Christianity is dying in the West. It is being attacked by Westerners themselves. Good luck with the options, folks.

When will you theists learn?
Its fine to say "I wont do that because of my religious beliefs."
It is NOT fine to say "YOU cant do that because of MY religious beliefs".
Believe whatever nonsense you want just keep it to yourself and stop trying to force others to join you!

I've been a non-believer since I was about seven, but I do strongly believe that everybody needs some strong ethical foundation. There are moral lessons in the bible, behind the gush about god and heaven, which I've found extremely valuable. The Good Samaritan story, for instance.

In Australia, we are supposed to have some freedom of opinion. Folau has expresses his, which is his right. He hasn't called for any action against homosexuals, simply pointed out that, in his religious universe, they will probably go to hell, along with drunks and fornicators (which I take more exception to - or would, if I believed in hell or heaven). Since in my view, there isn't a heaven, what he says doesn't matter a jot. I'm terribly sorry for the snowflakes who have been so hurt, but there you go. Complain if you like, as long as you don't block the traffic.

Have we got to the point where we can't express a point of view ? I'm sure that most Muslims would probably agree with him and, given half a chance (if ever Shari'a was introduced), would certainly act on those 'opinions' rather than just reflect on them.

This is getting close to witch-hunting.

Joe

Ttbn

*...Christianity is dying in the West. It is being attacked by Westerners themselves. Good luck with the options, folks...*

Thank God, you finally begin to face reality!

The one solution is Islam. But to achieve its aims, democracy as we know it, must die.
It's obvious death-throw is the formation of a police state, and stifling of free speech.
( Israel Folau).

Go read a book if its still in print Called Kingdom of the Cults thing the Mormons get a mention

Israel Folau has violated no law, and he is penalised by no law. However, consider this.

Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

That verse in the Bible has been used as the justification for the persecution and slaughter of Jews. Most people in our Western culture no longer approve of the persecution or slaughter of Jews even though the Bible contains hate for Jews. Jews are human, and homosexuals are human. Neither should be persecuted no matter what the Bible says. We can recognize that the Bible can be a vehicle for hate, and Israel Folau’s religion uses it as a vehicle for hate.

Israel Folau is free to spout his hate and suffer no legal penalty. His employer is not obliged to give him a platform for his speech. Speech is legal but unacceptable when it promotes hate for Jews or any other religious or ethnic group. It is also unacceptable when it promotes hate for homosexuals. I oppose punishment by law for hate speech. One should be free under law to spout any opinion even hate. However, an employer has a right to impose reasonable conditions for employment, and since attendance at sports depends on public goodwill, the employer's action was reasonable.

david f..

? Which is worse David f, in the evolving police state, to be persecuted by the Anti-morality corporate police, or to be persecuted by the Islamic morality police?
these are the stark choices appearing before us.

Fundamentalism is on the march against the former, get used to the idea. Your on the losing side....

Dan

- I support his right to speak freely -

Section 18D protects free speech so long as it's an extension of ones true beliefs.
(You'll notice they don't show 18D on government websites anymore)

We're also a secular country and enjoy religious freedom.
I don't see any laws broken, in fact I see his rights as a citizen trampled on.

This is 20th Century version of throwing Christians to the lions.

Israel was courageous to speak God's truth. Secularism has led us down the toilet very quickly. The fact that all are hell bound without repentance and turning to Christ makes a person a 'hater' for stating what the Scriptures have always taught. Christophobes are the true haters by trying to conceal the truth. Lying, fornication and homosexuality will always be sin. No wonder of them are so self righteous in proclaiming their gw religion.

I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to this petition https://www.change.org/p/rugby-australia-don-t-discriminate-against-israel-folau. Please sign.

I'd also like to respond to David F's post which is a complete misrepresentation of the passage he quotes, and much as I like David, his posts on these matters seem designed to direct hate at Christians.

The passage he quotes is the Jewish crowd accepting group responsibility for crucifying Jesus. That is not authority for killing Jews, even if some Christians have used it that way. The Christian faith stresses personal, not group, responsibility. Group responsibility is an Old Testament concept, and this passage has to be read in the OT context of Israel being God's chosen people, who are frequently punished as a people.

This is that people finally repudiating God in the person of his son. It's the breaking of the old convenant theologically speaking.

Once you move away from the chosen people concept to God being a God for all, the collective guilt doesn't make sense anymore.

Unilaterally ascribing meaning to particular passages of the Bible without considering context is fundamentalism. No one should read the Bible that way, and they certainly shouldn't use that reading as the basis for attacking Christians.

People were duped into supporting gay marriage. The whole intention was to gather the unthinking crowd behind the corporate Gods new world order; and here it is, right in your face fools!

Israel Folau is a healthy human being and can find some other source of income. Nobody is entitled to a job when his or behaviour goes against the reasonable interests of his or her employer. I believe Israel Folau acted in good faith in expressing his Christian beliefs. However, the expression of those beliefs resulted in losing his job. I do not believe the employer was unreasonable in this case. Obviously others disagree.

What is reasonable and unreasonable is often difficult to determine. Folau can go to court to litigate against unfair dismissal. He has or should have the means. Whatever the results of such a suit some will find the outcome reasonable and others unreasonable. What is fair in one person's judgment can be unfair in another person's judgment. Should Israel Folau's employee be forced to employ him? There are no heroes or villains in this case.

'People were duped into supporting gay marriage'

well before that Diver. Promoting sodomy as normal or natural has been a lie that media/academia has pushed for decades.

I'm sure that, as a good Christian, Folau loves sinners but not necessarily the sin. So I don't understand any talk of 'hate speech'. As well, I don't understand the focus on comments on homosexuals rather than drunks and fornicators: Folau is entitled not to approve of their behaviour and to express such an opinion. [But I wish there were more sympathy for drunks and fornicators].

We seem to be in a weird world in which we're not allowed to express disapproval of any behaviour other than that of some Golden Mean: any deviation is labelled 'hate', which seems equivalent to the attitude of a seven-year-old [oops, that sounds like a 'hate speech' sort of remark; well, kiss my arse]. We all have 'dislikes' - Facebook, I think I remember, used to have a special button (or am I mistaken ?) The world is full of dislikes. Yes, maybe it would be a better place without a 'dislike' button. Maybe in an authoritarian society, disliking or hating would be outlawed, with the usual remedies, but history suggests that that usually requires the subtraction of a huge section of the population - ultimately probably the WHOLE population except the Great Leader and Teacher.

So yes, perhaps the destruction of Israel Folau for his dreadful crimes of expressing a contrary opinion to somebody else's, based on his belief system, is a forerunner to Gulags and BITB, or 're-education'. But we're all entitled to our opinions, and anybody who doesn't think so should in turn be 're-educated', in order to live in a democratic and tolerant society. Yes, tolerant - such a society means that we should be able to tolerate differing opinions. Otherwise tolerance is no more than bullshirt.

Joe

total hypocrisy that those who object to the Scripture being quoted claim its a fairytale. Yet happy to ruin a man's career on the basis of a 'fairytale'. And of course turn a blind eye to the murder of many in order to receive 72 virgins. This country has lost its way!

So, a person can now be sacked for expressing a religious opinion?

Are there any historians out there who can pinpoint the year Australia stopped being a free country, where free people could express any political. social, or religious view without legal sanction or their employers sacking them?

One wonders where our much respected Human Rights industry is on this one? Last I heard, a Liberal government had even appointed a Human Rights commissioner expressly for the purpose of defending freedom of speech? But here is a perfect example of an employer violating an employees freedom of speech, and the whole damned Human Rights Industry is missing in action.

I don't know what these public service drones earn, but I'll bet it is somewhere north of $250,000 dollars, and the only time they leap into action is when they can find some fanciful grievance expressed by a favoured minority group. Just like the ABC, if these overpaid busybodies can't or won't do their jobs and defend freedom of speech, then sack the lot of them and make them find a real job.

Placing religion over secular considerations should only be sackable in politics, public office, and positions of responsibility.

.

Dear Bill (the author),

.

Israel Folau posted a meme on Instagram that read: "WARNING Drunks Homosexuals Adulterers Liars Fornicators Thieves Atheists Idolaters, HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT. ONLY JESUS SAVES".

Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union issued the following joint statement :
.

[ “Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union have made repeated attempts to contact Israel both directly and via his representatives since 6.30pm on Wednesday, and at this point he has failed to communicate directly with either organisation.

“Whilst Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport. We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.

“Israel has failed to understand that the expectation of him as a Rugby Australia and NSW Waratahs employee is that he cannot share material on social media that condemns, vilifies or discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality.

“Rugby is a sport that continuously works to unite people. We want everyone to feel safe and welcome in our game and no vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality is acceptable and no language that isolates, divides or insults people based on any of those factors can be tolerated.

