The Religion Thread

[Manbush]

Well the main reason you've come in here in the first place was to seemingly argue the term "homophobic", which by every definition, Israel Folau's views are homophobic. Google the term, I think you'll find you have it wrong.

I disagree. Obviously no-one's opinions are going to change here, so to continue the debate is pointless.

I just don't agree that believing certain people will go to hell means you have a phobia of them.

You think I will go to hell (for supposedly being "hateful"), yet you don't have an irrational aversion to me (I don't think)?

So how is that any different?

Look up the dictionary mate, homophobia means something more than just a regular phobia it also includes discrimination, think of it as being like sexism and racism.

[The Nickman]

Well the main reason you've come in here in the first place was to seemingly argue the term "homophobic", which by every definition, Israel Folau's views are homophobic. Google the term, I think you'll find you have it wrong.

I disagree. Obviously no-one's opinions are going to change here, so to continue the debate is pointless.

I just don't agree that believing certain people will go to hell means you have a phobia of them.

You think I will go to hell (for supposedly being "hateful"), yet you don't have an irrational aversion to me (I don't think)?

So how is that any different?

It appears to me you don't understand what a homophobe is, that's the root cause of this discussion. Homophobia (and google it, you'll see) is "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". It's not fear of them or aversion to them, which seems to be your definition, it's dislike or prejudice against them.

And the opinion that someone is going to hell just because they're homosexual is indeed a prejudice against them. No sane person could argue any differently.

[Botman]

That's my point. Does Folau hate homosexuals? Am I spreading hate? You seem to think I'm a hate filled person, yet I hate no-one.

My issue here is the ad hominem arguments. People can criticise Folau or anyone else all they want, but attack what he says, not him personally with inaccurate name-calling.

It's like when people call Milo Yiannopoulos a "nazi homophobic racist", yet he's Jewish, gay, and married to a black man. Criticise the ideology, don't just throw stupid inaccurate labels out there. It's juvenile.

Is Israel Folau homophobic? I.e does he have or show a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people?
Id say telling a large group of people from which he knows no one from, that they'll burn in hell is showing considerable dislike and prejudice against those people. Those people being homosexuals. So he's ticking EVERY box by definition.

Is Israel Folau a bigot? I.e is he a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions?
Id say telling a homosexuals they are going to all burn in hell, is showing considerable intolerance towards those holding a different opinion.


The inference in what Folau said, is that homosexuals have something so wrong or have engaged in acts so wrong that they need to be punished for it. That's the problem. There is no skirting around it. Whether cloaked in religious beliefs or not, his views and his speech is both homophobic and bigoted. You can argue all you like that im bigoted against religion, and maybe i am, but that doesn't change the facts of this matter as it relates to Israel Folau.

Folau maybe just stating his beliefs based on his religious views, but that religion has a homophobic and bigoted view on this matter, his repetition and endorsement of the christian ethos in this regard is therefor, by definition, both homophobic and bigoted. There is no arguing against that. It's simply fact by definition of what is being said.

Milo Yiannopoulos has routinely spouted Homophobic, Racist and White Supremacist speech. Again, that's a fact. That he's married a black man doesn't suddenly make his speech any less abhorrent. It might actually make it worse, because clearly he's saying these things for reasons that are not entirely honest. Is he homophobic and racist actually? Probably not given his lifestyle, but the fact he's willing to say hateful things, which he very well knows has an impact on youth, and that contradict his life for money makes him truly one of the most despicable pieces of **** in recent memory.

In fact the man is so abhorrent that not even the alt-right would have him, apparently they draw the line at paedophilia, which Milo, at best inferred was OK, and at worst outright condoned it. So y'know, not a strong example to use in defense of Israel Folau, unless your end game is to argue Israel Folau might be a giant ****, but at least he's not Milo? Is that what you were going for? When you're shunned by the alt-right community for being a garbage human, you know things have gotten bad.

And FWIW - i am unreservedly intolerant to people who hold different opinions, about football for instance but most PARTICULARLY when the different opinion is discriminatory or prejudicial. Everyone has the right to an opinion, im not denying that right, but there is nothing i've seen that mandates me to respect or accept that opinion when it is so openly discriminatory.

I have been outspoken on this site in defending peoples rights to believe in any religion, i have rallied against people like Manbush who attack religious posters for things that have nothing to do with them individually or their beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe in whatever the hell they like, personally i believe when my time comes that my soul will be loaded into a cannon and shot out of the city boarders, a fate a certain HC should face in the coming weeks/months. And just because you're christian doesnt mean you're culpable for the crimes the priests have committed against children, nor is it a church going Christians responsibility to answer for those crimes.

