Jump to content
Peter

Was “hold my beer” --> Now religion

Recommended Posts

Israel is employed by Rugby Australia. Rugby Australia's vision is “to inspire all Australians to enjoy our great global game”. And to deliver this vision key area number 1 is "Make Rugby a game for all – Our Community". The high profile of Israel means that he is the number 1 ambassador for Rugby Australia and his Insta post pretty well shits on RA's vision. So his employment with RA is not tenable and he has to be let go. The wording of his contract may mean he gets some form of payout but he cannot play for Australian Rugby again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, flathead said:

Israel is employed by Rugby Australia. Rugby Australia's vision is “to inspire all Australians to enjoy our great global game”. And to deliver this vision key area number 1 is "Make Rugby a game for all – Our Community". The high profile of Israel means that he is the number 1 ambassador for Rugby Australia and his Insta post pretty well shits on RA's vision. So his employment with RA is not tenable and he has to be let go. The wording of his contract may mean he gets some form of payout but he cannot play for Australian Rugby again. 

Agreed. I've said all along this isn't a "Freedom of speech" thing. It's an employment issue, where he has does something that goes against what his employers (who pay him a motsa partly because of the high profile he has) wish, and in doing so is, in their eyes, bringing down their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

The thing is, Izzy didn't hold a pressa.  

He did an instagram photo.

He didnt do it from the official ARU site.  Or NSW or whoever he plays for.

If you can get sacked for instagram photos, there are a heap of people out there that need to delete instagram fast.

 

Is anyone that naive? If I go on a homophobic rant on twitter then I'm going to be in trouble with my employer. I would have thought that was quite obvious to anybody and just in case it wasn't it's written into my contract (which I produced).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, monkie said:

Is anyone that naive? If I go on a homophobic rant on twitter then I'm going to be in trouble with my employer. I would have thought that was quite obvious to anybody and just in case it wasn't it's written into my contract (which I produced).

Why should you be in trouble with your employer? They don't own your thoughts or what you say outside work hours and especially when you are not acting in the capacity of an employee?

If my boss is a Collingwood supporter and outside of work hours I post all pies supporters are toothless inbred degenerates should he be able to take offense and sack me?

Control of thought and free speech is slowly taking over..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, more said:

Why should you be in trouble with your employer? They don't own your thoughts or what you say outside work hours and especially when you are not acting in the capacity of an employee?

If my boss is a Collingwood supporter and outside of work hours I post all pies supporters are toothless inbred degenerates should he be able to take offense and sack me?

Control of thought and free speech is slowly taking over..

There are 2 differences there.

Firstly, your boss's business is probably not effected by you saying that. If you worked for a dentist in Collingwood, and you had 100,000 instagram followers, it may be seen differently.

Secondly, and I'm not sure exactly how to put it, but Collingwood supporters are not seen as a group needing assistance to be a part of normal society (expect I suppose by any other AFL supporter). The sexual orientation of an individual should be treated the same as race, sex & religion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, more said:

Why should you be in trouble with your employer? They don't own your thoughts or what you say outside work hours and especially when you are not acting in the capacity of an employee?

If my boss is a Collingwood supporter and outside of work hours I post all pies supporters are toothless inbred degenerates should he be able to take offense and sack me?

Control of thought and free speech is slowly taking over..

Because I have chosen to enter into a contract with them. It's nothing to do with free speech. I'm entirely allowed to have a homophobic rant if I want to and they are then entirely allowed to sack me.

The comparison between homophobia and sports team support is frankly offensive and is in no way comparable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nealo said:

This is what Mundine said

"People are missing the point here, it’s not about the Bible or the Biblical quote that Izzy put up, it’s a black man expressing it"

Mundine is an idiot - and that has nothing to do with his colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, monkie said:

Because I have chosen to enter into a contract with them. It's nothing to do with free speech. I'm entirely allowed to have a homophobic rant if I want to and they are then entirely allowed to sack me.

The comparison between homophobia and sports team support is frankly offensive and is in no way comparable.

I didn't mean to offend, just trying to explore where the boundary lies. So if an atheist posts that my god is an imaginary friend would I be allowed to take offence and sack them? What about if a Muslim says there is only one god and I as a christian am going to hell-should they be sacked? Wheres the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, more said:

I didn't mean to offend, just trying to explore where the boundary lies. So if an atheist posts that my god is an imaginary friend would I be allowed to take offence and sack them? What about if a Muslim says there is only one god and I as a christian am going to hell-should they be sacked? Wheres the line?