“As a code we have made it clear to Israel formally and repeatedly that any social media posts or commentary that is in any way disrespectful to people because of their sexuality will result in disciplinary action” ]
.

What was considered acceptable in biblical times is no longer admitted by modern democratic societies since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Also, Israel Folau seems to ignore that homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality.

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist. Part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual.

Those who believe in Him should present their excuses to God for having misunderstood that He created homosexuals – and rectify the bible accordingly.

.

Politicizing sports is a bad thing for the sport and for the fans. Everyone who is in a sport perfesionally is there because of their talent and their training. Not because of their politics, or their religous views. Therefore let anyone's politics be their own and don't sack them because they are outspoken on one thing or another, No sport is for equality or against equality, for sinning or against sinning. Instead it's about the sport.

Too many instances Australian sports being politicalized because of the "equality" and the "message" that people are trying to present that has nothing to do with rugby, tennis, or any other sport that is played professionally.

vilifies or discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality.
basis ?
shouldn't that be bias ?

In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone.

Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury

Let us not treat a sinner as a criminal. Atheism, homosexuality, fornication and other sins are not crimes in a civilized society. We do not live in a theocracy.

I have changed my mind. I support the action of the black athletes in the United States who 'take a knee' during the national anthem to protest police killing unarmed blacks. I agree with their views. If I support them I must also support Israel Folau's right to express his views even if I do not agree with those views.

Bill,

You've written a superb article that exposes the inconsistencies of the homosexual movement and the mass media that are pro-homosexual. Now, my comments here probably get me the false label of being homophobic - which I am NOT.

One word, 'homosexuals', was taken from Israel's Instagram image to label him as homophobic. This is how crafty the media can be in misrepresenting homophobia.

You wrote:

<<And get a load of this statement from Qantas: "These comments are really disappointing and clearly don't reflect the spirit of inclusion and diversity that we support." Um, let me see if I got this straight: in the name of inclusion and diversity Qantas and Rugby Australia will NOT tolerate and include Folau. Sure, makes perfect sense.>>

You nailed it! Here we have the folks allegedly promoting inclusion and diversity who don't practise what they preach.

If they were truly inclusive and people of tolerance, what Folau said would be par for the course of diversity. It would fit in with inclusion as any value system should be able to be promoted in this ideal society.

Nah! Nah! Slam Folau's values and castigate him for his different, diverse Christian world view that includes God's fate for sinners. See: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+6%3A9-11&version=ERV.

Instead of sacking him, Qantas and Rugby Australia should have congratulated Folau for contributing to diversity of values in rugby. They don't seem to understand that when they discriminate against Folau, they demonstrate intolerance of true diversity.

Israel's Instagram image was almost identical with this Scripture, except that Israel said, 'Hell awaits you', instead of 'will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom'. The meaning is essentially the same. If people, don't enter God's kingdom at death, where do they go?

Quote from Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

“ The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny cuts and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

Loudmouth: "Have we got to the point where we can't express a point of view ? I'm sure that most Muslims would probably agree with him and, given half a chance (if ever Shari'a was introduced), would certainly act on those 'opinions' rather than just reflect on them."

I am reminded of something that historian Geoffrey Blainey recently wrote about the experience of Muslims in Australia:

"A few important Muslim leaders regretted that Australian society, as they experienced it, defied their beliefs and preachings. In their eyes it was decadent and irreligious. And yet one century earlier, a host of Australian churchgoers would have agreed with the mainstream Muslim suspicion of alcohol, drugs, pornography, party-going, scantily clad women, blasphemous language, suicide, homosexuality and the Sabbath. It was the Christians who, in the following four generations, relaxed their views on these social questions. They became more tolerant at a time when sections of Islam were becoming less tolerant."

I do agree with your point that this is becoming a witch-hunt against practicing and traditional Christians. Anybody in contemporary Australian public life who expresses views in line with traditional Christian teachings is basically inviting character assassination. Our post-Christian elites have turned against the religion that shaped our civilisation.

LEGO wrote: "One wonders where our much respected Human Rights industry is on this one?"

Interesting, isn't it? The growth of the human rights 'industry' in Australia seems to have coincided with increased limits on freedoms of speech and religion (well, one particular religion: Christianity).

you sum it up well Bozec

Dear Banjo Patterson.

What Rugby Australia should have written is this.

"Rugby Australia supports the absolute right of any citizen of a free country to engage in freedom of speech. The freedom to express beliefs or to criticize the beliefs of others is the foundation of democracy. Without freedom of speech we can not defend any other freedom, nor can a free people make informed decisions as to what their government's policies should be. Because in a democracy, the government is the servant of the people, not the masters of the people. We in Rugby Australia disagree with what Israel Folau said, but we will defend to the death his right to say it.

Hear, Hear!

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« What Rugby Australia should have written is this. "Rugby Australia supports the absolute right of any citizen of a free country to engage in freedom of speech … We in Rugby Australia disagree with what Israel Folau said, but we will defend to the death his right to say it »

I thoroughly agree with you that freedom of speech is a very precious individual human right. Like all individual rights, it’s only limited by the rights of all others – in this instance, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of the legal situation in all the Australian states and territories regarding publicly threatening or inciting violence on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex or HIV/AIDS status, but here is an article on the legal situation in New South Wales and a brief explanatory note on the bill that was passed in 2018 :

http://hornet.com/stories/crimes-amendment-australian-homophobia/

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3524/XN%20Crimes%20Amendment%20(Publicly%20Threatening%20and%20Inciting%20Violence)%20Bill.pdf
.

It will be interesting to see if Israel Folau takes the matter to court. I’m not sure it would be in his best interests to do so. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Quite frankly, I think the first freedom to be protected is the right of consenting adults to live their lives as they wish with whoever they wish – as long as they don’t encroach on the lives of others. What they do is their business and nobody else’s. If they end up in hell, that’s their problem.

If Israel Folau wants to express his opinion about LGBT people’s sexual orientations and practices, he should be free to do so, but in a calm and reasonable manner – not in an aggressive, threatening and offensive manner. He should refrain from repeatedly making outlandish public statements and trying to force his misinformed, archaic religious beliefs on others.

I have no idea which particular religion he adheres to. But if anyone should speak out and condemn his attitude, in my opinion, it’s the chief witchdoctor of that particular religion.

.

.

Something wrong with the link to the brief explanatory note on that bill.

Best to open the link to the article and click on the words "new law" in the second line of the second paragraph.

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo Paterson wrote: "If Israel Folau wants to express his opinion about LGBT people’s sexual orientations and practices, he should be free to do so, but in a calm and reasonable manner – not in an aggressive, threatening and offensive manner. He should refrain from is making outlandish public statements and trying to force his misinformed, archaic religious beliefs on others."

I agree that Israel Folau expressed his opinion derived from an archaic religious belief in an aggressive, threatening and offensive manner. It is nasty, stupid and offputting.

However, it seems to me that he has the right to do that. A better educated person with those same sentiments might be able to express those nasty sentiments in a much, more acceptable manner, but freedom of speech should not be limited to those with a smoother manner. In fact the very offensive nature of Folau's speech makes it more unlikely that his views will be forced on others.

Falou was expressing his thoughts and opinions.
In doing so, I don't think he gave much thought to the inflections in his delivery of his message.
The fact that 'some' people saw it as aggressive, threatening and offensive, is merely their opinion and reaction to what I, and many others, see as someone delivering an opinion which well describes 'his' feelings on the issue(s).
As for his beliefs being archaic.
Isn't that the case for 'all' religions?
His anti queer comments stem from an 'in your face' attitude these people have.
I never really had anything to say or bothered with them before because they did keep themselves and their acts of physical interactions behind closed doors.
But since they decided to engage in these activities in public, they have made many people uncomfortable around them.
In doing so they have left themselves open to criticism and condemnation.
I notice, Banjo suggesting, 'as long as they don't encroach on the lives of others'.
I agree, and always have, even at the behest of all our wallflowers and pansies on OLO.
So then to back Falou and Banjo, the queers ARE, by their very existence, and in todays new world of queer freedoms, 'encroaching on the lives of others'.
And we, like Falou, don't like it, so I applaud him saying what most people are too scared to say, but are thinking.

Dear davidf,

You wrote;

“I have changed my mind. I support the action of the black athletes in the United States who 'take a knee' during the national anthem to protest police killing unarmed blacks. I agree with their views. If I support them I must also support Israel Folau's right to express his views even if I do not agree with those views. “

I had used Kaepernick in a similar thread attempting to make the argument that while I don't agree with their actions the owners of the franchises deciding not to purchase his services, I felt they shouldn't be forced to do so. Rugby Australia has decided not to continue its contractual arrangements with Folau, not directly because of his religion, nor his race, nor his politics but because of the harm his actions could do to the brand.

