If Folau helps bankrupt Australian Rugby (at the top level) it may hopefully put us all out of our misery in having to watch The Wallabies inept style of play or keep seeing them keep losing to NZ 3-0 in The Bledisloe Cup and getting thrashed by all and sundry in The World Cup.
Ralph, plenty of other Christians seem to have managed to apply their intellects how best to follow Christ in 2019.Perhaps you should be a little more open minded like them, instead of just trying to come up with poor arguments in defence of the indefensible.
I am trying to stay on topic. Just because justice is not done YET does not mean it will not be done.
For every intellectual argument I make that might convince you of Jesus there is an equal argument that will 'unconvince' you (I know unconvince is not a word but I hope you get what I mean).
This is why following Jesus is not, in its foundation at any rate, an intellectual thing.
On one hand you argue that fire and brimstone won't convert people to Jesus, yet on the other you say that it reflects to Christian view of justice. What is the point of justice that doesn't achieve anything?
I don't think it is ridiculous for two reasons:
1. It was an example of behaviour to explain a model and not any attempt at a direct comparison (as you have read it).
2. If you HAVE to make it direct comparison, then for most of history in most of the world it has been a crime. So not without precedent. But, this is missing the point.
My position is that Christianity is not, at root, an intellectual thing. It is a relational thing. That is not to say it is not rational, it is eminently rationaI. I contend, neither brimstone nor kindness convert anyone to follow Jesus. Therefore your question is a side issue. So I did not answer it because we might fall down a rabbit hole if I did and totally miss my points.
Anything that is classified as either right or wrong must concern justice. At least one camp sees same sex behaviour as 'wrong' (along with a lot of other behaviours). If the other camp sees it as right, then logic concludes they have issues of justice as well.
I am not trying to avoid, I am trying to bridge a gap of understanding between camps.
Ralph, that is a long way of avoiding the actual points that I raised.
-The first is that Christians have been more successful in spreading their faith using kindness and charity, so why is the fire and brimstone necessary?
- The second is, what do the relationships of consenting adults have to do with justice?
Those questions shouldn't be that hard to answer.
PS, the analogy with stealing is ridiculous, stealing is harmful to others and universally considered to be a crime. Relationships between consenting adults are neither.
As I stated, I think other options were available.
They didn't have to stay mum. They didn't have to put on their moral cape either.
They could have erected their own position behind their own values of inclusion and respect for all. They could have arbitrated the two parties like the understanding third party urging everyone toward, love, inclusion and respect. Then someone else would have the been the one welding the sword.
Now they hold the baby.
Hi Rhys,
My first point corrects your assumption. It is technical, but if you don't get the technical points right then your lineout will have a high failure rate.
If you ignore the point of the second then I suggest you are asserting motivation is meaningless. Which really makes things like kindness meaningless, because it is rooted in desire/motivation. I assert WHY you do things is important. You may, of course, disagree. Some people believe that the ends justify the means, so you would not be alone in that.
Justice is concerned with right and wrong. To say that backwards, if there is no right and wrong then justice is a meaningless concept. If right exists then anything you do that is not 'right', is by definition 'wrong'. To even accept the concept of 'wrong implies 'right' must exist. That is justice stated in the general. To state there is 'right' behaviour must offend anybody who does not act that way (in the 'wrong').
You are asking then a very specific question, but I am arguing for the freedom to even have that conversation.
E.G., You say stealing is wrong. I say that offends me and that I was born a thief, that I have no control over that behaviour. Therefore you are attacking me and that is hateful. I demand inclusion for all thieves and proudly wear a badge in memory of all thieves you have been persecuted for being who they are. The argument rages on from there, one side assuming it is behaviour and the other assuming it is sacred (born that way).
And here we are.
How I wish this was true. Some people really don't comprehend that not everyone in the world agrees with their point of view, nor do they wish to be persuaded otherwise, especially over the dinner table or in social settings... or even in the workplace.
The door swings both ways. A lot of people spouting insults and other remarks around this debate have a complete and utter lack of self awareness to the point where one does start to wonder if we are living in a simulation and not everyone possesses sentience.
It was always going to cost them no matter what they did. I'm sure they would have preferred to be on the sideline but they really weren't given that choice. There would be a fallout for them even if they stayed stum and acted like it wasn't happening.
The first two points are really semantic. Whether they converted people to their way of thinking or Christ’s is the same thing in practical terms. So is whether they used kindness and charity as a strategy to achieve conversions or just because they were nice people. The point is that people got converted and it had a lot more to do with honey than vinegar.
On the third point, what does the relationship preferences of consenting adult’s have to do with justice? I don’t see why it is anybody else’s business and find the obsession that some Christian’s like Folau have with it to be a bit weird.
Fair enough. And I think that’s potentially where people end up at cross purposes. The generally accepted view is your sexuality is defined by who you’re attracted to, not by any actions you take or don’t take, as that tends to be more constant than conducting an act.
Broadly correct Paulo. There is no instance where the bible uses its equivalent word like a noun.
If you ignore that, then misunderstanding and talking cross purposes is the result.
I would say your employer gets a say in your behaviour when you are representing them in public. It’s pretty standard in any employment contract. It’s certainly included in mine. When you are not representing your employer, go nuts and quote what ever you want. The problem with high profile individuals like Folau is he is ALWAYS representing his employer, and then he gets a whopping salary as compensation.
Pete Watts
Guest
If Folau helps bankrupt Australian Rugby (at the top level) it may hopefully put us all out of our misery in having to watch The Wallabies inept style of play or keep seeing them keep losing to NZ 3-0 in The Bledisloe Cup and getting thrashed by all and sundry in The World Cup.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You are happy to accept assumptions that suit you...