But you dont have the right to publicly disparage and discriminate against homosexuals without fear of backlash, and if you DO speak publicly, you don't get to cloak yourself in free speech/religious freedom to avoid being called on the carpet for expressing such views. Folau made this bed and now he's going to have to lie in it.

You say you arent defending Folau, but that's all you've done this entire thread. You can rally against the "flippant and erroneous use of the terms "bigot" and "homophobe"" but as shown above, in this instance they are neither flippant, nor erroneous. They are serious and accurate labels as it relates to Israel Folau.

[The Nickman]

To quote another definition of homophobia: "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs."

That's pretty much exactly what we're discussing here. It's not being expressed as fear of aversion, but as contempt, prejudice, and probably hatred too, when you consider he's condemning them to a lifetime in hell.

[Finchy]

I think something is irrational when there is no logical basis for that belief. If someone has a fear of birds, and freaks out when they see a budgie in a cage, it's irrational. There's no logical reason for being scared of it. It's not a Cassowary trying to rip your guts out or a magpie about to peck out your eye.

Folau would justify his beliefs about homosexuals based on what the bible says. If you think that's irrational in itself, that's fine. But I don't think that is homophobia.

Those beliefs are absolutely homophobic, it's the very definition of homophobia! He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinions are homophobic, and that makes him a homophobe.

It seriously doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

Does he have an irrational fear or aversion to homosexuals any more than atheists, if he believes both are going to hell? (yes this is speculation Schifty)

If he does not have an irrational fear or aversion to EVERYONE who is supposedly going to hell (for whatever reason), he does not have a phobia of them.

[T_R]

1. There are two definitions of the term 'natural law'. This seems to be tripping people up.

2. We can all parse the latin in 'homophobia', and all understand what it originally may have meant. We also all understand how it is commonly used. Seems a pointless conversation to me.



EDIT: Actually, surely 'homophobia' could be equally taken to mean suffering from the repeated fear of the same thing.

[Schifty]

His comments are dangerous as they validate some horrible people's views and in some cases actions..

Even though Marriage Equality was overwhelmingly voted for in Australia this country still has problems with homophobia.

It was embarrassingly recent as to when historic convictions for being homosexual were finally quashed and remove from people's criminal records in some states.

There's actually still someone in the Senate that was actually AGAINST these being removed from people's records.

[The Nickman]

You don't need to have an "irrational fear or aversion" to homosexuals to be homophobic Finchy, that's just several of the symptoms homophobes MAY display. Seriously, look it up. You have the definition all wrong, and the fact you're STILL trying to argue it is starting to get embarrassing.

[The Nickman]

His comments are dangerous as they validate some horrible people's views and in some cases actions..

Even though Marriage Equality was overwhelmingly voted for in Australia this country still has problems with homophobia.

It was embarrassingly recent as to when historic convictions for being homosexual were finally quashed and remove from people's criminal records in some states.

There's actually still someone in the Senate that was actually AGAINST these being removed from people's records.

Thankfully those horrible people are all going to burn in hell for eternity, in my opinion.

[Finchy]

That's my point. Does Folau hate homosexuals? Am I spreading hate? You seem to think I'm a hate filled person, yet I hate no-one.

My issue here is the ad hominem arguments. People can criticise Folau or anyone else all they want, but attack what he says, not him personally with inaccurate name-calling.

It's like when people call Milo Yiannopoulos a "nazi homophobic racist", yet he's Jewish, gay, and married to a black man. Criticise the ideology, don't just throw stupid inaccurate labels out there. It's juvenile.

Is Israel Folau homophobic? I.e does he have or show a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people?
Id say telling a large group of people from which he knows no one from, that they'll burn in hell is showing considerable dislike and prejudice against those people. Those people being homosexuals. So he's ticking EVERY box by definition.

Is Israel Folau a bigot? I.e is he a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions?
Id say telling a homosexuals they are going to all burn in hell, is showing considerable intolerance towards those holding a different opinion.


The inference in what Folau said, is that homosexuals have something so wrong or have engaged in acts so wrong that they need to be punished for it. That's the problem. There is no skirting around it. Whether cloaked in religious beliefs or not, his views and his speech is both homophobic and bigoted. You can argue all you like that im bigoted against religion, and maybe i am, but that doesn't change the facts of this matter as it relates to Israel Folau.

Folau maybe just stating his beliefs based on his religious views, but that religion has a homophobic and bigoted view on this matter, his repetition and endorsement of the christian ethos in this regard is therefor, by definition, both homophobic and bigoted. There is no arguing against that. It's simply fact by definition of what is being said.