His free speech hasn't been denied. He stand on a street corner and spout this stuff to his hearts content. He has over 300,000 Instagram followers. The vast proportion of those would have been gained via the high profile his employment with Rugby Australia afforded him.

Of the 300,000 there would of course be gay people, some of them dealing with a society still not fully accepting their sexuality. Some of them would be in their formative years, where bullying and vilification can end lives.

He may feel the meme he posted was not hateful yet it does not take much imagination to recognise it could be harmful. The black athletes “taking a knee” were championing a right while Folau was doing the opposite. I understand you come from a country that holds free speech in very high esteem. Here however, while supportive of the principle, we have allowed ourselves to be a little more circumspect. I do not accept there is an equivalence of the two forced purely on free speech grounds. Folau is promoting intolerance while the athletes in the US were raising the issue of intolerance. For me these most certainly need to be taken into account when personally deciding on this issue.

Steele,

You put your finger on it: sometimes, differing rights conflict. One person's right may be seen as offence, even oppression, by others. That other person's 'right' not to be offended may be seen as suppression of opinion by someone else. And they be all correct. Rights may throw up all sorts of contradictions and irreconcilabilities (Marx and Mao would say). That's life.

Joe

Dear SteeleRedux,

The black athletes were protesting intolerance while Folau was promoting intolerance. However, if the content of the speech determines whether it is allowed we don't have free speech. I don't like what Folau said nor the narrow religious prejudice which inspired his disgusting speech. However, if I am for free speech I cannot restrict speech to what I approve of or find acceptable. Others may not approve of or find acceptable what I do. If I have the right to shut them up they have the right to shut me up. If we have free speech we must allow speech that we think is loathsome.

Heartening to see a more realistic discussion on a very important topic. We must never allow the devolution of our right to speak our minds or communicate freely, even if doing so offends.
It is a fool who believes that everyone is of the same opinion, so we will never have consensus on anything.
The fact that there are people out there who are so sensitive to the realities of life, matters not to me.
In the real world, and that of the animal kingdom, the weak are killed and this is how the species becomes stronger and healthier.
We as a species have taken a subjective approach to life and not an objective one.
In defense of humanity itself, I do not care if the weaker (mentally) of the human race decide to kill themselves over comments or attitudes of others.
The stronger and more pragmatic of our species will survive and prosper, and that is the way of nature and the way it should be.
By pursuing this new PC mantra, we are doing mankind a dis-service, and if allowed to continue will be harmful to future generations.

To Banjo.

Freedom of Speech is hardly "important" if you decide that it does not apply to anyone who criticises a particular group of people that you believe should be beyond criticism. It is exactly like totalitarian governments saying that they believe in freedom of speech, provided that their citizens do not criticise their governments, or their government's policies.

The only limits on freedom of speech within democratic societies on any subject involving social, religious or political issues, is by common agreement, libel, the Official Secrets Act, and incitement to violence. The issue of freedom of speech is a done deal in western societies. What we are seeing today is leftist authoritarian reactionaries removing the most important right of free people to speak their minds. Just like in the totalitarian countries they admire, they want to prevent citizens from criticising any group of people which the leftists consider part of their support base. And you think that is OK? What is wrong with you? What if the situation was reversed and a right wing government brought in laws to prevent any citizen from criticising gun owners or One Nation supporters? You would be screaming your head off that this was first order oppression from a government that was losing it's moral authority to rule.

Your next premise, was that restrictions on freedom of speech already exist in law in certain states so then this must be OK. That is exactly like saying that it is perfectly moral for the Communist party of the Soviet Union to stop it's citizens from criticising the politburo. After all, it is Soviet law, so it must be moral.

Israel Folau has just as much right to criticise homosexuals in an "aggressive" manner as you do to criticise the groups of people that you don't like in whatever "aggressive" manner you wish. Unless you can grasp this most fundamental concept of a free society, then I can only say that you have either been poorly educated, or you are intellectually challenged.

Choose sides, Banjo. Either side with the democrats, or side with the reactionary totalitarians.

Will it never end?

Now the breweries are going to stop sponsoring and the Sex Workers United have decided to stop attending to football players at Buck's Nights.
Some of the Christian Churches, notably the Catholics, are also considering dropping football and all because some footy player spoke out about his beliefs.

In the immortal words of Xavier Herbert, "Poor fellow my country..."

Kaepernick is now suing the National Football League of the United States. His suit contends that he was denied employment because no team hired his services in spite of the fact that he was demonstrably more talented than some of the players who were hired. He contends he was denied employment because of his exercise of free expression. Whether he had a right to be hired or the teams had a right not to hire him will be determined in court. Australia courts may or may not be influenced by the decision.

Dear davidf,

With the greatest respect I'm afraid I'm going to have to flag that some may well consider your stance absolutist, including I will confess me.

You and I both support the Black athletes in their protest, however I don't support forcing the owner of any franchise to employ them if they choose not to do so.

The suit that Kaepernick and Reid brought against the owners and the NFL has been settled out of court. The difficulty for the players of course was that they had to prove collusion. The fact this isn't going to trial is indicative they did no have a strong case.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001018051/article/nfl-kaepernick-reid-decide-to-resolve-pending-grievances

However if there had been a provable case of collusion then I fully support any applicable sanctions being brought to bear. However in the case of Folau he is only dealing with a single corporate body who have made what is a most likely a financial decision to protect its brand.

And surely there is the question of how we define free speech. Folau hasn't been denied the ability to speak to whomever he wishes it is just that Rugby Australia has decided not to be an enabler, to take away the trumpet they had supplied him through his involvement in the sport they husband.

But even putting that aside you might be bringing and American sensibility to an Australian issue. I acknowledge the US do not have hate speech laws and when asked in a poll; “Would you support or oppose a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments that advocate genocide or hatred against an identifiable group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation?” only 36% approved, although over 50% of Democrats did.
http://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws

Here we have a series of different laws addressing hate speech both Federally and with the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia#Federal

So I submit there are factors which permit you to perhaps take more nuanced view if you wanted.

Can't agree SR.

To me it looks like a sponsor & in particularly that sponsors CEO throwing their weight around, rather than the code protecting it's brand.

Obviously the management of union is a pretty B grade gutless mob, who can be easily bought to the detriment of the platers.

Dear Hasbeen,

Well you are of course welcome to your assessment but I'm probably going to go with Israel's own words;

"As you have probably read, last week I met with Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle and Waratahs general manager Andrew Hore.

During the meeting I told them it was never my intention to hurt anyone with the Instagram comment, but that I could never shy away from who I am, or what I believe.

They explained their position and talked about external pressure from the media, sponsors and different parts of the community, which I understand.

I acknowledge Raelene and Andrew have to run things in a way that appeals broadly to their executive, fans and sponsors, as well as its players and staff. It is a business.

I didn’t agree with Bill Pulver taking a stance on the same sex marriage vote on behalf of the whole organisation, but I understand the reasons behind why he did.

After we’d all talked, I told Raelene if she felt the situation had become untenable – that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn’t be worked through – I would walk away from my contract, immediately."

Looks like he pretty well mimics my own appreciation of what this is about.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

1. « Freedom of Speech is hardly "important" if you decide that it does not apply to anyone who criticises a particular group of people that you believe should be beyond criticism »

I thoroughly agree, LEGO. I consider that criticism is a necessary prerequisite for belief – whatever the subject – and try to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They tend to cloud my vision.

All too often, I have observed in some people that their beliefs have become so encrusted in their minds for such a long time that they are incapable of calling them into question. Their beliefs seem to have fossilised and turned into stone. I certainly should not like that to happen to me.
.

2. « Your next premise, was that restrictions on freedom of speech already exist in law in certain states so then this must be OK »

I made no judgment on the law. I simply pointed-out that it existed and commented : “It will be interesting to see if Israel Folau takes the matter to court. I’m not sure it would be in his best interests to do so”.

If the court decides he broke the law he might end up in jail. I doubt that he would consider that to be in his best interests.
.

3. « Israel Folau has just as much right to criticise homosexuals in an "aggressive" manner as you do to criticise the groups of people that you don't like in whatever "aggressive" manner you wish »

My understanding is that we all have the right to criticise whomever and whatever we like as often as we like. I am more circumspect about any right of aggression. The OED defines aggression as : “feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour …”.
.

4. « Choose sides, Banjo. Either side with the democrats, or side with the reactionary totalitarians »

That’s overly simplistic, LEGO. There’s more to life than just black and white. There are all the colours of the rainbow.

.

.

Dear SteeleRedux,

.

Thank you for posting Izzy’s declaration following his meeting with Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle and Waratahs general manager Andrew Hore. That is an interesting development.