What's in your contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flathead said:

Israel is employed by Rugby Australia. Rugby Australia's vision is “to inspire all Australians to enjoy our great global game”. And to deliver this vision key area number 1 is "Make Rugby a game for all – Our Community". The high profile of Israel means that he is the number 1 ambassador for Rugby Australia and his Insta post pretty well shits on RA's vision.

I disagree. I don't see anywhere in his meme where it says anyone can't enjoy the game. I can guarantee you there'll be a bunch of drunks, thieves, adulterers, athiests and gays at the next test.

He has raised the ire of the gay community because he has suggested they'll go to hell. Now a smart person would give that no credence and it would be water off a ducks back - as it is to Trinube the athiest. If you're a 'believer' and don't think you're going to hell then why is it a problem? Non-believers don't believe there's a hell so it's surely not a problem for them.

I have a bunch of gay friends and I have no issue with them - in fact one of my best rock climbing mates is gay and you couldn't meet a nicer bloke. Not once has he said to me:

a) Isreal Folau should be punished or

b) I'm worried I'm going to hell.

Seriously, the gay community has done a lot of great stuff but crucifying this bloke because he says what he believes is a bit rich.

Oh, and I should point out I'm not a great fan of Izzy and clearly not religious, I just think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and is ridiculous.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually this reminds me a lot of an instance on the footy field where someone was cited because he called an opponent a black c#$t. He was cited for calling him 'black', but it was perfectly acceptable to call him a c%$t.

In the izzy case, calling someone gay is somehow more offensive than calling someone adulterers, drunks etc - despite the fact that the gay people would be quite willing to accept that they are gay.

We live in a strange world.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, monkie said:

What's in your contract?

My contract only refers to using social media in an official capacity or referencing our company, nothing about private use.

But that's not answering my question-where does the line of offence lie? Couldn't Izzy equally feel he is being victimized or offended due to people saying his religion which he obviously thinks very strongly about is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel's post is saying that christians think that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished by being sent to hell. For a young gay boy, uncertain about his sexuality, this would weigh heavily on his thoughts. The negative impact would lead to further uncertainty, maybe suppression of feelings, maybe depression, or worse. Rugby Australia wants to grow the sport, and by targeting minorities that have been discriminated against for most of history, Israel is diminishing the sports appeal.

All the other sins are adult hobbies (drunkenness, adultery, lying, fornicating, thievery, atheism, idolism); these guys can look after themselves and would know better than to believe a sport-star is a font of truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only recently introduced a social media policy and it was a hot topic of conversation by some lawyers at a recent IR conference. They had successfully terminated quite a few employees. But EX is correct in saying it really depends on the context of the business and what you are saying. 

However, it is amplified with someone who is followed by a large number of people and their status and remember folou and is followed because of his rugby fame which the ARU has provided him with the opportunities. If i was on a 4 million dollar contract, i would be shutting the F*** up personally. 

But also like Ex said, it is about employment law, even to the extent that they had to go through the process of the hearing etc, what warnings were provided, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick far Jones was on something the other day and is one of his legal reps. 

He said he was never previously warned. 

He also said he will get the full payout. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, flathead said:

Israel's post is saying that christians think that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished by being sent to hell. For a young gay boy, uncertain about his sexuality, this would weigh heavily on his thoughts. The negative impact would lead to further uncertainty, maybe suppression of feelings, maybe depression, or worse.

But it's the same message he'd get in church (I assume). If he doesn't believe in God, there's no issue - if he does, he'll be dealing with his trusted priest telling him the same thing. Surely a priest has more influence on a devout christian than a boofhead footy player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, trinube said:

But it's the same message he'd get in church (I assume). 

The assumption that Christianity condemns homosexuality is not a given. The Anglican church specifically does not and welcomes gay vicars. You tend to find that homophobes like Falou tend to pick and choose which bits of the bible the repeat and "believe in". What about the bits about how you can rape somebody if you pay five piece of silver? Or touching the skin of a pig? Or planting two crops next to each other? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, monkie said:

The assumption that Christianity condemns homosexuality is not a given. The Anglican church specifically does not and welcomes gay vicars. You tend to find that homophobes like Falou tend to pick and choose which bits of the bible the repeat and "believe in". What about the bits about how you can rape somebody if you pay five piece of silver? Or touching the skin of a pig? Or planting two crops next to each other? 

Actually its considered to be a sin and according to the bible - the wages of sin is death.   Just because the Anglicans choose to permit it doesn't make it right according to the Bible and could be/has been perceived as hypocritical.  

But realistically, what it means is that they're leaving the condemnation of sinners to God and that's the way it should be. 

I figure its not my place to condemn anybody because of whatever "sin" you may have or are currently involved in.  

As another Bible verse states "Let them who is without sin cast the first stone".

