Jump to content
RMBJ

Israel Folau (Merged threads)

Recommended Posts

Just now, aj1908 said:

Dave already did lol do keep up!

??

So make them match! If it is all there it should be simple!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

@Dave T /end thread 

Screenshot_20200211-214419_Chrome.jpg

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Look above bible quotes n all 

?

 

Why do you get a kick out of finding bigotry funny?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 1

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Edited by RP London
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner that book (and the whole crumbling edifice built on it) is consigned to the rubbish heap the better.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes absolutely.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...