It has the merit of providing an explanation for his action that is perfectly comprehensible, though particularly inept and heavy-handed to say the least. He obviously has a serious bone of contention with the former CEO of the Australian Rugby Union, Bill Pulver whom he disapproves for having taken “a stance on the same sex marriage vote on behalf of the whole organisation”.

His statement contains no apology nor the slightest sign of regret. On the contrary, he declares “I could never shy away from who I am, or what I believe”. This, combined with the revelation of his serious dissension with the former CEO who employed him, precludes, in my opinion, any possibility of reconciliation with the current senior management of the ARU who will not want problems of this nature constantly cropping up in the future.

It remains to be seen if the affair will have any judicial consequences. Judging from the final sentence of Izzy’s declaration, if the judiciary does become involved, it won’t be on his initiative.

He shouldn’t have any difficulty finding another lucrative occupation in Australia, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, given his exceptional sporting talents and worldwide notoriety.

.

To Banjo

1. You have stated on this post and on another, that freedom of speech ends where it affects others. The USSR's Politburo agrees with you. Hitler agrees with you. Kim jong Un agrees with you. Mao tse Tung agrees with you. Foxy agrees with you.

Thomas Jefferson would not agree with you. The founding fathers of the US Constitution would not agree with you. Voltaire would not agree with you. Nobody who is a true liberal progressive, as opposed to a virtue signalling, pseudo intellectual reactionary posing as a progressive liberal, would agree with you.

2. The clear implication that you made is that if freedom of speech is against the law, then it must be OK. It is not OK. In Australia, we do not have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, instead it has evolved over time to be considered an absolute right. That right is now under attack from socialist totalitarian reactionaries, and you agree with them.

3. Freedom of speech can be expressed as politely or as impolitely as you like. The only restriction is on "incitement to violence." That means you can't walk down George Street, Sydney holding up a placard saying "Behead those who insult Islam." Of course, a bunch of Muslims in Sydney did just that. But nobody arrested them, nobody took them to court, and nobody fired them from their jobs. Probably because they did not have jobs. The universally accepted restriction on freedom of speech apparently do not apply to Muslims in Sydney preaching violence.

4. You either support freedom of speech or you do not. If you support freedom of speech you are a genuine liberal progressive. If you oppose freedom of speech, or even support new restrictions on freedom of speech which seem to apply to one side of politics but not the other, then you are not a genuine liberal progressive at all. You are siding with every ideological fanatic in history who wants to shut down debate on their favourite ideology because they consider it so perfect that they will not tolerate criticism.

One thing is certain with creeping censorship.

It won't be long until a section of the population needs to be marched out into the forest and shot.
Historically, what starts as censorship always ends badly.

Banjo,

<<All too often, I have observed in some people that their beliefs have become so encrusted in their minds for such a long time that they are incapable of calling them into question. Their beliefs seem to have fossilised and turned into stone. I certainly should not like that to happen to me.>>

Does that also apply to your own non-Christian or anti-Christian beliefs?

Have they also become fossilised as part of your world and life view?

Jews are human, and homosexuals are human.
david f,
so are those who don't agree with them.

mikk,

<<When will you theists learn?... Believe whatever nonsense you want just keep it to yourself and stop trying to force others to join you!>>

As a Christian, I won't keep it to myself as your eternal destiny is determined by what you do with Jesus Christ in this life.

You can scoff at it; call it 'nonsense'. However, as long as I have breath in my body, I'll not force my beliefs on you or anyone else. I will issue this warning: 'Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life' (John 3:16 ERV).

Isn't life after death a critical issue for you? It will be one minute after your last breath!

ttbn,

<<Christianity is dying in the West. It is being attacked by Westerners themselves. Good luck with the options, folks.>>

So it ought to, when it is fuelled by liberal theology that cuts the guts out of the Gospel, denigrates the Bible to be just another book without the authority of God. The rot is within with Christianity in the liberal theology of the West.

But that's not so with Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity. Take a visit to Bridgeman Downs Baptist Church, Brisbane, Axis Wesleyan Methodist Church, North Lakes (Brisbane), or the evangelical Anglicans of the Sydney diocese and you'll meet Christianity with vibrancy and growth.

Why is Christianity growing worldwide?

The Guardian (UK) reported: "China has seen a huge religious revival in recent years and some predict it will have the world’s largest Christian population by 2030. The number of Chinese Protestants has grown by an average of 10% annually since 1979, to between 93 million and 115 million, according to one estimate. There are reckoned to be another 10-12 million Catholics". See: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next

Everything that makes up a person, is also tied to something else. Your job, your community, your family.

By what you say and what you do, so also are those assoiciated with you affected. Should this be the means to silence us all?

A brand shouldn't be the reason to fire someone when they speak up on their own accord. That is on that person and should be valued as being from them and them only.

Or else is tolerance only allowed when it's not affected by a company you work for?

Dear SteeleRedux,

You are correct. I am influenced by the USA concept of freedom of speech which gives greater latitude to speech than Australia does. You may be guilty of defamation in Australia even though what you say is true if your intent is to injure the reputation of another person. There is no counterpart to defamation in US law. There is libel law in the USA, but you cannot be guilty of libel if what you say is true.

However, free speech is not absolute in the US. Justice Holmes defined the limit as when the speech presents a ‘clear and present danger’. He gave as an example yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre where there is no fire. We also do not have the freedom to encourage a mob to destroy property or to lynch. That would be incitement.

The right of a person to employment is a cloudy issue. For an employer to submit to prejudice and discriminate in hiring on any other basis than the person’s competence is not acceptable. However, if the employee’s actions or beliefs would affect the customer’s business, that is not acceptable either. In the case of Israel Folau, one has to decide which is worse.

There is also a greater separation of religion and state in the US. Having chaplains in the public schools and giving state aid to religious schools would be illegal in the USA. Here I also hold the USA interpretation and was shocked when I came to Australia to find that taxpayers supported religious schools.

The difference is a consequence of the history of both countries. For the first 25 years of Australia’s history the only clergymen allowed were chaplains from the British forces. The first government any place in the world which had separation of religion and state written into law was Roger Williams’ Rhode Island.

In my opinion both Christianity and Islam are nonsense. However, people have the right to believe in nonsense.

david f,

<<In my opinion both Christianity and Islam are nonsense. However, people have the right to believe in nonsense.>>

You censor having a rational conversation when you use this kind of Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) fallacy. When you view Christianity and Islam negatively because of the association with their beliefs, you have not engaged in a discussion of why you disagree with the beliefs of these two major religions.

You have used fallacious reasoning that handicaps sensible dialogue. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association.

What investigations have you made into the validity of the existence of God, Jesus Christ and the beliefs of Christianity? You fail to engage in this kind of discussion when you use a logical fallacy.

The topic is: 'Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated'. You are outspoken about Christianity being nonsense. Should your views be rubbished like Israel Folau's have been?

Dear OzSpen,

Is there any reason I should not state my opinion as to Christianity and Islam being both nonsense. Israel Folau, you and I should be free to state our opinions.

Dear davidf,

I agree that absolutist in the fullest extent was probably a stretch however placing freedom of speech above virtually all other considerations is a particularly American bent I think we can both recognise.

Another example would be the second amendment which was primarily to ensure "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Until 2008 it was assumed by both the supreme and federal courts to apply to militia not to individual rights. A court case in that year opposing a ban on handguns in Washington DC overturn the precedent. Absolutism at its finest.

A commitment to and a revering of laissez faire capitalism would also rank here.

Not attempting to pass judgement of course, there are many American values I am lock step with, it is just that I prefer our way of doing things on some issues, right or wrong as they may be.

You rightly state; “The right of a person to employment is a cloudy issue.” but in this case the reasons given by the Rugby Australia chiefs were primarily about damage to the brand, not specifically passing judgement of Folau's meme. There is however an extra question here, how much should corporate influence extend to selection the national rugby side?

In a way this should be a wake up call to those blithely accept the commodification of our sporting codes. This to me is a big issue worth exploring as a result of what has happened.

Steele,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In that famous statement 'A well regulated militia' is dependent upon 'the right of the people being able to keep and bear arms', not the other way around.

Basic English.

OzSpen wrote: “You are outspoken about Christianity being nonsense. Should your views be rubbished like Israel Folau's have been?”

Dear OzSpen,

If I were so delicate that I could not stand having my views rubbished I would not post on olo. If someone thinks Israel Folau’s or my views are rubbish they have a right to say so.

I am interested in the history of religions. I am reading A History of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch. MacCulloch is a Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University. Although he was brought up in the church he no longer believes, but he has a great knowledge of church history. One quote from the book is relevant to our discussion.

“I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.” P. 11

I also find Christianity crazy - virgin birth, God divided in three parts, a person dying for another’s sin, a man god etc. MacCulloch tells of the spread of this craziness.