Legitimise Rape?

Have a read through this.  It'll make some sense out of it from a cultural perspective of the time. Personally, I figure it has no place in 21st century Australia.   Rape is wrong and paying a shed load of money isn't going to change that,

https://citybibleforum.org/city/brisbane/blog/does-bible-legitimise-rape-response-benjamin-law

Realistically, this is one of these out of context verses that people tend to bring out to back up their argument that the Bible is garbage and God doesn't exist.  

If you really want to understand God then read and understand the 4 Gospels of the New Testament.  Everything else if just there so various sad members of the population can show how much smarter they are by attempting to complicate everything to the nth degree.  Much like those stupid ambiguous maths quizzes on Facebook. 

And one to end with

But if you really want an out of context verse to aggravate your local Christians and "prove" that the Bible is just an early "50 Shades of Grey", try this one...

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (Ezekiel 23:20)

 

Never let it be said, I don't give you anything

AJ

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

Realistically, this is one of these out of context verses that people tend to bring out to back up their argument that the Bible is garbage and God doesn't exist.  

I think that the doctrine of sola-fide would tend to suggest that proving god exists proves that god doesn't exist... which was famously expressed by Douglas Adams in the hitch-hiker's guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

I think that the doctrine of sola-fide would tend to suggest that proving god exists proves that god doesn't exist... which was famously expressed by Douglas Adams in the hitch-hiker's guide.

Alternatively

The Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, -- AJ -- said:

Actually its considered to be a sin and according to the bible - the wages of sin is death.   Just because the Anglicans choose to permit it doesn't make it right according to the Bible and could be/has been perceived as hypocritical.  

Have a read through this.  It'll make some sense out of it from a cultural perspective of the time. Personally, I figure it has no place in 21st century Australia.   Rape is wrong and paying a shed load of money isn't going to change that,

So to summarise what you said bits of the bible don't apply but bits do? Some of it doesn't have a place in 21st centry Australia but the bit about homosexuality being a sin does?

That's exactly what I'm saying. People who like to quote the bible as a justification for their homophobic views are very quick to claim that it shouldn't all be taken literally because they see the ease with which that allows it to be written off as a load of bunkum. They are quick to tell us it should be read in the context of the time and that the only bits that matter are these specific bits and not the rest of it, oh no the bits that tell us not to eat shellfish etc, those bits should be ignored. But the bit about the gays? Yep, that bit is definitely true.

Edited by monkie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, monkie said:

So to summarise what you said bits of the bible don't apply but bits do? Some of it doesn't have a place in 21st centry Australia but the bit about homosexuality being a sin does?

That's exactly what I'm saying. People who like to quote the bible as a justification for their homophobic views are very quick to claim that it shouldn't all be taken literally because they see the ease with which that allows it to be written off as a load of bunkum. They are quick to tell us it should be read in the context of the time and that the only bits that matter are these specific bits and not the rest of it, oh no the bits that tell us not to eat shellfish etc, those bits should be ignored. But the bit about the gays? Yep, that bit is definitely true.

Theres 4 pages of info here about the Bible and homosexuality ..

You guys are pretty funny. I never come on here any more apart from the odd occasion when i am bored, I think Ive made 4 posts in the last 4 years .... and here we are dragging up the same old red herrings. Nothing changes hey. Same old echo chamber.

If you hate Christians and Christianity that fine, youre entitled to that. I will say one thing though before I log out for another 12 months, that according to the Bible, people dont go to hell according to what they do, their behaviour. People go to hell because they choose to live their lives independently of God. That is the essence of sin. Not sure why people who want to live their lives on earth independently of God would want to spend eternity with him in his presence.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Derny Driver said:

If you hate Christians and Christianity that fine, youre entitled to that.

I don't hate anybody, it's bad for the soul. I will however take issue with anybody claiming some kind of moral superiority based on their subjective interpretation of a book. I also like people to front up to their beliefs. If you think gay people are wrong then you're entitled to that, I would find that opinion objectionable but being a liberal (with a lower case l) I have to take the rough with the smooth.

What annoys me (and we're still only on annoy here, we're a long way from hate) is when people somehow try to argue their homophobic views are somehow morally or ethically justified because they have chosen to believe in some kind of deity or more specifically chosen to interpret a certain translation of certain parts of a certain story book in a certain way.

Edit to add: Jumping into a fairly robust (but polite) discussion about a topic with different view points being expressed and disagreements aired and referring to it as an echo chamber is a tad ironic.

Edited by monkie
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Derny Driver said:

Theres 4 pages of info here about the Bible and homosexuality ..