Milo Yiannopoulos has routinely spouted Homophobic, Racist and White Supremacist speech. Again, that's a fact. That he's married a black man doesn't suddenly make his speech any less abhorrent. In fact the man is so abhorrent that not even the alt-right would have him, apparently they draw the line at paedophilia, which Milo, at best inferred was OK, and at worst outright condoned it. So y'know, not a strong example to use in defense of Israel Folau, unless your end game is to argue Israel Folau might be a giant piece of ****, but at least he's not Milo? Is that what you were going for?

And FWIW - i am unreservedly intolerant to people who hold different opinions, about football for instance but most PARTICULARLY when the different opinion is discriminatory or prejudicial. Everyone has the right to an opinion, im not denying that right, but there is nothing i've seen that mandates me to respect or accept that opinion when it is so openly discriminatory.

I have been outspoken on this site in defending peoples rights to believe in any religion, i have rallied against people like Manbush who attack religious posters for things that have nothing to do with them individually or their beliefs. Everyone has a right to believe in whatever the hell they like, personally i believe when my time comes that my soul will be loaded into a cannon and shot out of the city boarders, a fate a certain HC should face in the coming weeks/months. And just because you're christian doesnt mean you're culpable for the crimes the priests have committed against children, nor is it a church going Christians responsibility to answer for those crimes.

But you dont have the right to publicly disparage and discriminate against homosexuals without fear of backlash, and if you DO speak publicly, you don't get to cloak yourself in free speech/religious freedom to avoid being called on the carpet for expressing such views. Folau made this bed and now he's going to have to lie in it.

You say you arent defending Folau, but that's all you've done this entire thread. You can rally against the "flippant and erroneous use of the terms "bigot" and "homophobe"" but as shown above, in this instance they are neither flippant, nor erroneous. They are serious and accurate labels as it relates to Israel Folau.

This is the Pigman I'm used to. I don't agree with everything you've said, but I respect your opinion and understand where you'r coming from.

I don't believe I've defended Folau this entire thread, or what he said. I still don't believe the "bigot" and "homophobe" labels are accurate, as I believe both labels require a little more "hate-filled actions" against those people rather than a religious belief about where they go after they die.

However, I'm happy to agree to disagree with everyone on what a bigot or homophobe is.

[The Nickman]

You can "agree to disagree" on the definition of a word all you like, but you'll be wrong.

Seriously, take five seconds to Google it. You're wrong on this.

[Manbush]

His comments are dangerous as they validate some horrible people's views and in some cases actions..

Even though Marriage Equality was overwhelmingly voted for in Australia this country still has problems with homophobia.

It was embarrassingly recent as to when historic convictions for being homosexual were finally quashed and remove from people's criminal records in some states.

There's actually still someone in the Senate that was actually AGAINST these being removed from people's records.

I think the gay panic defense has also only recently been removed from law, you could use it as a defense for murder for someone purely for chatting you up.

Some Victorian Liberals also seem to be supporting conversion therapy which is child abuse.

We as a nation have made some progress but there’s still a lot to do.

[Finchy]

To quote another definition of homophobia: "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs."

That's pretty much exactly what we're discussing here. It's not being expressed as fear of aversion, but as contempt, prejudice, and probably hatred too, when you consider he's condemning them to a lifetime in hell.

A few other people posted the definition of irrational fear or aversion. If there are other definitions (such as this one) which encompass religious belief, then maybe it is homophobic by (that) definition?

[Schifty]

I think something is irrational when there is no logical basis for that belief. If someone has a fear of birds, and freaks out when they see a budgie in a cage, it's irrational. There's no logical reason for being scared of it. It's not a Cassowary trying to rip your guts out or a magpie about to peck out your eye.

Folau would justify his beliefs about homosexuals based on what the bible says. If you think that's irrational in itself, that's fine. But I don't think that is homophobia.

Those beliefs are absolutely homophobic, it's the very definition of homophobia! He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinions are homophobic, and that makes him a homophobe.

It seriously doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

Does he have an irrational fear or aversion to homosexuals any more than atheists, if he believes both are going to hell? (yes this is speculation Schifty)

If he does not have an irrational fear or aversion to EVERYONE who is supposedly going to hell (for whatever reason), he does not have a phobia of them.

Has Australia had a recent history where Atheists have been bashed and murdered purely for being atheists?

Have Athiests had to endure a national hate campaign where the Nation got to "have their say" on whether they should be allowed a basic human right?

[sprintman]

dubby have you always been a **** or it came to you later in life?o

Harsh.

You think?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Finchy]

I think something is irrational when there is no logical basis for that belief. If someone has a fear of birds, and freaks out when they see a budgie in a cage, it's irrational. There's no logical reason for being scared of it. It's not a Cassowary trying to rip your guts out or a magpie about to peck out your eye.

Folau would justify his beliefs about homosexuals based on what the bible says. If you think that's irrational in itself, that's fine. But I don't think that is homophobia.