The history of Christianity in the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust inspired by Christian hatred, the massacres of heretics and Jews, the Wars of the Reformation, the murder of scientists such as Hypatia, Servetus and Bruno and the enslavement and massacre of native peoples is a tale of violence. Hospitals and schools do not compensate for the appalling violence.

The secular state and separation of state and religion have tamed the sheer beastliness of Christianity. I am glad to live in a time where I have the freedom to say that Christianity is nonsense without being burned at the stake.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The influence of sport in our society should be discussed. I oppose public funds subsidising the Olympics and professional sports. Australian politicians state which team they support as though that has to do with public policy

Dear Is Mise,

In diffidence to o sung wu I will refrain from my initial response.

However let us be very clear, until the 2008 ruling no court in the US had ever found that individuals had the right to a firearm. This was judicial activism and it blocked attempts by Washington DC to prevent the horrendous cost of handguns in their city.

Judge Stevens rightly made the point in his dissent that "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Now I can either take your interpretation of the wording or I can take that of the learned judge.

Guess.

Dear OzSpen,

What on earth are you on about?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with davidf saying “In my opinion both Christianity and Islam are nonsense. However, people have the right to believe in nonsense.”

“Ad hominem is Latin for "to the person” short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”
Wikipedia.

Christianity and Islam are not people, they are belief systems which davidf was perfectly within his right to furnish an opinion on.

From your link on Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association); “When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.”

But that isn't the case here is it. From my reading davidf didn't assert that Christianity and Islam are nonsense because people believe in nonsense but rather they were objectively so. Again he was very clear it was his opinion.

I am of course asserting you have made a fallacious use of a fallacy and am asking you to refrain.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

1. « You have stated on this post and on another, that freedom of speech ends where it affects others »

No I did not LEGO. If you care to re-read my posts you will see that I wrote : “Like all individual rights, it’s only limited by the rights of all others …”.
.

2. « The clear implication that you made is that if freedom of speech is against the law, then it must be OK »

You already made that comment and I already replied to it. Here is my reply once again : “I made no judgment on the law. I simply pointed-out that it existed and commented : “It will be interesting to see if Israel Folau takes the matter to court. I’m not sure it would be in his best interests to do so. If the court decides he broke the law he might end up in jail. I doubt that he would consider that to be in his best interests”.
.
3. « Freedom of speech can be expressed as politely or as impolitely as you like. The only restriction is on "incitement to violence »

No, that is not the only restriction, LEGO. You will recall that I wrote in my first post to you : “Unfortunately, I am not aware of the legal situation in all the Australian states and territories regarding publicly threatening or inciting violence on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex or HIV/AIDS status, but here is an article on the legal situation in New South Wales and a brief explanatory note on the bill that was passed in 2018 :

http://hornet.com/stories/crimes-amendment-australian-homophobia/ ”
.

4. « You either support freedom of speech or you do not. If you support freedom of speech you are a genuine liberal progressive »

I think you will find that most Australians support freedom of speech. But I doubt that most Australians qualify as “genuine liberal progressives”.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I understand that "liberal-progressive" was a label used by a number of candidates in Canadian elections between 1925 and 1953. In federal and Ontario politics, there was no liberal-progressive party: it was an alliance between two parties. In Manitoba, a party existed with this name (Wikipedia).

Here is an article on freedom of speech in Australia that may be of interest to you :

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/09/australia-does-not-have-freedom-of-speech/

.

SR I am intrigued, by your overbearing, condescending rhetoric.
You speak as if from a position of authority.
You are not a moderator and you have already been outed as a whistle blower and a champion of virtue shaming.
Ozspen, has every right to comment, under the guise of 'opinion', and not have to endure a vitriolic barrage without being demeaned for doing so.
The name of this medium is On Line Opinion, in case you've forgotten.
'I am of course asserting you have made a fallacious use of a fallacy and am asking you to refrain'.

Dear ALTRAV,

You wrote;

“You speak as if from a position of authority. You are not a moderator and you have already been outed as a whistle blower and a champion of virtue shaming.”

Oh god strewth if you took your blinkers off for just one second you would realise that was exactly what I was highlighting about OzSpec.

And I will remind you that davidf, in your words, “has every right to comment, under the guise of 'opinion', and not have to endure a vitriolic barrage without being demeaned for doing so.”

.
 
Dear OzSpen,
 
.
 
You quoted my comment … “All too often, I have observed in some people that their beliefs have become so encrusted in their minds … their beliefs seem to have fossilised and turned into stone …”

and you asked :

« Does that also apply to your own non-Christian or anti-Christian beliefs? Have they also become fossilised as part of your world and life view ? »

I don't consider that I have either “non-Christian or anti-Christian beliefs”. I don't have what I could call “beliefs” as regards Christians or Christianity. I should rather say I have sympathies, understanding and opinions.

I'm a Christian. I have been baptised and confirmed. I was also an altar boy for many years and one of my lifetime friends is now a retired bishop. He was my religious instruction teacher when I was in primary school in the Queensland bush where I grew up. We have remained close friends ever since and continue to communicate together regularly.

As there was nobody in the bush with whom I could have an intelligent conversation I spent most of my spare time discussing philosophy and theology with the young priests of the bush brotherhood – to such an extent that everybody was persuaded that I too would become a priest.

I spent half a century investigating the god hypothesis, expecting that I would eventually believe there is a god – until a few years ago when I experienced what I can only describe as a revelation, a stroke of genius, a flash of light that hit me like a bolt of lightning and penetrated my mind. It suddenly dawned on me that there is no god.

I continued my investigations a little while longer, but in a different light, with the new conviction I had acquired, and it all became crystal clear. No god, no belief – just the understanding of how and why the concept developed.

But please be assured my mind remains open to any new evidence that may come to light anytime in the future.
 
.

Banjo:
You say "I'm a Christian. I have been baptised and confirmed."
Then later on you reveal that it suddenly dawned on you that "there is no god".

You can't be both. One of the basics of Christianity is a belief in the one true creator God as found in the Christian Bible. If you have jettisoned a belief in the existence of the Christan God, then you have ceased to adhere to the definition of a Christian.

The Inspector

Dear The Inspector,

Religion is not just a matter of belief. It is also a matter of identity. Mother Teresa told how she had many years of unbelief. However, during those years she kept performing her functions as a nun and remained part of the Christian community. That goes for other religions, also. Religion is a form of tribalism. Mother Teresa had years of unbelief but never stopped being a Christian nun.

I was raised as a Jew and had a Jewish education. I am conversant with Jewish history and customs but no longer believe in any supernatural beings. However, I remain a member of the tribe, and Banjo Paterson remains a member of his tribe.

I find myself in sympathy with Banjo Paterson. Our view of the world is much the same. He shows remarkably good sense which is another way of saying I have much the same viewpoint. If we lived near each other we might become good friends.

There are formal definitions of Christians, Jews and people of other religions. Both Christians and Jews have rites of excommunication which exclude people from the tribe. Spinoza was excommunicated, but he is still thought of a Jew. He is still a member of the tribe. The formal definition of a Jew is one who adheres to the statement of belief, "Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One." I can no longer believe in any supernatural being, but I remain a Jew.

There are formal definitions, and there is reality

Steele,

"This was judicial activism and it blocked attempts by Washington DC to prevent the horrendous cost of handguns in their city"

OK, so it was expensive to buy handguns in Washington, DC, but it still had a horrendous murder rate and other crimes.

You stick with the dissenting judge, I'll stick with the majority.

Why don't you analyse the sentence and apply your English lessons to it?

.

Dear The Inspector,

.

You wrote :

« If you have jettisoned a belief in the existence of the Christian God, then you have ceased to adhere to the definition of a Christian »
I have not “jettisoned a belief in the existence of the Christian God”.
.

I never had a belief in the Christian god, or any other god for that matter – despite having been baptised and confirmed in the Christian religion. In fact, I should not be surprised if I am not the only one in that situation.

I spent the best part of my life trying to find a good reason to believe in the Christian god with the expectation that I would eventually find one – but never did. I suspect that most people don’t even try.

Baptism, by the way, existed long before Christianity came into existence. Jesus of Nazareth was baptised by John the Baptist and Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew.

Christians apparently decided to do their own spiritual branding in order to be able to distinguish their flock from the flock of the Jews. The Christian brand is done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost which, of course, is not the same as the Jews’.

I think david f has summed-up he situation quite well. Very few people adhere to religion out of belief. Almost everybody inherits it from their parents. That’s why Islam is due to become the world’s N° 1 religion by 2050. And I suspect that many of those who take their religion seriously, do so out of hope rather than belief. The true believers are few and far between - though they may not admit it.

In today’s world, the cultural aspect of religion is far more important than its spiritual or mystic aspect. Belief is on the wane and has been ever since the Enlightenment.

.

