aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dave T said: Let's make it easier. Can you show me where this is in the bible: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality Catholic and orthodox churches view homosexuality as a sin Coukdnt be bothered reading further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, aj1908 said: Yeh so You said union had the moral high ground since they wouldn't sign or keep a "homophobe They certainly did keep him You don't believe he is homophobic even after he doubled down, so surely you can't be critical of the ARU not sacking him for the first offence? We didn't sack Hardaker for his homophobic first offence. We disciplined him, just like the ARU did. A perfectly reasonable response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, aj1908 said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality Catholic and orthodox churches view homosexuality as a sin Coukdnt be bothered reading further You got confused - you need to provide the Bible quote, not a wikipedia link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, Dave T said: You don't believe he is homophobic even after he doubled down, so surely you can't be critical of the ARU not sacking him for the first offence? We didn't sack Hardaker for his homophobic first offence. We disciplined him, just like the ARU did. A perfectly reasonable response. I don't think he is no He even appeared on the cover of a gay rugby magazine In his view he is trying to give advice to all sinners to go to heaven You know the Catholic church views any act of sex which didn't lead to procreation as a sin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Dave T said: You got confused - you need to provide the Bible quote, not a wikipedia link! https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/ Romans lol it's there And.above it talks about adulterers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, aj1908 said: https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/ Romans lol it's there And.above it talks about adulterers That looks nothing like what Folau said. And the Hell bit? Listen, if you are going to defend Folau with claims that he is just quoting the bible, you really should be able to back it up easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Dave T said: That looks nothing like what Folau said. And the Hell bit? Listen, if you are going to defend Folau with claims that he is just quoting the bible, you really should be able to back it up easily. Yes it does. Do You think the bible accepts homosexuality? Really ? We had the whole.marriage equality debate here and the only people.against it where Christians Do you think they are all.reading the bible wrong lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 See lol. Look at the last one Timothy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, aj1908 said: Yes it does. Do You think the bible accepts homosexuality? Really ? We had the whole.marriage equality debate here and the only people.against it where Christians Do you think they are all.reading the bible wrong lol. If you can't provide any quotes from the bible saying that homosexuals are going to hell, you should stop saying that Folau was just quoting from the bible. There are some repulsive quotes in the bible. What if people started supporting incest, or criticising 'deformed' people - do we just dismiss any criticism of them because they are religious? Being religious is not a free pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Dave T said: If you can't provide any quotes from the bible saying that homosexuals are going to hell, you should stop saying that Folau was just quoting from the bible. There are some repulsive quotes in the bible. What if people started supporting incest, or criticising 'deformed' people - do we just dismiss any criticism of them because they are religious? Being religious is not a free pass. Look above bible quotes n all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Click Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, aj1908 said: Look above bible quotes n all Suppose you'll be quoting Falou's twitter feed now showing where he quoted what you have shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, Click said: Suppose you'll be quoting Falou's twitter feed now showing where he quoted what you have shown. Dave already did lol do keep up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, aj1908 said: Dave already did lol do keep up! So make them match! If it is all there it should be simple! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Just now, Dave T said: So make them match! If it is all there it should be simple! Stop trolling me I did I win the internet today Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 @Dave T /end thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 11 minutes ago, aj1908 said: @Dave T /end thread Well except (leaving aside for a moment the fact the Bible riddled with inconsistencies, and made up) it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, Folau’s comments are out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMBJ Posted February 11, 2020 Author Share Posted February 11, 2020 2 hours ago, aj1908 said: Look above bible quotes n all Why do you get a kick out of finding bigotry funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 5 hours ago, aj1908 said: How about providing neither since this whole thread is a lot of hot air and nothings going to change except people repeating themselves over and over and then basically screaming at each other that they are wrong Dontcha love internet debates If you wish to provide neither, then why are you commenting? Not sure who's screaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 5 hours ago, Poower Lad said: Yes but as a fan , that’s my opinion I would have hated to have not seen Ellery Hanley play if for instance he didn’t pay his TV licence . So would I. But if we employ people who are not good for business, there won't be the money in the future to post to watch the next stars. We need to not think of just the now and think about the next too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMBJ Posted February 11, 2020 Author Share Posted February 11, 2020 2 hours ago, aj1908 said: So union were happy to keep.him thanks there goes their moral.high ground We are safe from scorn If it's a sin to be unremittingly stupid then Virgil will show the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 ah the joy of quoting the bible.. which version is being used and who translated it and when.. How many translations are we down since the original version etc.. The newer translations (post 18th century) are more hardened towards the anti homosexual rhetoric than those previously, because that is how they wanted to interpret the language/version that they are translating and as each one goes by with another translation from a translation the interpretation moves further away from the "original" (we surely all remember playing chinese whispers). For example the word "homosexual" only became used in the late 19th century and therefore cannot have been in any bible from earlier, it was invented (in a german pamphlet) as the constraints of sexual identity became more strict and defined, before this time sexuality was more fluid according to many The greek word, used in the "original biblical texts" that most translations stem from, was arsenokoitais which has been translated quite differently over time from defilers to the sexually immoral and only recently to "Homosexual". The issue around Soddom and Gamorrah is largely around the general depravity not about the