You guys are pretty funny. I never come on here any more apart from the odd occasion when i am bored, I think Ive made 4 posts in the last 4 years .... and here we are dragging up the same old red herrings. Nothing changes hey. Same old echo chamber.

If you hate Christians and Christianity that fine, youre entitled to that. I will say one thing though before I log out for another 12 months, that according to the Bible, people dont go to hell according to what they do, their behaviour. People go to hell because they choose to live their lives independently of God. That is the essence of sin. Not sure why people who want to live their lives on earth independently of God would want to spend eternity with him in his presence.

Cheers

lol...just opened the original thread.  I was a head of the Australian people supporting a change to our marriage laws. 

Bit of trolling towards me but when your changing society, you have to expect the haters to hate.  No issues with that, they are doing their best.

Edited by Oompa Loompa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/05/2019 at 12:23 PM, monkie said:

I don't hate anybody, it's bad for the soul. I will however take issue with anybody claiming some kind of moral superiority based on their subjective interpretation of a book. I also like people to front up to their beliefs. If you think gay people are wrong then you're entitled to that, I would find that opinion objectionable but being a liberal (with a lower case l) I have to take the rough with the smooth.

Yes, based on my beliefs, same sex relationships are not something I think is entirely right.  I don't want to use the word "wrong" because I think its a much more complex issue than a simple Right/Wrong opinion can handle .  Do I hate people because of it?  No.  Why?  Because there is absolutely no reason to.   Based on the fact that I've worked with, lived with, and have friends and relatives who are, I'd suggest the vast majority of them are kind, decent, loving people who would offer you the shirt off their back if the situation demanded it.  And at the end of the day, those are the attributes that I judge a person on.  Not their sexual preference, color, religion, country of birth etc

Do I feel I have some sort of moral superiority based on my interpretation of the Bible?  Hell no. Well, I don't think I do. To me, that would be completely hypocritical. If I'm honest, I've got far too many issues in my own life to sort out before I could claim to be a moral compass for anybody else.

I'm a simple bloke in a very complex world. The Bible is a big complex book/Series of books and I won't pretend that I understand too much of it.  But what I get out of it (and others may get something completely different)::

Treat everybody the same way that you would want to be treated - with honesty, kindness, compassion and love

Just because I don't agree with somebodies lifestyle choice doesn't automatically mean that I can ignore this.  It means that I may need to make a harder effort to ensure that I do follow it.

AJ

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/05/2019 at 12:08 PM, Derny Driver said:

You guys are pretty funny. I never come on here any more apart from the odd occasion when i am bored, I think Ive made 4 posts in the last 4 years .... and here we are dragging up the same old red herrings. Nothing changes hey. Same old echo chamber.

If you hate Christians and Christianity that fine, youre entitled to that. I will say one thing though before I log out for another 12 months, that according to the Bible, people dont go to hell according to what they do, their behaviour. People go to hell because they choose to live their lives independently of God. That is the essence of sin. Not sure why people who want to live their lives on earth independently of God would want to spend eternity with him in his presence.

It's taken me 6 hours to calm down enough to write this.

What you've said here is exactly why I hate religion so much. Religion preaches love and faith but their stock in trade is fear. You MUST believe or go to hell. The statement that God doesn't care about behaviour is astonishing. Let's just look at a few examples.

A child who dies shortly after birth will go to hell because they didn't follow God despite never doing an evil thing in their life.
People in remote regions of the world who've never heard of God will all go to hell
A Buddhist monk who lives a life of selfless giving and absitnace wil go to hell because they don't follow your God.
All animals are condemned to hell because they can't follow God.
Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama would be turned away as they shun organised religion - despite  their contributions to humanity.

yet

Cardinel Pell will be welcomed by God despite being as evil as they come.
A murderer can confess to a priest and be forgiven. They could do this multiple times and still be fine
Every rapist, drug dealer, murderer, torturer and thief are fine if they 'follow God'.
The KKK are fine to murder a few blacks because they're God fearing christians.
Frankly, if your God doesn't care how people behave, why not just trash the ten commandments as clearly they don't matter.
Now you can say following God means not doing these things but they're all forgiven so it doesn't really matter, does it?

And what exactly is follow God, Is once a week enough? Once a month? Daily? Every waking second? So all those people who live kind, loving, generous lives and never go to church will be judged on the sin of not attending church whilst rapists wearing the cloth are pardoned. FFS..

The real question is why would you want to spend an eternity with a God who allows childhood cancers, miscarriages, wars, murders hatred and rape by its devotees. Your God can't even control its highest disciples and preachers who rape and cover up for others. Talk about red herrings - the church is archetypical.