Wally
Guest
Assumptions are all you have here. I would prefer facts
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
Ralph, plenty of other Christians seem to have managed to apply their intellects how best to follow Christ in 2019.Perhaps you should be a little more open minded like them, instead of just trying to come up with poor arguments in defence of the indefensible.
Ralph
Roar Guru
I am trying to stay on topic. Just because justice is not done YET does not mean it will not be done. For every intellectual argument I make that might convince you of Jesus there is an equal argument that will 'unconvince' you (I know unconvince is not a word but I hope you get what I mean). This is why following Jesus is not, in its foundation at any rate, an intellectual thing.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
On one hand you argue that fire and brimstone won't convert people to Jesus, yet on the other you say that it reflects to Christian view of justice. What is the point of justice that doesn't achieve anything?
Ralph
Roar Guru
I don't think it is ridiculous for two reasons: 1. It was an example of behaviour to explain a model and not any attempt at a direct comparison (as you have read it). 2. If you HAVE to make it direct comparison, then for most of history in most of the world it has been a crime. So not without precedent. But, this is missing the point. My position is that Christianity is not, at root, an intellectual thing. It is a relational thing. That is not to say it is not rational, it is eminently rationaI. I contend, neither brimstone nor kindness convert anyone to follow Jesus. Therefore your question is a side issue. So I did not answer it because we might fall down a rabbit hole if I did and totally miss my points. Anything that is classified as either right or wrong must concern justice. At least one camp sees same sex behaviour as 'wrong' (along with a lot of other behaviours). If the other camp sees it as right, then logic concludes they have issues of justice as well. I am not trying to avoid, I am trying to bridge a gap of understanding between camps.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
Ralph, that is a long way of avoiding the actual points that I raised. -The first is that Christians have been more successful in spreading their faith using kindness and charity, so why is the fire and brimstone necessary? - The second is, what do the relationships of consenting adults have to do with justice? Those questions shouldn't be that hard to answer. PS, the analogy with stealing is ridiculous, stealing is harmful to others and universally considered to be a crime. Relationships between consenting adults are neither.
Ralph
Roar Guru
As I stated, I think other options were available. They didn't have to stay mum. They didn't have to put on their moral cape either. They could have erected their own position behind their own values of inclusion and respect for all. They could have arbitrated the two parties like the understanding third party urging everyone toward, love, inclusion and respect. Then someone else would have the been the one welding the sword. Now they hold the baby.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Hi Rhys, My first point corrects your assumption. It is technical, but if you don't get the technical points right then your lineout will have a high failure rate. If you ignore the point of the second then I suggest you are asserting motivation is meaningless. Which really makes things like kindness meaningless, because it is rooted in desire/motivation. I assert WHY you do things is important. You may, of course, disagree. Some people believe that the ends justify the means, so you would not be alone in that. Justice is concerned with right and wrong. To say that backwards, if there is no right and wrong then justice is a meaningless concept. If right exists then anything you do that is not 'right', is by definition 'wrong'. To even accept the concept of 'wrong implies 'right' must exist. That is justice stated in the general. To state there is 'right' behaviour must offend anybody who does not act that way (in the 'wrong'). You are asking then a very specific question, but I am arguing for the freedom to even have that conversation. E.G., You say stealing is wrong. I say that offends me and that I was born a thief, that I have no control over that behaviour. Therefore you are attacking me and that is hateful. I demand inclusion for all thieves and proudly wear a badge in memory of all thieves you have been persecuted for being who they are. The argument rages on from there, one side assuming it is behaviour and the other assuming it is sacred (born that way). And here we are.
taylorman
Roar Guru
True, and how is that wingman doing?
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Some people just never grow out of their invisible friends . . .
Doctordbx
Roar Rookie
How I wish this was true. Some people really don't comprehend that not everyone in the world agrees with their point of view, nor do they wish to be persuaded otherwise, especially over the dinner table or in social settings... or even in the workplace. The door swings both ways. A lot of people spouting insults and other remarks around this debate have a complete and utter lack of self awareness to the point where one does start to wonder if we are living in a simulation and not everyone possesses sentience.
Boomeranga
Guest
It was always going to cost them no matter what they did. I'm sure they would have preferred to be on the sideline but they really weren't given that choice. There would be a fallout for them even if they stayed stum and acted like it wasn't happening.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
The first two points are really semantic. Whether they converted people to their way of thinking or Christ’s is the same thing in practical terms. So is whether they used kindness and charity as a strategy to achieve conversions or just because they were nice people. The point is that people got converted and it had a lot more to do with honey than vinegar. On the third point, what does the relationship preferences of consenting adult’s have to do with justice? I don’t see why it is anybody else’s business and find the obsession that some Christian’s like Folau have with it to be a bit weird.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No. We are assuming the reporting is accurate.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Fair enough. And I think that’s potentially where people end up at cross purposes. The generally accepted view is your sexuality is defined by who you’re attracted to, not by any actions you take or don’t take, as that tends to be more constant than conducting an act.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Anyone tells me I can’t eat cray they’re definitely going to hell:-)
Ralph
Roar Guru
Broadly correct Paulo. There is no instance where the bible uses its equivalent word like a noun. If you ignore that, then misunderstanding and talking cross purposes is the result.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I would say your employer gets a say in your behaviour when you are representing them in public. It’s pretty standard in any employment contract. It’s certainly included in mine. When you are not representing your employer, go nuts and quote what ever you want. The problem with high profile individuals like Folau is he is ALWAYS representing his employer, and then he gets a whopping salary as compensation.