At it's most basic, Christianity is founded on a relationship with a person, and at some point we need to decide whether we're going to trust he is who he says he is. That probably sounds like foolishness and nonsense to you, but there it is.

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.

I'm suggesting that if you had the ability to know everything that was going to happen and the power to dictate it, then you have to own it.

If I knew that if I took my sister's hairbrush that she was going to go mad and then did it, then it's my fault.

Your counter argument is that she had the choice to get mad. But she didn't, because I also created her so that she would get mad. I created her that way and knew she'd get mad long before she was ever born. Before I even created the universe actually.

If the universe is in a petri dish, not only does God control all of the variables but he knows exactly what's going to happen and has the power to directly interfere. To blame us is madness.

Christianity is deterministic, it just is. And you haven't explained why you think it isn't. Handwaving it by saying there are books I could read isn't good enough. The problem of suffering in a world where you praise the person who causes all of the suffering is the single biggest weakness of the Christian logic.

The Greeks for example never pretended their Gods weren't petty and self interested. In that sense, they were more logical.

Christianity might be clear that he's not the author of all sin. The only way that's true is if he's not all powerful and all knowing.

God wouldn't have needed to save us if he hadn't created the issues. Not only that, but why would he have to do it by crucifying himself? He could have solved it any way he wanted but chose that, why?

Similar with Noah's ark, why the theatrics? Why not just Thanos it? Because the people who made up these stories never thought of it.

It's not up to me whether I believe in your God or not. It's up to your God. So it's hardly my fault that I was born sceptical resist authority, it's his fault.

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.

Saying you believe in God because it says it in the bible and believing that the bible is true because God inspired it (even though men edited it) is the definition of a circular argument.

It's not about whether or not I trust God. He created me the way I am. I don't have a choice in this.

Just like he created Hitler knowing what he was going to do, indeed he created him that way.

If God isn't responsible for the holocaust then he isn't all powerful.