I find it impossible to say this respectfully but maybe take your 12 month sabbatical from Trannies to reflect on the (lack of) standards of your faith.

I live to the ethos of being as loving, kind, honest and generous as possible to as many people as I can - if God doesn't want me then so be it.

Edited by trinube
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, trinube said:

It's taken me 6 hours to calm down enough to write this.

What you've said here is exactly why I hate religion so much. Religion preaches love and faith but their stock in trade is fear. You MUST believe or go to hell. The statement that God doesn't care about behaviour is astonishing. Let's just look at a few examples.

A child who dies shortly after birth will go to hell because they didn't follow God despite never doing an evil thing in their life.
People in remote regions of the world who've never heard of God will all go to hell
A Buddhist monk who lives a life of selfless giving and absitnace wil go to hell because they don't follow your God.
All animals are condemned to hell because they can't follow God.
Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama would be turned away as they shun organised religion - despite  their contributions to humanity.

yet

Cardinel Pell will be welcomed by God despite being as evil as they come.
A murderer can confess to a priest and be forgiven. They could do this multiple times and still be fine
Every rapist, drug dealer, murderer, torturer and thief are fine if they 'follow God'.
The KKK are fine to murder a few blacks because they're God fearing christians.
Frankly, if your God doesn't care how people behave, why not just trash the ten commandments as clearly they don't matter.
Now you can say following God means not doing these things but they're all forgiven so it doesn't really matter, does it?

And what exactly is follow God, Is once a week enough? Once a month? Daily? Every waking second? So all those people who live kind, loving, generous lives and never go to church will be judged on the sin of not attending church whilst rapists wearing the cloth are pardoned. FFS..

The real question is why would you want to spend an eternity with a God who allows childhood cancers, miscarriages, wars, murders hatred and rape by its devotees. Your God can't even control its highest disciples and preachers who rape and cover up for others. Talk about red herrings - the church is archetypical.

I find it impossible to say this respectfully but maybe take your 12 month sabbatical from Trannies to reflect on the (lack of) standards of your faith.

I live to the ethos of being as loving, kind, honest and generous as possible to as many people as I can - if God doesn't want me then so be it.

This has always been my position too. I effectively live my life according to the commandments which don't compel me to acknowledge God. But I'm going to hell before the murderer, rapist etc etc who repented. Something very, very wrong with that in my mind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Treat everybody the same way that you would want to be treated - with honesty, kindness, compassion and love

Just because I don't agree with somebodies lifestyle choice doesn't automatically mean that I can ignore this.  It means that I may need to make a harder effort to ensure that I do follow it.

AJ

I agree with almost everything you say except for the use of the term "lifestyle choice" which somehow implies that people choose to be homosexual... did you choose to be heterosexual? Or is it just the way you are? 

But otherwise, yes. I also try to treat everybody the way that I would want to be treated, I just do that without needing the bible to tell me to do so because I believe it's what being a human is all about. 

And sorry, I've assumed you're heterosexual based on your comments here, apologies if that's not the case.

Edited by monkie
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Katz said:

 I effectively live my life according to the commandments which don't compel me to acknowledge God.

That leaves 6 or 7 of them, depending on how you interpret #4 about recognising the Sabbath and keeping it holy.

Does recognising every Sunday as race day count?

The remaining 6, basically say be good to your parents, don't murder, root about or steal, and don't be a lying or envious douche.*

I do wince when I hear the term, "Christian values", applied as if Christians have a monopoly on those principles. Plenty of worthy people of most religions, or those of no religion at all, live their lives largely along those lines.

*Other more scholarly interpretations may apply.

Edited by Paul Every
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

That leaves 6 or 7 of them, depending on how you interpret #4 about recognising the Sabbath keeping it holy.

Does recognising every Sunday as race day count?

I like to summarise it as, "Don't be an asshole".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Katz said:

I like to summarise it as, "Don't be an asshole".

I reckon the Dalai Lama was onto something when he said: Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.

I cannot claim to have followed that throughout my life, I've been awful at times, but as a guiding light I like to always try and remember it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Katz said:

I like to summarise it as, "Don't be an asshole".

The One Commandment. Neat and succinct.

Today's sermon is from the Gospel of Katz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, monkie said:

I agree with almost everything you say except for the use of the term "lifestyle choice" which somehow implies that people choose to be homosexual... did you choose to be heterosexual? Or is it just the way you are? 

I still think its a choice and could back that up with anecdotal evidence (Person starts off as heterosexual and then turns homosexual)  but by similar reasoning the alternative conclusion could also be reached (Person is always homosexual).  In the end it doesn't matter if its a choice, preordained,  Genetic, hormonal or something else.   If they're happy with where they are and who they're with then its not my place to upset their apple cart.

