Is Folau ready to turn up the heat on Weber?

Again my conclusion was rather to say that, in fact, it was your statement that was spurious – spurious insofar as monotheism represents an unbroken tradition, with Jesus just a mid-way point. It was simply laziness to represent it in isolation, and I called you out. So, sure, it’s a fair point that many religious people may be ignorant of their own scripture. But by the same token, many atheists are completely ignorant of scientific formulations. I mean, how many atheists can enumerate the meaning of ‘e=mc(2)’? Can you? Or can you present the full mathematical process of the Special Theory of Relativity? If not, then it can only be completely gullible to regard Einstein as a genius. Otherwise, by your deduction, Einstein must be some sort of prophet. For ultimately every person is bound by ideology, while rather it is human nature to be arrogant or infantile. Thus there are some atheists who are level-headed and circumpect individuals, just as there are some religious adherents who are also level-headed and circumspect. But it is foolish to assume that because you belong to one group, whatever it is, then you are automatically free from arrogance. Now you might say that it was unfounded and condescending to claim that you were unaware of the divisions between religious belief. But you were guilty before of generalising, when you made your remark about 2000 years of growing up. Nor is it a concern of mine if you find my remarks condescending. If you don’t respect the beliefs of others, and deign to condescend to them, then you must be prepared to be condescended to. As for the idea of an imagination, you must now be contradicting yourself if you include imagination in your rational paradigm. Misery isn’t an abstract. And it doesn’t take too much brains to believe that people can live in misery through bullying and abuse. Moreover atheists succumb to suicide in much higher numbers than the religious. Go figure. Personally, I’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. I can only retort that your debating style reminds me of Al Gore – he warns of global warming, and then he blasts his generator. Having said that, thanks for your well wishes. The same to you.

Oh boy, this is only going to spiral from here. Quoting me directly and then making a spurious conclusion from it is, in fact, putting words into someone else's mouth. That really shouldn't be too difficult to understand, but it seems it is. However, you're spot on assuming my ignorance of many Bible passages. If that makes me an armchair critic sobeit, but then I’d challenge you to question how many of the religious have actually read the entire Bible (let’s ignore the studied it critically question). It’s a question I frequently ask. Without actually keeping a tally, I’d estimate less than five percent answer in the affirmative. I spent some time in Poland years back, as you know, one of the most devout and practicing Catholic countries in the world. It wasn’t much better. Ask even basic questions as to how these texts were put together, the answers are depressing. I do however listen intently to those that have not only read but studied it as a life’s work. Take Bart Ehrman for example. Interesting guy and a very smart cookie. Once a devout, evangelical and conservative Christian, now an agnostic atheist (his description). He taught himself Hebrew to better understand the meaning of the Old Testament, and Greek to better understand how the oral stories of the New Testament had first been captured and translated into that foreign language, before then turning up through various iterations to the King James versions and then further version updates. The studies are there, by people far more qualified and eminently more devoted than you or I. Both testaments contradict themselves, not just each other. Not just in the hundreds of ways you’d logically expect, but in major details too, at the very source. It’s just a fact. One of the many I’ve picked up from my armchair James. I made no claim or observation on the adherences of the Jews or anyone else – it wasn’t the point I was making. Simply naming Pentateuch and the Song of Solomon really doesn’t impress me. Claiming I’m unaware of the divisions within religious belief is unfounded and condescending. Pointing out theology and science to be separate disciplines was unnecessary, and again condescending . Claiming I don’t respect other people is another erroneous conclusion and missing my point. I do not respect the beliefs of the religious. To repeat, I find them infantile, dangerous, fatally flawed and too often, quite arrogant as they put themselves at the centre of the known universe. To declare otherwise would be dishonest. You apparently haven’t the imagination to understand that I enjoy highly satisfying friendships with people of widely differing beliefs, without descending to ‘… a miserable place, wracked with unending strife’ (are you sending me to hell James? – you blokes just can’t give it a rest). Your debating style reminds me of one of the least satisfying religious commentators I’ve listened to, William Lane Craig. He too often claims to have demonstrated something he hasn't and then takes that point to a spurious conclusion. If he had anything new to say, I’d struggle to listen. In that spirit, I’ll wish you the very best James, and may your god go with you.

Hi Neil, Far from putting words into your mouth, I quoted you directly. And though you claim that you made no reference to the age of the Testaments, my point stands that you’re still probably ignorant – just as I am – of many Bible passages. If you can’t, for instance, quote off by heart the Classical Hebrew for the Red Sea, then you’re probably just an arm-chair critic. Thus your point is plainly wrong that ‘the books and Gospels of both Testaments contradict and are inconsistent within themselves’, when you consider that the Jews completely repudiate the Gospels. The Pentateuch is an entity of itself, unaffected by any later text. So too is the Song of Solomon, which concerns a king’s courtship of a princess. Again, with regard to symbolism, you lack understanding if you lump all religions into one. My comment that your reasoning was sound applied only to a specific and limited instance, which becomes negligable when the rest of your argument is flawed. The Amish are not the same as Catholics. Though one might be fundamentalist, the other is not, hence the word catholic is synonymous with syncretic. Otherwise if you’re ‘unconcerned by any denigration charge’, and you don’t respect other people, then your world seems like a miserable place, wracked with unending strife. I made a prediction in my last post that ‘you might rejoin that it was the Christians who started it’, and hey presto my prophecy has come true. How do you like that for mysticism? For if you’re unable to understand that a truly rational project is one devoid of emotion, then you might also be unable to fathom that theology and science are two separate disciplines. At the same time, there are many Christians who ascribe to evolution.

