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.

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.

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.

To say that ‘White men have been, and continue to be the main transgressors when it comes to poor or unequal treatment of others’ is simply racist. Not only that it is sexist.

Most importantly, it is inaccurate. For example, white working class boys have recently been identified as the most disadvantaged group in the UK, due to affirmative action policies. This has been readily admitted by the Shadow Education Secretary (Labour).

Piru, I seem to remember that you recently quoted the term ‘snarl term’. In that same thread, someone wrote ‘dog whistle’, and you didn’t object. Why is one term more loaded, when they all achieve the same rhetorical function?

I think I understand Peter when he questions Weber’s consistency, and ours. To quote the Bible: ‘Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ Ie. if Weber wants to be a judge, then he must judge everything. It is not right for him to pick and choose as it suits him. That would be corruption.

On other hand, Folau’s remarks, or the underlying meaning, will likely never be expunged, especially since Folau’s conception of God may translate to happiness. Conversely, Hell may translate to misery. For example, sodomy is at once unsanitary, and cuts off the reproductive instinct, perhaps the greatest tragedy. Society has no place in the absence of that fulfilment, because we are all self responsible. Thus it is possible to love someone, and still tell them that their behaviour is harmful. This notion stands the test of time.

As for the fauna thing, that is an example of irrelevant deflecting.

Neil, the Bible actually goes back more than 3,500 years. If you’re ignorant of that fact, then you’re probably ignorant of others. It’s therefore irrational to claim that it’s contradictory, when you’re not fully informed.

Many of us are proud of Israel, someone who has the guts to stand by his beliefs. Underlying his belief is pure rationalism. It is the call to end sodomy, a practise which promotes disease. Frankly the defence of sodomy is indefensible.

Doping in sport is disingenuous, trying to gain an unfair advantage.

Sexual preference is absolutely a choice. How else can you account for incest? You cannot logically chop and change support for sex acts according to your whims.

Actually, many people feel the same way as RTT. 84% of the world’s population in fact. It’s pretty straightforward.

Look we live in a tragic world. But the disillusionment in one person can never extinguish the hope in others. For love is something that we can never prove, yet it makes people stronger.

The rainbow laces are a clear example of waving an opinion around, something that has been imposed on an otherwise neutral domain.

Otherwise, I can’t agree at all that this is a simple, black and white issue. For instance, some people believe that Hell is literal. For others (like St Thomas Aquinas) the idea of Hell is an abstracted idea, which represents misery on earth, such as a life absent from family. Hence people like Israel Folau may believe that it is a greater show of love to decry a lifestyle that leads to alienation and vanity. They may even go so far as to say that people who encourage unhealthy behaviours, like ‘progressive’ lobbyists, are the more hateful party, when it leads to the destruction of others.

For example, a drug company could be construed as hateful, when they push transgender hormone replacements (something physically dangerous), and profit from human insecurities.

I loved the Monty Python reference, by the way. I can own that I did do a bit of name drop, but that was in response to your quotation. As for Marxism, I have concluded that it is a hateful doctrine. Marx himself proclaimed violence as the only answer.

Fair comment Piru. In that spirit, I discourage homosexuality because it is medically unsafe. I believe that if you truly care for someone, you would rather tell them something that they don’t want to hear.

Otherwise, In Brief has the right idea. In Brief treats homosexuals, Christians, Muslims, and whatever, with the same objective indifference, and is not trying to force anyone to accept an ideology.

This is the exact problem with identity politics. Some people dress in rainbow colours, and yet it’s an insult to speak of them as ‘the rainbow set’. No, the reaction is one of hyper-sensitivity.

I like in this the expression of paradox. Just remember that Gary has said ‘I am not taking sides’.

You make a good point, but there is a difference between backing the ‘Yes’ campaign, and omitting support for people of faith.

It would be an unpleasant effect of evolution to warrant Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. We may have science, but that doesn’t mean we’re infallible.

piru, it’s actually a good question: how are we to act inclusively whilst not standing against divisiveness? The answer is that it is impossible to live life without offending someone. Moreover it is simply hypocritical to pretend that you are being inclusive, then call for the religious to be excluded. Illustrative of this is to say ‘Weak attempt at semantic judo’. I could also blurt ‘Hey, that’s stupid’. But again we go in circles.

Secondly, it holds no import to garner a biased quotation from an un-cited source, inasmuch as the literary critic Hayden White tells us that historical truth is merely arranged as a narrative. I found this especially true in my ‘Literary Theory’ class at the University of Queensland, with over 80% of the course work on Marxism. It was merely a manifestation of Gramsci’s ‘manufactured consent’, as a blatant form of indoctrination.

And sad to say, this Folau incident won’t be the last. Mark my words.

I agree. Truly. Yet I wanted some balance.

Ah-ha! But you assume that I’m Christian. Did I not write ‘guess which one’? And did I not write ‘what about Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus?’

But you’re right, it’s wrong to claim that all Pacific peoples believe the same thing. Maybe TJ Perenara made the same mistake.

A broad outline of the structure for your edification:
1. Politics is conflict. (Hook)
2. Marxism introduced into rugby.
3. People of faith have been marginalised.
4. Examples of negative consequences.
If you don’t agree, then so be it. But the article is completely logical, when you consider that Marxism is predicated on ‘equality of outcome’, forcing everyone to conform to your ideology. So little of short of letting the door hit me, you might consider the cultural fruits of religious freedom.

TJ Perenara said that Folau’s comments ‘cannot be tolerated’. Therefore one group is trying to silence another, instead of acting ‘inclusively’.

Nor do I hate Super Rugby. I regret the fact that we haven’t set aside our politics to enjoy the game together.

Also it can be equally argued that ‘homophobia’ is not a thing, it’s a viral dishonest, dog-whistling phrase. But that doesn’t get us very far, does it?

I must confess that I never before heard of Mark Bingham. I think your comment is intelligent and worthy of further consideration.