Israel Folau saga.

Forums › Sports › Israel Folau saga.

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 26

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2265728 27-Jun-2019 13:33

Obraik:
alasta:

It's probably just a case of me not knowing the correct modern terminology.

My post was intended to refer to "sexuals" as those who have sexual relationships with the opposite sex, and "homosexuals" as those who have sexual relationships with the same sex.

The word you're looking for is heterosexual.

So Christians aren't hetrosexual?

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2265741 27-Jun-2019 14:11

blackjack17:
Obraik:

alasta:

It's probably just a case of me not knowing the correct modern terminology.

My post was intended to refer to "sexuals" as those who have sexual relationships with the opposite sex, and "homosexuals" as those who have sexual relationships with the same sex.

The word you're looking for is heterosexual.

So Christians aren't hetrosexual?

What? I was referring to his use of the word to describe "those who have sexual relationships with the opposite sex". The word to describe that is Heterosexual.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#2265745 27-Jun-2019 14:24

nitro:

mm1352000:

That's just the thing. From a Christian perspective, such statements aren't intended as threats. Rather, they're warnings given in the hope that "eternal pain" would be avoided by all.

why would people who don't believe in "eternal pain" heed that warning and try to avoid it?

It's likely that they won't.

The question is: is that a good reason not to try to warn them, assuming you genuinely believe that "eternal pain" exists?

My answer would be: probably, yes. Especially in a social media environment. Reason being: as has been seen in this case, those people [who don't believe in "eternal pain"] are more likely to be offended and/or feel discriminated against than recognise that you care for them and are trying to warn them.

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#2265746 27-Jun-2019 14:34

Chill! I'm positive he was questioning [edit - I really mean 'responding to'] alasta's original post, which even now when one substitutes 'sexuals' for 'heterosexuals' is difficult to comprehend.

Perhaps he's meaning non-Christian heterosexuals, in which case it would read:

"From what I've seen, the reality is that non-Christian heterosexuals are actually very protective of homosexuals and therefore the conflict is really between non-Christian heterosexuals+homosexuals versus christians."

If so, I wonder where that leaves LGBQTI Christians, or are they not a thing? (tongue firmly in cheek...)

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#2265753 27-Jun-2019 14:49

Christians on one side and gays on the other side? I don't think so. It would be a big mistake to assume all Christians agree with Israel Folau's views and theology.

There is no shortage of Christians who support gay marriage for example.

Edit: and if that's not enough gay marriage is legally supported in Folau's Australia for goodness sake.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#2265774 27-Jun-2019 15:09

gzt: Christians on one side and gays on the other side?

Yeah, it's absolutely not as simplistic as that.

However, for those people who do agree with Folau's views for whatever reason, it probably feels a bit like society at large is trying to dictate what they can believe and/or what their religion says. Essentially: "First gay marriage, and now you can't even publicly say what you believe without being jumped on from all sides." They'll easily - though perhaps not correctly - make a connection to religious freedom. This is my understanding of why there's so much interest/heat in the issue from a Christian perspective.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2265778 27-Jun-2019 15:18

Obraik:

blackjack17:
Obraik:

alasta:

It's probably just a case of me not knowing the correct modern terminology.

My post was intended to refer to "sexuals" as those who have sexual relationships with the opposite sex, and "homosexuals" as those who have sexual relationships with the same sex.

The word you're looking for is heterosexual.

So Christians aren't hetrosexual?

What? I was referring to his use of the word to describe "those who have sexual relationships with the opposite sex". The word to describe that is Heterosexual.

Wasn't meant to quote you.

My comment was in response to this

alasta:

The problem with discussions like this is that they promote a narrative where homosexuals are under attack from both sexuals and christians. From what I've seen, the reality is that sexuals are actually very protective of homosexuals and therefore the conflict is really between sexuals+homosexuals versus christians.

If you look at it from that perspective then it's the christians who are the vulnerable minority, and I can't help worrying about how some of this narrative may be affecting christians who are not as confident and outspoken as Israel Falou. They are probably the ones who are contributing towards what now seems to be a whopping sum of money.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2265794 27-Jun-2019 15:45

mm1352000:

gzt: Christians on one side and gays on the other side?

Yeah, it's absolutely not as simplistic as that.

However, for those people who do agree with Folau's views for whatever reason, it probably feels a bit like society at large is trying to dictate what they can believe and/or what their religion says. Essentially: "First gay marriage, and now you can't even publicly say what you believe without being jumped on from all sides." They'll easily - though perhaps not correctly - make a connection to religious freedom. This is my understanding of why there's so much interest/heat in the issue from a Christian perspective.