James, you have to stop putting words into other peoples mouths and jumping to conclusions because of it. You did it claiming I was making references to the ages of the testaments when I wasn't, and now you're suggesting I'm commenting without even understanding the fundamentals of the origins of the two testaments and their advocates. I'm well aware of the differing adherence and interpretations of the broader Christian community. Not least because it only emphasizes my original observations around apparent confused and contradictory thinking. It's bad enough that the books and gospels of both testaments contradict and are inconsistent within themselves. To your symbolic resonance point, well that just smacks to me of the typical retreat of the embarrassed believer who realises it's becoming increasingly impossible to defend or believe the literal stories anymore. It's neither news to me that there are believers in these camps, nor any surprise! Your claim of my denigration only really holds water if you think my comments are unfair. In the same breath, you've called them irrational. How they can be unfair when you yourself call my reasoning sound, is a moot point. Having said that, I'm generally unconcerned by any denigration charge when it comes to the beliefs of the religious. The more zealous they are, the more arrogant, dangerous or exclusive they become. As to rationality, I'll unashamedly claim that for those of us on the evolution side of the debate, as opposed to my creationist friends. How anyone reads beyond the first book of Genesis still floors me.

Ok. What is the truth, Drongo?

I thank you Neil, But I must demur that you did in fact write of the 'contradictory nature of both the Old and New Testaments'. And as you said 'why would anyone...?' I must point out that not all Christian denominations emphasise the New Testament, let alone Jews. While I accede that your subsequent reasoning is sound, I must point out that you have completely missed the symbolic resonance of the Gospels. Again, some denominations only emphasise a literal interpretation, but it is both misinformed and disingenuous to group all adherents as the same. Lastly, I can appreciate that you have spent some time on the matter. Power to you. But you don't need to denigrate all Christians and Jews, if you don't agree with Folau's interpretation. Nor is hyperbole, like 'hypocritical' and 'confused', at all rational. Now you might rejoin that it was the Christians who started it, or something to that effect, but then who will take the higher ground? Back at you brother -- more door is always open.

Folaus not a kiwi is he?

peter (forgive the pun) but its not a black and white issue. if an insult is made against a group that has experienced significant wrong based on similar insults in the past then i think it fair we go out of our way to help them not be used. if a similar level of insult is made against a group that hasnt experienced significantly wrong from that type of insult then, although still wrong, i dont think it needs to be focused to the same level as theres no harm likely to be propagated. this is easily seen as a not level playing field but its the end harm that is seen as most important to be made more level in this imperfect world, not the freedom of the other side to be able to try and inflict the harm.

It’s not as simple as that and you know it.

I don't live in Saudi Arabia, Their Laws come from a different set of made up nonsense.

Lol...Saudi Arabian law disagrees with that

paulD perhaps if Folau had publicly apoligised for his comments like Alladice did, then Webber, and the many from all around the world, would not have had to make their own comments.....Folau does not believe he has said anything wrong so is continuing to attract attention for it

CP I was unaware that the head of ONE church controlled the thoughts and beliefs of DIFFERENT churches

Haha so I see

Webber has achieved something Folau will never be...and would never ever possibly have been good enough ....Webber is forever an ALL BLACK

MH01 that is a big issue you have there.....What was said was that the wife bashing was publically shamed...punished by the sport and the law and everyone condemmed it at the time.....The Folau comments have had no punishments metered out so there was a need for Weber to publically disagree with the comments based on his own beliefs and his family situation..... No one needed to comment on the wife bashing as it got ALL the negatives it deserved.....The gay comments got the commenter ZERO punishments at all....hence the comments by Webber and many other rugby personal around the world...yet you only managed to see the webber 1 and wanted to hate on some kiwi's....you failed to see the Aus players comments...the Welsh, English, Irish and french rugby personalities comments...just Webbers apparently

How gobby was The Seagull last night. TJP..holy smokes. His gull-wings and shouty gobbiness where at '11' all frickin night. No wonder poor old Gus Gardner couldn't blow the whistle. I can't stand it. It's worse than the girls screams as they hit the tennis ball in recent years. There is so much shouting by some players, I think the referees should have a position on it.

Hello James. First, you might like to consider in your haste that I actually referred to " 2,000 odd years of growing up " without any reference to the age of either the Old or New Testament. Second, the New Testament in particular, is widely accepted by all to be contradictory. The 4 main books of the 27 were only ever actually written down as accounts at the earliest some 30 years after events, having spent the preceding years being passed on in a purely oral tradition. Have you ever played Chinese whispers? What could possibly go wrong there? They differ significantly particularly around major events leading up to and including the crucifixion and then around the resurrection. Third, I have invested significant time in listening to all sides of the religious debate. Those debates have included the Swiss Muslim academic Tariq Ramadan, Rabbi David Wolpe, the Christian author Frank Turek and the Christian apologist and analytical philosopher William Lane Craig. I'd particularly recommend the hours of material on YouTube involving variously Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, engaged on the other side of the debate. If you want to test information or debate with me James, I'm here for you buddy.

One comment by one player does not equal a club culture that openly throws around gay slurs. Given you were not there why speculate if he laughed or not? And 2 years is 2 years, it is neither short or long, stop trying to flavour the situation. 2 years is plenty of time to change things. No one said they were perfect saints, but if that is the requirement needed to comment on something, I guess we all better shut up then because ain’t none of us saints. Get over it, he is allowed to comment on what was said, it’s his right that everyone turned into a theme song for Folau. Can’t have it both ways.

and no one expected the Spanish Inquisition