And I think this is the fine line between my Christian faith and Israel Folaus.  I'm not prepared to hurt people by condemning them in such a way.  If the opportunity arises  then I'm more than prepared to outline my position based on my beliefs but in a manner that is respectful to fact that their beliefs may be different to my own. 

I said earlier that I once lived with man who embraced that lifestyle.  He did give me the choice...and I chose not to.  So yes, I think I chose to be heterosexual.

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

I still think its a choice and could back that up with anecdotal evidence (Person starts off as heterosexual and then turns homosexual)  but by similar reasoning the alternative conclusion could also be reached (Person is always homosexual).  In the end it doesn't matter if its a choice, preordained,  Genetic, hormonal or something else.   If they're happy with where they are and who they're with then its not my place to upset their apple cart.

And I think this is the fine line between my Christian faith and Israel Folaus.  I'm not prepared to hurt people by condemning them in such a way.  If the opportunity arises  then I'm more than prepared to outline my position based on my beliefs but in a manner that is respectful to fact that their beliefs may be different to my own. 

I said earlier that I once lived with man who embraced that lifestyle.  He did give me the choice...and I chose not to.  So yes, I think I chose to be heterosexual.

AJ

Very interesting and thank you for your thoughtful response.

To add a personal anecdote I had a relationship with a man for 9 months  and would have considered myself homosexual. I am now married to a woman and have long stopped worrying about what I "consider" myself, I'm Chris. At the time I literally had a good friend ask me "What are you now?" which I explained to him was a weird thing to ask. He wasn't homophobic by any stretch but he wanted / needed to put me in a box / label.

My point is that at no point did I make a choice. This was not something I sat down and made a list of pros and cons about, it just is what it is in the same way I'm white, I feel male, and I cannot stand raw tomatoes. None of those are choices and they may all change but they just are the way things are.

 

E2A: Although I don't think I could just stop being white!

Edited by monkie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

I said earlier that I once lived with man who embraced that lifestyle.  He did give me the choice...and I chose not to.  So yes, I think I chose to be heterosexual.

AJ

So you're equally sexually attracted to men and women and could just as comfortably settle down with a man as your partner in life, however you have chosen to live a hetrosexual lifestyle.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how the commandments and other teachings can change ranking depending on the situation.

i thought love god was no.1

then love thy neighbour  is number 2.

And that then trumps all the others.... unless you have something you don’t like ... apparently. 

Dint worry Trinube I agree with pretty much everything you said, at least if we go to hell we’ll have the animals do it will be a cracking BBQ 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

So you're equally sexually attracted to men and women and could just as comfortably settle down with a man as your partner in life, however you have chosen to live a hetrosexual lifestyle.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Can't remember if I was attracted to both 30 years ago or not.  

Actually theres a lot about the late 80's and early 90's that I don't remember.  I'm blaming the alcohol.

AJ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people who “change sides” do so after trying very hard to conform regardless of their feeling and eventually either give in or find a safe supportive environment in which to follow their true feelings. 

Was certainly the case for my nephew. He was always gay, was always going to be gay but growing up in the bad side of Campbelltown didn’t make coming out easy or possibly even safe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Bible needs to be updated. You would think God may have changed his views by now on a lot of things. Sorry AJ and Trinube, cheap joke.I respect anyone with religious views and we have to remember there are hundreds of religions all with different views and some with different gods. I respect their views just as much as they would respect those who don't embrace religion. 

I do also thank Monkie for sharing something so personal. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Prince said:

I think the Bible needs to be updated. You would think God may have changed his views by now on a lot of things. Sorry AJ and Trinube, cheap joke.I respect anyone with religious views and we have to remember there are hundreds of religions all with different views and some with different gods. I respect their views just as much as they would respect those who don't embrace religion.

I typically don't discuss religion (and avoid politics). What people believe doesn't concern me until they try to preach and 'threaten' me or others. There's about 3000 'Gods' know to man. Christians don't believe in 2,999 of them. How can they be so sure it's not one of the others? I just happen to believe in one less than them.  

As for updating the Bible, as it was written by people, why can't other people just add a few more chapters? In my mind it has as much relevance as an L Ron Hubbard 'novel'.

Edited by trinube
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, trinube said:

 

As for updating the Bible, as it was written by people, why can't other people just add a few more chapters? In my mind it has as much relevance as an L Ron Hubbard 'novel'.

now thats another topic, lol.  Scientology and how that ever became a religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, trinube said:

 There's about 3000 'Gods' know to man. Christians don't believe it 2,999 of them. How can they be so sure it's not one of the others?