Dear The Inspector,

Seneca, the Roman philosopher, described religion as a social tool of control by the authorities and not as a belief of the wise.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Banjo,

<<I spent half a century investigating the god hypothesis, expecting that I would eventually believe there is a god – until a few years ago when I experienced what I can only describe as a revelation, a stroke of genius, a flash of light that hit me like a bolt of lightning and penetrated my mind. It suddenly dawned on me that there is no god,>>

So your internal 'revelation' of 'no god' is the arbiter of the 'god hypothesis'? Sounds awfully subjective and mystical to me.

I know your atheism did not come from the Judeo-Christian world and life view and THE God. Who is the Lord God Almighty?

The first of the 10 Commandments provides evidence of who is the true God: 'So Moses went down to the people and told them. And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery"' (Exodus 19:20-20:1).

Who am I to believe? (1) Banjo who had a 'revelation, a stroke of genius' of 'no god' or (2) The LORD who brought the Israelites out of bondage / slavery in Egypt? The LORD provided evidence of His reality. He is the One who executed judgment on Pharaoh's Egypt (10 plagues) and liberated the Israelites. He is the true God and not the 'no god' of Banjo.

david f,

The Inspector wrote: "If you have jettisoned a belief in the existence of the Christian God, then you have ceased to adhere to the definition of a Christian".

In your response Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 April 2019 8:41:35 AM, you didn't address this content. Instead, you wrote:

<<Mother Teresa told how she had many years of unbelief. However, during those years she kept performing her functions as a nun and remained part of the Christian community.>>

You spun off to what you wanted to discuss: Mother Teresa, unbelief and tribalism.

Now, why don't you address the issue: How is it possible to call oneself Christian when belief in the existence of God has been jettisoned? Going into tribalism and Banjo's world view do not address the conflict between 'no god' (of Banjo) and 'I am Christian'.

david f,

<<Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Lucius Annaeus Seneca>>

What has that to do with The Inspector's response to Banjo who stated he was 'a Christian' but believed in 'no god'?

Sounds contradictory to me.

Dear OzSpen,

You will believe what you will. To me your beliefs are superstition.

david f,

You quoted from Diarmaid MacCulloch's, A History of Christianity:

<<I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy [religious liturgy] can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.” P. 11>>

That is not the statement of an objective historian. MacCulloch has moved into subjective opinion with this kind of statement. I also am an historian.

<<I also find Christianity crazy - virgin birth, God divided in three parts, a person dying for another’s sin, a man god etc. MacCulloch tells of the spread of this craziness.>>

That's because you don't believe who the true God is. He is the One who spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1:1); the God who brought the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery with miracle after miracle (Exodus 7-12), and the significance of blood sacrifice to atone for sins (Leviticus 1: 17:11).

You will never understand God and his attributes from naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions. Let the reliable Scriptures speak for themselves and not impose your world view on them.

Dear Ozspen,

You wrote: "You will never understand God and his attributes from naturalistic and materialistic presuppositions. Let the reliable Scriptures speak for themselves and not impose your world view on them."

I don't understand how saying that Christianity is nonsense is imposing my view on anybody. Don't I have a right to state my opinion? There are many belief systems. In my view they are all nonsense. In your view the nonsense you believe in is true, and the others are false. You apparently don't believe in all the non-Christian religions. I don't believe in one more belief system than you.

Christians have imposed to their views on others many times with forced conversions, torture, persecution, slavery and other nastiness. I merely state my views, and it becomes imposing my views. What arrogance!

There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that the scriptures are anything but the work of humans. Many religions have scriptures, and it is arrogance to maintain that yours are true, and the others are false. It is more reasonable to maintain that they all are false.

david f,

How do you explain the miracles at Lourdes?

Dear Is Mise,

There are many tales of miracles. I don't try to explain any. If I were presented with incontrovertible evidence that there was a miracle I would have to accept it. Meanwhile I refer you to the following arguments of Hume on miracles.

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Hume/HumeMiracles.pdf

Non-Christian religions also have miracle claims. It is a stock in trade of religion to provide miracles. I have no reason to believe in miracles, God, fairies, gnomes etc. I made the decision that it is not worth my time. Maybe I'm wrong.

"His employer is not obliged to give him a platform for his speech."
The platform Izzy Folau used was a social media platform avaiable to any one who wants to sign up to it.Do employers have the right to restrict your use of social media outside working hours?
If they had not decided to intervene in this area outside of his working life none of us would have even known about it.Now that we do know about it I ask one question of everyone on this forumsDo you believe each of us have the right to think and believe for ourselves or do we have to be slaves to the prevailing views of others. There was once a time when people blindly accepted that slavery was just part of the economy particularly in the deep south of America.What if the courageous reformers who had a different view had been silenced and prevented from simply stating their views?

david f,

No need to explain all miracles, just the ones at Lourdes, for which there is plenty on the web.

Surely as a person who does not believe in God you should have no difficulty in shewing those that believe, or are merely curious, where the truth lies and how the shams are worked?

Religion? Or intolerance? Notwithstanding his undoubted sporting prowess he was nevertheless an elitist bigot against anybody whose lifestyle he disapproved of. He wore the Australian jersey ... not the folau jersey. He represented the country and all who live here no matter who they are. He stood for ALL australians.. not just the handful he happened to approve of. If he's got a beef he might like to take it up with Ian Roberts.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« I know your atheism did not come from the Judeo-Christian world and life view … »
.

Christianity began as a tiny sect and later grew into a religion but, like all religions, it has gradually metamorphosed into a culture. I am culturally a Christian, imbued in the Christian world-view, life style, morality, etc.

Christianity confronted me with the God hypothesis which I took very seriously and investigated for the best part of my life before concluding that it was insufficiently substantiated for adoption on the basis of existing evidence.

My understanding is that the biblical texts were written nearly 2,000 years ago for the New Testament and well over 2,000 years ago for the Old Testament, by people who claim to have been inspired by a monotheistic deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail. That does not qualify as good solid evidence in my humble opinion.

As I indicated on a previous occasion, I respect your beliefs, but I, personally, am not prepared to have blind faith in texts that are several generational – more or less faithful – copies of original ancestral manuscripts whose authors claim to have been inspired by some hypothetical deity.

I consider that the question of the existence of a deity is far too important to be treated lightly. For such a monumental question it is totally unreasonable to accept as perfectly accurate the multi-generational copy of the bible which is the only version available to us today.

Even if we disposed of the autographs themselves, for all intents and purposes, their value as testimony would be negligible due to the fact that they were written (or dictated) by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.

Solid evidence, for a matter of this importance, should consist in a rate of concordance of at least 90% between the versions of two totally and indisputably independent, perfectly valid non-religious sources.
.

If the Christian label seems inappropriate, perhaps you will accept to consider me as just “an ordinary person”.

.

.

Oops! My post got amputated ...

.

« I know your atheism did not come from the Judeo-Christian world and life view … »
.

Christianity began as a tiny sect and later grew into a religion but, like all religions, it has gradually metamorphosed into a culture. I am culturally a Christian, imbued in the Christian world-view, life style, morality, etc.

Christianity confronted me with the God hypothesis which I took very seriously and investigated for the best part of my life before concluding that it was insufficiently substantiated for adoption on the basis of existing evidence.

My understanding is that the biblical texts were written nearly 2,000 years ago for the New Testament and well over 2,000 years ago for the Old Testament, by people who claim to have been inspired by a monotheistic deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail. That does not qualify as good solid evidence in my humble opinion.

As I indicated on a previous occasion, I respect your beliefs, but I, personally, am not prepared to have blind faith in texts that are several generational – more or less faithful – copies of original ancestral manuscripts whose authors claim to have been inspired by some hypothetical deity.

I consider that the question of the existence of a deity is far too important to be treated lightly. For such a monumental question it is totally unreasonable to accept as perfectly accurate the multi-generational copy of the bible which is the only version available to us today.

Even if we disposed of the autographs themselves, for all intents and purposes, their value as testimony would be negligible due to the fact that they were written (or dictated) by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.

Solid evidence, for a matter of this importance, should consist in a rate of concordance of at least 90% between the versions of two totally and indisputably independent, perfectly valid non-religious sources.
.

If the Christian label seems inappropriate, perhaps you will accept to consider me as just “an ordinary person”.

.

Hasn't much of this been talked about some time ago? If I remember right there were several discussions about Margaret Court a tennis player who spoke out on homosexual marriage around November of last year. From scanning the articles though this is the only one I could find. (Weren't there a few dedicated to this when it happened?)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20022

It should be clear that the homosexual agenda has a tight hold on sports in Australia. In order to be in any of those sports, a person can not speak about homosexuality in a negative fashion.

There should not be that much control over the lives of athletes as what is occurring in the cooperations owning Australia's sports industry.