Most religions can be highly offensive to people who are not part of that religion. Christians regularly get upset by Muslim practices like burqua and attempt to ban those practices. Similarly Christian practice can be highly offensive and hurtful to non-Christians

Religions generally have archaic texts which come from a very different time in history, with very different societal problems. What was acceptable to society, and religion, (eg by definition in earlier times it wasn't possible to rape your wife as she was your wife and by law required to sexually submit to her husband) is now illegal and an anathema.

Western Christians are finding this topic hard as we have moved from a mono-culture when western Christian culture suppressed other cultures, to a a multicultural society where many cultures have to coexist. When a group moves from being dominant to having to co-exist with others it is messy to find where the boundaries are and highly uncomfortable for the previously dominant group. What was once acceptable isn't any longer which is confusing and threatening.

Anyone can believe what ever they like and they can say whatever they like. Where it becomes more complex is when what they say affects others, including employers. The higher your profile, and salary, the more careful you have to be with what you do and say. That is not a religious topic, it is a societal topic.

Essentially the question that will go before the courts is: where is the line with regards to religious practice? It is complex as if there is a blanket exemption for religious speech that opens the door to people claiming all sorts of bad behaviour as being protected by religion.

The slippery slope argument would be "I told a customer she was scum because my religion said so" That doesn't seem to make sense to me so the question will be where is the line. I think, and hope, that it will be on the side of the ARU but it's a complex topic.

Shadowfoot

First time caller
399 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 256

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2265796 27-Jun-2019 15:55

I would not object to religious practices done behind closed doors among consenting adults, but they shouldn't be allowed to recruit children.

Blue Sky: shadowfoot.bsky.social

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#2265805 27-Jun-2019 16:27

Handle9: Most religions can be...

I generally agree with your assessment.

There's an additional thing that religions throw into the mix when it comes to social change: many religions specify an absolute standard of morality that isn't intended to change over time. Some of the workarounds that enable change in standards for adherents seem to be:

Picking and choosing which parts of the dogma they accept.
New interpretations of sources of authority (eg. the holy text, tradition etc.).

Either way, the result can be conflict and criticism both inside and outside the religious group. If society wants religions to adopt more progressive practices, I wonder whether we should be slower to criticise (or even encourage) "picking and choosing" and "multiple interpretations".

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2265915 27-Jun-2019 19:31

David Pocock is a Christian and this is what he had to say

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/amazing-grace-what-it-means-for-me-to-follow-jesus/10100972

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

nitro

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 338

#2265977 27-Jun-2019 22:21

mm1352000:

nitro:

mm1352000:

That's just the thing. From a Christian perspective, such statements aren't intended as threats. Rather, they're warnings given in the hope that "eternal pain" would be avoided by all.

why would people who don't believe in "eternal pain" heed that warning and try to avoid it?

It's likely that they won't.

The question is: is that a good reason not to try to warn them, assuming you genuinely believe that "eternal pain" exists?

My answer would be: probably, yes. Especially in a social media environment. Reason being: as has been seen in this case, those people [who don't believe in "eternal pain"] are more likely to be offended and/or feel discriminated against than recognise that you care for them and are trying to warn them.

the problem is the approach that was taken.

if the tweet were something of, 'there is a better way to lead your lives. come join us and we will show you how'... rather than 'repent or you will burn in hell'...

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2266034 28-Jun-2019 07:08

nitro:

the problem is the approach that was taken.

if the tweet were something of, 'there is a better way to lead your lives. come join us and we will show you how'... rather than 'repent or you will burn in hell'...

Yeah nah.

That makes sense for thieves and liars and drunks. But for homosexuals and adulterers?

The problem is the underlying mindset.

nitro

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 338

#2266070 28-Jun-2019 09:18

frankv:

nitro:

the problem is the approach that was taken.

if the tweet were something of, 'there is a better way to lead your lives. come join us and we will show you how'... rather than 'repent or you will burn in hell'...

Yeah nah.

That makes sense for thieves and liars and drunks. But for homosexuals and adulterers?

The problem is the underlying mindset.

so repeat offenders, often in escalating gravity, have a better mindset?

also, i'm not sure if homosexuals (adulterers may be a different case) have hurt other people by simply being homosexuals, other than themselves if they do end up in hell.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 95
Inactive user

#2266115 28-Jun-2019 10:25

frankv:

The problem is the underlying mindset.

People in this thread have said repeatedly that people can believe whatever they like. Sounds like you may disagree. Could you please be a little more specific about what you're referring to when you say "the underlying mindset"?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 26