Simple, most people of faith follow the religion they were raised with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paul Every said:

Simple, most people of faith follow the religion they were raised with.

Funny that isn't it. And religions don't think they're brainwashing young people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, trinube said:

What you've said here is exactly why I hate religion so much. Religion preaches love and faith but their stock in trade is fear. You MUST believe or go to hell. The statement that God doesn't care about behaviour is astonishing. Let's just look at a few examples.

A child who dies shortly after birth will go to hell because they didn't follow God despite never doing an evil thing in their life.
People in remote regions of the world who've never heard of God will all go to hell
A Buddhist monk who lives a life of selfless giving and absitnace wil go to hell because they don't follow your God.
All animals are condemned to hell because they can't follow God.
Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama would be turned away as they shun organised religion - despite  their contributions to humanity.

yet

Cardinel Pell will be welcomed by God despite being as evil as they come.
A murderer can confess to a priest and be forgiven. They could do this multiple times and still be fine
Every rapist, drug dealer, murderer, torturer and thief are fine if they 'follow God'.
The KKK are fine to murder a few blacks because they're God fearing christians.
Frankly, if your God doesn't care how people behave, why not just trash the ten commandments as clearly they don't matter.
Now you can say following God means not doing these things but they're all forgiven so it doesn't really matter, does it?

That's pretty well put. I grew up and my father was a uniting church minister. So I struggle with religion as I was taught all the basics, understand a lot, went to church, youth groups, but as I have got older and seen examples like you give above and other shit things in life, I just don't believe in it anymore. God hasn't spoken to me. I've seen such bad things happen to awesome/good people and awesome things happen to absolute fartards.

Was there a guy called Jesus?  Of course.

Was he the son of God? I highly doubt it.

Was he basically an impressive leader of people and a magician? Possible.

Was he our savior? Nope.

13 hours ago, Prince said:

now thats another topic, lol.  Scientology and how that ever became a religion. 

Yeah this gets on my goat too.

Scientology was stared with a bet. It is believed that L. Ron Hubbard and Robert A. Heinlein made a bet in a bar one night either that L. Ron could not create a religion, or to see who could create a religion first. Biographical pieces written by Heinlein's wife, claim repeatedly that the bet did indeed occur.

So all these followers of that "Religion" are just fools.

If only we could prove or disprove that all other religions are true or false.

BTW I don't believe in Karma either. Another story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After listening to most of "The Dream" podcast, it seems that most religions fit the bill of a pyramid scheme. 

They survive by recruiting new members, only a few at the very top get rich, and most end up with absolutely nothing to show for it... (oh and their members are usually very annoying when they get talking about it :lol: ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, roxii said:

After listening to most of "The Dream" podcast, it seems that most religions fit the bill of a pyramid scheme. 

They survive by recruiting new members, only a few at the very top get rich, and most end up with absolutely nothing to show for it... (oh and their members are usually very annoying when they get talking about it :lol: ) 

If only Jesus could come back and see all the money his religion has made.  Oh hang on, that's his plan.

Mind you, I doubt all the religions of the world (Catholics in particular) will just hand everything back.

Quote

The Second Coming refers to Jesus' return to earth itself, conquering Satan (Revelation 16:15-17 and 17:14) and reclaiming God's Kingdom with His saints (1 Thessalonians 3:13; Zechariah 14:5; Jude 1:14). Jesus himself foretold of His return in Matthew 24 and 25. In these two chapters, He goes into great detail about the events leading up to the time of His return.

Jesus, speaking of Himself, said in Matthew 25: 31-32, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Here He is saying that God will separate His obedient followers from the pretenders and unbelievers.)

In John 14:3, Jesus states, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." Then in verse 28-29, He speaks more on this promise saying that He is telling this ahead of time so that when it does happen, we will know He is true.

The early followers of Jesus Christ knew He had ascended to heaven and they expected that He would return for them as promised. However, the promise is for all who have been faithful believers since. Be spiritually prepared and watchful for His victorious return!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Katz said:

I like to summarise it as, "Don't be an asshole".

 

15 hours ago, Paul Every said:

The One Commandment. Neat and succinct.

Today's sermon is from the Gospel of Katz.

I assure you there are many, many other commandments under the Gospel of Katz.  They are, however, all based on this.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2019 at 7:32 PM, trinube said:

It's taken me 6 hours to calm down enough to write this.

What you've said here is exactly why I hate religion so much. Religion preaches love and faith but their stock in trade is fear. You MUST believe or go to hell. The statement that God doesn't care about behaviour is astonishing. Let's just look at a few examples.