As for what Israel said. Where are the angry atheists clambering on in insult? They were compared to the same sins that homosexuality was. Yet only the homosexual narrative is outspoken on this. People can choose to have sex with the same sex, regardless of attraction. In the same way people can choose to murder when angered, or they can just be angry and let it go. People can choose steal when they want something, or restrain themselves from being a thief when they see something they want. People can choose to ignore God in favor of alternative perspectives that sound better to them.

These are what Israel Folau spoke on in his Twitter post on going to hell, was it not? That these actions, these choices are condemned? Instead of any of that conversation and what is part of that discussion, Australia Rugby has decided that Israel has over steeped his bounds and somehow his voice represents Australian Rugby and therefore must be dealt with.

(Continued)

(Continued)

No employer should have that much power that they can silence you for taking part in the conversations and discussions that are important to you. One other thing is that what Folau actually said and his follow up statements are overshadowed by with the pro homosexual narrative (again no other group is up in arms to fire him), as well as over shadowed by the response of cooperate censorship on individuals in the media.

Both of these topics of homosexuality and censorship are big issues. Apparently big enough to both fire Israel and ignore what he actually said at the same time

Almost wish I could just tell everyone to repent of their sins. (Turn away from them and to stop doing them). Because even though we all have our habitual or occasional sin, we really should turn from them. Yet I think in the light of the discussions so far, Israel Folau's statements have almost been lost and mine would be lost as well. A shame really.

The lesson to be learnt is that if you criticize homosexuals in any way the CEO of Qantas will get you.

Dear Is Mise,

I’m suspicious of ‘miraculous’ cures, but I looked up Lourdes. I found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes

“Our Lady of Lourdes is a Roman Catholic title of the Blessed Virgin Mary venerated in honour of the Marian apparitions that reportedly occurred in 1858 in the vicinity of Lourdes in France. The first of these is the apparition of 11 February 1858, when 14-year old Bernadette Soubirous told her mother that a "lady" spoke to her in the cave of Massabielle (a kilometre and a half (1 mi) from the town) while she was gathering firewood with her sister and a friend.[1] Similar apparitions of the "Lady" were reported on seventeen occasions that year, until the climax revelation of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception took place.”

“After church investigations confirmed her visions, a large church was built at the site.”

I believe she and gullible others had visions. However, the idea of a human virgin giving birth is in itself nonsense unless sperm is injected into the appropriate area.

As a new religion invented about 2,000 years ago Christianity was looking for converts. One way to get listened to was to give Jesus the attributes of a pagan god. Many of those gods were born of virgins so a virgin birth was attributed to Jesus. One problem was the appeal to the Jews. The text of the Jewish Bible in Isaiah 14:7 contains a prophesy which makes no mention of a virgin. This obstacle was overcome by a translation which mentioned a virgin.

Translation of the prophesy from the original Hebrew to English:

Isaiah 7:14 therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.

The Hebrew, Almah, means maiden in English. Bethullah is the Hebrew word for virgin.

King James version: Isaiah 7:14 14Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There is no prophesy of a virgin birth in the original.

continued

continued

A friend is a former Lutheran pastor. Part of his training was in St. Olaf’s seminary in the USA. I found in talking to him that his views on Christianity were not much different from mine. He was quite aware that the virgin birth was only myth and did not happen. At St. Olaf’s they discussed its origins and its justification. I asked him if he had discussed any of this with his parishioners. He told me he did not want to disturb their simple faith. Apparently it would be disturbing to their simple faith to know they had been fed nonsense. He is no longer a minister as he apparently could not continue and feel comfortable in his role. After leaving the ministry he left the church. I have not seen him recently so I don’t know if he still considers himself a Christian.

Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

Not only the idea of a virgin mother, but all the other miraculous events, such as the stable cradle, the guiding star, the massacre of the children, the flight to Egypt, and the resurrection and bodily ascension toward the clouds, have not only been borrowed, but are even scarcely altered in the New Testament story of Jesus.

Apparently virgin births were quite common up until the advancement of medicine and science.

A superstitious peasant girl and others like her had visions reinforcing their superstitions. That’s the miracle of Lourdes. I believe that the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire was a dark day in history.

david f,

All old news, but what I asked for was an explanation of the miracles at Lourdes, nothing more.

A non-believer should be able to explain them in rational, scientific terms.

Dear Is Mise,

To the best of my knowledge there have been accounts of miracles at Lourdes but no miracles. There is nothing to explain.

david f,

Giving up so easily?

It's what I've come to expect.

david f,

<<You will believe what you will. To me your beliefs are superstition.>>

We can go nowhere in our discussions when you use an ad hominem (Guilt by association) fallacy against me. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

This fallacious reasoning does not enter into discussion as to why you regard my beliefs as 'superstition'. Instead, you wipe them off the discussion board by associating my Christian views negatively with superstition.

Using a logical fallacy prevents rational dialogue.

Banjo,

<<Christianity confronted me with the God hypothesis which I took very seriously and investigated for the best part of my life before concluding that it was insufficiently substantiated for adoption on the basis of existing evidence.>>

That's not how God treats you and this is the evidence He has provided:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" (Romans 1:18-20).

One minute after your last breath, you won't be able to answer God, "You didn't provide enough evidence for me to believe in you". His answer will be: 'You have no excuse'. The biblical message is, 'People have to die once. After that, God will judge them' (Hebrews 9:27).

omygodnoitsitsitsyou,

<<Notwithstanding his undoubted sporting prowess he was nevertheless an elitist bigot against anybody whose lifestyle he disapproved of. He wore the Australian jersey ... not the folau jersey. He represented the country and all who live here no matter who they are. He stood for ALL australians.. not just the handful he happened to approve of. If he's got a beef he might like to take it up with Ian Roberts.>>

When Folau made the comments about the nature of sinners who would go to hell, he was not what you have proclaimed him to be:

+ 'an elite bigot'. He shared his beliefs on a social media platform that obviously clashes with your intolerance of his beliefs.

+ 'He wore the Australian jersey ... not the folau jersey;, False! He was not wearing any jersey when he made those comments.

+ 'He represented the country and all who live here no matter who they are'. False again. When he made the comments he was NOT representing Australia. Why must you create such an embellished story?

+ 'He stood for ALL australians'. So sir! He stood for Australians who support the Scriptures where it lists the sinners who will not inherit God's kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

+ 'If he's got a beef he might like to take it up with Ian Roberts'. That's your spin. If Israel Folau has a warning to all sinners about their need for repentance and forgiveness by God, he chose a social media platform that was suited to his message. He did not speak as a rugby player.

I will add that, in my view, he should have used gentleness to deliver the same message. I also understand he's a champion rugby union player who is used to the rough and tumble of the game and is not an elite lawn bowler.

david f,

<<I don't understand how saying that Christianity is nonsense is imposing my view on anybody. Don't I have a right to state my opinion? There are many belief systems. In my view they are all nonsense. >>

Here you go again with your fallacious reasoning - Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

<<There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that the scriptures are anything but the work of humans. >>

They are your assertions/opinions. They do not relate to the topic of this thread, 'Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated'.

Why don't you write 2 articles and submit to OLO for publication: (1) There is no evidence for the existence of God: Here are the reasons, and (2) The Christian Scriptures are the work of human beings and there is no evidence to support their trustworthiness.

Dear OzSpen,

Please explain how pointing out the flaws of a belief system have anything at all to do with guilt by association. Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of speaking to the argument. That has nothing to do with guilt by association. I have not attacked you in any way. You brought your superstition into the discussion, and I called it what it is.

<<There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence that the scriptures are anything but the work of humans. >>

Those are not my assumptions. There is no evidence for either the existence of a god or that the scriptures are not solely the work of humans like any other books. If there is evidence for either, state the nature of the evidence.

I have written articles which have been on olo.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 points you to my article:

God is a human invention

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 points you to my article:

There is no God in which we all Trust

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 points you to all the other articles I have put on olo.

Please learn what ad hominem means. I have commented on your silly superstition which lacks any evidence to support it. Belief is not evidence. Even though many believe in God there is no evidence for her existence. Go and learn.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

If I may butt in on your conversation with David f, allow me to observe that religion has the advantage of disposing of the immense domain of all that remains beyond the knowledge, experience and comprehension of mankind.

To help put the question in perspective, according to the NOAA of the US, 95% of the oceans, which account for 71% of the earth’s volume, are unexplored and therefore unknown.

We also have no idea how big space is. The nearest star to our Sun is Proxima Centauri which is four light years away - about 38,624 trillion km. Our Galaxy, the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years across. Even travelling at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to fly from one side to the other. Scientists think there might be as many as 500 billion galaxies and that is just too big to think about. The most distant galaxy scientists have ever seen is 13 billion light years away, i.e., 125,529, 000,000,000,000,000,000 km away. What, if anything, is beyond that, we have no idea.