Those beliefs are absolutely homophobic, it's the very definition of homophobia! He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinions are homophobic, and that makes him a homophobe.

It seriously doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

Does he have an irrational fear or aversion to homosexuals any more than atheists, if he believes both are going to hell? (yes this is speculation Schifty)

If he does not have an irrational fear or aversion to EVERYONE who is supposedly going to hell (for whatever reason), he does not have a phobia of them.

Has Australia had a recent history where Atheists have been bashed and murdered purely for being atheists?

Have Athiests had to endure a national hate campaign where the Nation got to "have their say" on whether they should be allowed a basic human right?

Has Folau participated in or condoned bashing and murdering homosexuals?

[Manbush]

Has Australia had a recent history where Atheists have been bashed and murdered purely for being atheists?

Have Athiests had to endure a national hate campaign where the Nation got to "have their say" on whether they should be allowed a basic human right?

In my opinion it would still be hateful but as you say in Australia anyway we don’t have the history of animosity towards atheists.

There’s also a difference between belief/non belief and sexuality/gender/race etc.

[Sossman]

Has Folau publically come out and stated that adulterers should go to hell then doubled down on comments when rightfully called out for them?

It's a big difference.

So actually you can't make a list of 100s of reasons and the fact he has only spoken out against this says a lot.

This is what seals it for me.

He doesn't simply hold an opinion. He seems to relish the backlash it gets and is defiant when challenged on its appropriateness.

Either he's got some righteous martyr complex or loves having a convenient excuse to put the boot into Homosexuals.

[Sossman]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.the ... david-marr

This was good reading.

[Manbush]

Has Folau publically come out and stated that adulterers should go to hell then doubled down on comments when rightfully called out for them?

It's a big difference.

So actually you can't make a list of 100s of reasons and the fact he has only spoken out against this says a lot.

This is what seals it for me.

He doesn't simply hold an opinion. He seems to relish the backlash it gets and is defiant when challenged on its appropriateness.

Either he's got some righteous martyr complex or loves having a convenient excuse to put the boot into Homosexuals.

Think the martyr bit nailed it considering his tweet a few days later in response.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,”

“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”

[Sossman]

Has Folau publically come out and stated that adulterers should go to hell then doubled down on comments when rightfully called out for them?

It's a big difference.

So actually you can't make a list of 100s of reasons and the fact he has only spoken out against this says a lot.

This is what seals it for me.

He doesn't simply hold an opinion. He seems to relish the backlash it gets and is defiant when challenged on its appropriateness.

Either he's got some righteous martyr complex or loves having a convenient excuse to put the boot into Homosexuals.

Think the martyr bit nailed it considering his tweet a few days later in response.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,”

“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”

[Dibbers]

I don't want us to sign Izzy Folau... John Folau however...

[Matt]

Guys,
Please stick to the GH guidelines. No personal attacks.
Thanks

[The Nickman]

There's been no personal attacks! This has been one of the most reserved GH discussions I've ever seen.

[Manbush]

i have rallied against people like Manbush who attack religious posters for things that have nothing to do with them individually or their beliefs.

Mate I’ll object to this, I try to stick to attacking the belief or the organistions rather than individual hence I can have respectful conversations about most things including religion, even in this thread I’ve remained one of the more polite posters.

I believe people deserve respect beliefs do not, I’m confident deep down people like Izzy are actually good people they’ve just been poisoned by an insidious belief system.

[Dibbers]

I, along with Randy Watson, Believe that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way...



SEXUAL CHOCOLATE!!!!

[gangrenous]

There's been no personal attacks! This has been one of the most reserved GH discussions I've ever seen.

Dubby did get called a ****

[Manbush]

Can’t believe no ones posted the Westwing clip

[Green eyed Mick]

How does one differentiate between a personal attack and a statement of fact in this PC world of right wing snowflakes and trickle down cucks.

[Lucy]

To be honest, the convenient way Izzy has code-hopped for coin, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he jumped on the sausage for a cool million in tax free pineapples..

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Schifty]

To be honest, the convenient way Izzy has code-hopped for coin, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he jumped on the sausage for a cool million in tax free pineapples..

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

The fact he switched from QLD to NSW means there is a good chance anything is on the table...

[The Nickman]

There's been no personal attacks! This has been one of the most reserved GH discussions I've ever seen.

Dubby did get called a ****

Yeah, but in dubby's defence, he absolutely is one.

[sprintman]

There's been no personal attacks! This has been one of the most reserved GH discussions I've ever seen.

Dubby did get called a ****

EDITED.
Please refain from the personal attacks.

[greeneyed]

I've made my position clear, but there really has been far too much invective and, yes, I'll say it... "hate" on both sides of the "debate". We should all try and be a bit more forgiving of each other.

[Dibbers]

*** nevrr mind