A child who dies shortly after birth will go to hell because they didn't follow God despite never doing an evil thing in their life.
People in remote regions of the world who've never heard of God will all go to hell
A Buddhist monk who lives a life of selfless giving and absitnace wil go to hell because they don't follow your God.
All animals are condemned to hell because they can't follow God.
Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama would be turned away as they shun organised religion - despite  their contributions to humanity.

yet

Cardinel Pell will be welcomed by God despite being as evil as they come.
A murderer can confess to a priest and be forgiven. They could do this multiple times and still be fine
Every rapist, drug dealer, murderer, torturer and thief are fine if they 'follow God'.
The KKK are fine to murder a few blacks because they're God fearing christians.
Frankly, if your God doesn't care how people behave, why not just trash the ten commandments as clearly they don't matter.
Now you can say following God means not doing these things but they're all forgiven so it doesn't really matter, does it?

And what exactly is follow God, Is once a week enough? Once a month? Daily? Every waking second? So all those people who live kind, loving, generous lives and never go to church will be judged on the sin of not attending church whilst rapists wearing the cloth are pardoned. FFS..

The real question is why would you want to spend an eternity with a God who allows childhood cancers, miscarriages, wars, murders hatred and rape by its devotees. Your God can't even control its highest disciples and preachers who rape and cover up for others. Talk about red herrings - the church is archetypical.

I find it impossible to say this respectfully but maybe take your 12 month sabbatical from Trannies to reflect on the (lack of) standards of your faith.

I live to the ethos of being as loving, kind, honest and generous as possible to as many people as I can - if God doesn't want me then so be it.

So you raise some difficult questions, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, however here goes some thoughts. I don't imagine I will change your mind in a trannies post but I feel it is worth outlining why the dim view you take and the very real struggle I see in the questions you raise might not be the case. I'm a person of faith in God, but I'm also able to say I have doubts and wrestle with difficult issues that I come across in my faith. I'm not having a go, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Firstly I think it is best to get everything in context first. The passage that Israel infamously quoted comes from 1 Corinthians, so called because it was written to the Church at Corinth. They were having some serious issues there, including tolerating immoral behaviour from within the church.  So this passage was written directly to the Christian church:

Quote

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

So, as to your point that people can sin and God doesn't care as long as they are "Christian" - that's an oversimplification of the gospel of Grace that the church teaches - namely that you can't go to heaven by earning it, but because you accept God's forgiveness offered to all who turn to Him.

But for those who do profess a faith, there is no free pass to do whatever you want and get off scott free. The passage above clearly states there should be a change in behavior if you claim to follow Jesus, as do Jesus rather stern words to his disciples (followers)
 

Quote

 

Matthew  27:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

 

 

There are also plenty of times where false "prophets"/spiritual leaders are condemned, and Christians are told to judge them by their works (or their fruits if you like, in an analogy where a fig tree can not produce oranges, so a person who is "righteous" cannot continue to to evil). 1 John 3 points out that those who continue to live in sin do not know God. 

So, if Pell (for example) is guilty, and if he continues to lie about it and cover it up - he is in serious serious trouble. 

I also think your list of the "judged" is a bit off. But I get your point. Do babies get judged? I doubt it. What about people who have never heard about Jesus , yes, but not too sure to what standard. Animals? They don't get judged. And what is "hell"? Is it eternal separation from God? Eternal death? Or something from Dante's seven circles of hell? There is a fair bit of confusion along the way but it's fair to say that the main consistent point taught in the Bible is that the result of sin is death (From Genesis through to Revelation) but that the gift of God is eternal life. Note, not earned, a gift. 

And of course, if you are a Christian you must believe that God is just. He cannot just ignore some people's sin and judge others - which is why the central theme of Christianity is that due to God's love for people (but requirement to be just) Jesus/God himself takes judgement and overcomes death for those who accept what He has done for them. It's not just about his death, but his blameless life, his undeserved trial and death - and most importantly his resurrection. The resurrection is important because Christians believe that they will be resurrected and live again in a new physical world - no harps, clouds and heavens as the images typically go. 

Perhaps that helps you see a bit more where Christianity is coming from, or perhaps not. 

 

 

 

Edited by dazaau
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dazaau said:

The resurrection is important because Christians believe that they will be resurrected and live again in a new physical world ...

 

 

 

Oh, FFS... how is that different to Scientology BS we all scoff at?

Religion is just a desperate childish attempt to deal with the scary fact that you are going to die.

I really struggle to understand how otherwise sensible people can base their very short lives around fairy-tales. I think it should be one of the section-44 exclusion conditions for being a member of parliament.

Personally, I'm not scared of dying, because I won't know anything about it - I'll be dead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...