homosexuality.. it was around orgies and the amount of sex outside of wedlock that was happening and potentially bestiality."Soddomite" and "Soddomy" is not used purely for homosexual sex the word itself is about "unproductive sex" and has been used to describe bestiality as well as sex with the castrated (sexual slaves) etc The general homosexual slant of all of this has been relatively newly added in as the verbiage has become more common so the bible is re translated to take the verbiage and feelings of the time rather than to be a translation of what was said and the beliefs of when it was written. To use the bible to back up any belief or argument is spurious at best due to this. It is proven easily by taking a few translations even of the same year, translated by different people and comparing them. One person can quote one version, another can quote another version and the two things can then be read/interpreted very differently... and its supposed to be the same bloody book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj1908 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, RP London said: ah the joy of quoting the bible.. which version is being used and who translated it and when.. How many translations are we down since the original version etc.. The newer translations (post 18th century) are more hardened towards the anti homosexual rhetoric than those previously, because that is how they wanted to interpret the language/version that they are translating and as each one goes by with another translation from a translation the interpretation moves further away from the "original" (we surely all remember playing chinese whispers). For example the word "homosexual" only became used in the late 19th century and therefore cannot have been in any bible from earlier, it was invented (in a german pamphlet) as the constraints of sexual identity became more strict and defined, before this time sexuality was more fluid according to many The greek word, used in the "original biblical texts" that most translations stem from, was arsenokoitais which has been translated quite differently over time from defilers to the sexually immoral and only recently to "Homosexual". The issue around Soddom and Gamorrah is largely around the general depravity not about the homosexuality.. it was around orgies and the amount of sex outside of wedlock that was happening and potentially bestiality."Soddomite" and "Soddomy" is not used purely for homosexual sex the word itself is about "unproductive sex" and has been used to describe bestiality as well as sex with the castrated (sexual slaves) etc The general homosexual slant of all of this has been relatively newly added in as the verbiage has become more common so the bible is re translated to take the verbiage and feelings of the time rather than to be a translation of what was said and the beliefs of when it was written. To use the bible to back up any belief or argument is spurious at best due to this. It is proven easily by taking a few translations even of the same year, translated by different people and comparing them. One person can quote one version, another can quote another version and the two things can then be read/interpreted very differently... and its supposed to be the same bloody book! None of that is relevant The point is dopey folau is quoting whatever version of the bible he believes in Whether it was translated correctly or not isn't relevant What is relevant is that it's his religious beliefs he's following And loads of other religions have queer beliefs too each to their own Oh and other religions have worse views on gays I'm sure folau could keep going to court and suing people for discrimination against his religious beliefs affecting his employment Isn't that one of those bad things when employers discriminate against a persons religious beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 The sooner that book (and the whole crumbling edifice built on it) is consigned to the rubbish heap the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMBJ Posted February 11, 2020 Author Share Posted February 11, 2020 18 minutes ago, aj1908 said: None of that is relevant The point is dopey folau is quoting whatever version of the bible he believes in Whether it was translated correctly or not isn't relevant What is relevant is that it's his religious beliefs he's following And loads of other religions have queer beliefs too each to their own Oh and other religions have worse views on gays I'm sure folau could keep going to court and suing people for discrimination against his religious beliefs affecting his employment Isn't that one of those bad things when employers discriminate against a persons religious beliefs? You can't discriminate against a persons religious beliefs if you don't employ them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, aj1908 said: None of that is relevant The point is dopey folau is quoting whatever version of the bible he believes in Whether it was translated correctly or not isn't relevant What is relevant is that it's his religious beliefs he's following And loads of other religions have queer beliefs too each to their own Oh and other religions have worse views on gays I'm sure folau could keep going to court and suing people for discrimination against his religious beliefs affecting his employment Isn't that one of those bad things when employers discriminate against a persons religious beliefs? actually it is relevant (whether other religions have worse views or not is not) they are the arguments that would be used in a court around whether they are religious views or not, just because they are written in the bible does not make them accepted in these cases, it is why the cases are very hard to predict and they take a long long time to go through the courts. Religious discrimination, except for the obvious, is very very tough to prove and equally can be quite hard to prove you didnt if it is quite open. If he had an open and shut case against the ARU he would not have settled, the ARU the same. Settling is not an admission of guilt on either party, it is done through mediation as no one wants long and drawn out cases that could go either way. For the ARU they dont want the ongoing bad publicity that would affect sponsors etc and for Folau at his age with any thoughts of playing any sport again he did not need a long case, no one would employ him while it was going on as it would be disruptive. Of course there is also the issue that him making those comments would put any homosexual (and the rest) who worked at the ARU in a very awkward position and potentially feel discriminated against if the ARU does not act (this is where I think the RFL/SL/Catalans have let many people down). This court case was going to be a long one and it could have been very uncomfortable for some people who maybe do not want to be publicly outed etc He would have no case against the clubs if they just decided not to go near him, he couldnt have sued anyone for discrimination because they didn't want him to play for their club "we dont need him" is enough of a reason not to employ him and he couldnt argue. Isnt it a bad thing when anyone is discriminated against for their religion, colour or sexual orientation or is made to feel unsafe, vulnerable or in anyway treated different for those things as well? This isnt just about how Folau "feels" or believes but how that, voiced openly so knowing exactly what he thinks of you, can make other people "feel". But anyway I thought you found this thread pointless and going round in circles yet you are constantly posting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.