The infinitely small is also, at present, beyond our reach. Black holes, for example, are thought to contain the infinitely small and the infinitely dense but we are incapable of observing and analysing them in detail.

We are perfectly conscious that our present knowledge of the universe and all that it contains is extremely limited – including even the knowledge of ourselves.

The unknown, the incomprehensible, and the so-called occult are the domain of predilection of religion. It is in this infinite domain, where it cannot be contradicted by science, that religion thrives. It is here that its unique, universal explanation – God – finds its full and indisputable application.

Miracles are just one, almost negligible, phenomenon that constitutes this vast domain.

.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You continue to quote the bible as the sole evidence of the existence of a deity but, as I already explained clearly, OzSpen, I am not prepared to have blind faith in multi-generational copies of manuscripts – of which the exactitude is questionable – written (or dictated) more or less 2,000 years ago by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.

Once again, I can only repeat that : I consider that the question of the existence of a deity is far too important to be treated so lightly.

I maintain that credible evidence, for a matter of this importance, should consist in a rate of concordance of at least 90% between the versions of two totally and indisputably independent, perfectly valid, non-religious sources. I consider that anything less than that is inconceivable and inadmissible as a reasonable standard of judgement.

I’m afraid I see no point in pursuing this dialog any further, OzSpen. We are turning in circles and getting nowhere.

I think I understand you and, hopefully, you understand me – despite your lack of response to my detailed explanations – apart from labelling me an atheist.

Naturally, you have a perfect right to label me as you wish. But, personally, I think it’s a bit silly for me to define myself by reference to theists who, in my view, believe in something that does not exist.

I prefer to define myself as “an ordinary person” of Christian cultural inheritance.

Perhaps I shall have the pleasure of discussing other subjects with you on this forum.

.

Banjo,

"Miracles are just one, almost negligible, phenomenon that constitutes this vast domain."

and for that reason alone we should be exploring them to see what can be learned, bone regeneration beyond the power of medical explanation is one.

"He said the first cure was of a paralysed arm that regained function suddenly.

"Another classic example of that is a gentleman from Italy who had a tumour of the pelvis and although you can see the destruction of the pelvic bone on x-rays which are available for the public to view in Lourdes, the bone actually re-grew, both in the pelvis and the femur in an anatomically correct way that would be very hard to explain," he said.

Michael said miracles were just the "tip of the iceberg" at Lourdes.

"First of all it's a place where people can go on holiday when maybe they're terminally ill and couldn't otherwise get insurance," he said."

Never thought of Lourdes as a holiday spot but what he says makes sense.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26334964

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Yes, miracles do occur. They are inexplicable. Hence their appropriation by the Church and attribution to deity.

Perhaps the greatest miracle of all is the genesis of life, the abiogenesis.

My understanding is that “everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity”, an idea attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC). Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed the idea in his book “Le hasard et la nécessité” (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this, Monod deduced that “Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment” (chance meaning a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable” event).

The biochemistry of life may have begun shortly after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable epoch when the age of the universe was only 10 to 17 million years.

Scientists suggest that microscopic life might have been distributed to the early earth by space dust, meteoroids, asteroids and other small solar system bodies and that life may exist throughout the universe. But earth remains the only place in the universe known to harbour life.

The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.

Not surprisingly, the bible opens with the proclamation :

« In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth » (Genesis 1:1).

.

Banjo,

Lourdes was hardly appropriated by the Church and even if it were, we're talking about miracles that happened there after the Church's involvement.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought the subject was miracles and you were citing Lourdes as a famous place where miracles were reported to have occurred.

Now I understand the subject is limited exclusively to Lourdes and more specifically the miracles that occurred there.

Lourdes is, of course, a small town in the south-west of France, near the Spanish border. It became famous in 1858 when a 14 year-old girl claimed to have had a vision of the Virgin Mary in a grotto on the outskirts of the town on several occasions.

The Catholic Church bought the grotto and the land around it three years later, and commissioned a sculptor to create a statue of Our Lady of Lourdes based on the girl’s description. The property and grounds were confiscated by the State due to the law of separation of Church and State in 1905 and returned to the town. The Church rented it from the town until WW1 when it was allowed to buy it back again and has owned it ever since.

Today it is quite a big business. Thirty full-time chaplains work in the domain, from dioceses and religious communities worldwide. As of 2010 there were 292 full-time lay employees and a further 120 seasonal employees working in 63 different divisions, with an annual running budget of about $Aus30 million, 90% from donations.

So, yes, you could say the Church has appropriated the famous Lourdes pilgrimage site – but not the town itself though, naturally, the town also reaps the benefit of the 5 million visitors a year (on average).

In 2008, on the 150th anniversary of the girl’s visions, there were 9 million visitors.

It’s anybody’s guess just what the motor of the miracles is. Some say it’s the Virgin Mary. Some say it’s faith. Some say it’s the stimulation brought on by desperation, knowing that it’s the last chance after everything else has failed.

Whatever it is, it’s hope that brings the constant flow of pilgrims to the little town of Lourdes in and around Easter each year.

.

Banjo,

<<You continue to quote the bible as the sole evidence of the existence of a deity but, as I already explained clearly, OzSpen, I am not prepared to have blind faith in multi-generational copies of manuscripts – of which the exactitude is questionable – written (or dictated) more or less 2,000 years ago by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.>>

You misrepresent what I've stated. I've NOT given the Bible as the sole evidence of the existence of God. I've referred you to the intricate creation and sustenance of the universe. 'The Earth would become uninhabitable if its average distance from the Sun was reduced by as little as 1.5 million km – which is only about four times the Moon’s distance from Earth!', http://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-much-closer-to-the-sun-could-earths-orbit-get-and-still-be-habitable/

As for 'multi-generational copies of manuscripts', you are not prepared to examine historical science and textual criticism to determine how any historian determines the reliability of ANY document, from Aristotle (ca. 384-322 BC), to the biblical history, to Hitler's genocide.

When you refuse to engage in historical criticism, there is no way you can determine the history of the Israelites release from Egyptian slavery, Emperor Nero's existence and atrocities committed, Jesus' life, death, burial and resurrection, or the evidence Scripture provides for God's existence.

Your resistance to this evidence demonstrates your short-sightedness when it comes to historical validation and the content of those documents.

david f,

<<Please explain how pointing out the flaws of a belief system have anything at all to do with guilt by association. Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of speaking to the argument. That has nothing to do with guilt by association. I have not attacked you in any way. You brought your superstition into the discussion, and I called it what it is.>>

You have provided an example of one Ad Hominem fallacy (Abusive) that I did not use in reference to your reasoning.

Please understand that logical fallacies do not deal with 'the flaws of a belief system'. They use fallacious/erroneous reasoning. These are some of the Ad Hominem fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem (Abusive): http//www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

2. Ad Hominem (Circumstantial): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

3. Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association

4. Ad Hominem (Tu quoque): http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

5. Poisoning the Well Fallacy is a pre-emptive Ad Hominem fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

You stated: <<Please learn what ad hominem means.>>

I know what THEY mean. I suggest you come up to speed with your knowledge of the various types of Ad Hominem fallacies.

<<Belief is not evidence. Even though many believe in God there is no evidence for her existence. Go and learn>>

Evidence leads to belief. It seems as though you are not open to consider ALL of the evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

Let's get back to the topic: Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated. You are outspoken in your comments against God on OLO. Why are you not attacked like Israel Folau has been?

Banjo,

<<We also have no idea how big space is. The nearest star to our Sun is Proxima Centauri which is four light years away - about 38,624 trillion km. Our Galaxy, the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years across. Even travelling at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to fly from one side to the other. Scientists think there might be as many as 500 billion galaxies and that is just too big to think about. The most distant galaxy scientists have ever seen is 13 billion light years away, i.e., 125,529, 000,000,000,000,000,000 km away. What, if anything, is beyond that, we have no idea.>>

Surely this screams at you: There is the Great Designer who made this intricate, complicated and enormous universe and keeps it going!

I question your attempt at point scoring.
In the text of your previous post you quote God as being female.
Well it may irk you to be reminded that God has always been referred to as He, Him, or as being male.
The male has always been the dominant overseer and protector of all they are responsible for.
The male has always been the one people turn to for guidance and advice in the event of any life threatening or major physical or social, even perceived, attack, physical or otherwise.
You are at liberty to say whatever you wish, about whatever topic you wish, I am merely reminding you of the historical and present day reference to God, by 'those who believe in him'.
For my part, if I were even a little more religious, I would remind everyone that God is not human but a spiritual creation by those who realised a way of controlling people easily, because a God is an unknown entity and if you put it out there that HE is all powerful and can strike you down at a moments notice if he desires or you do something to piss him off, then you'd better watch out.
And so you get to control the weaker of mind, into doing 'your' bidding, all in the name of God.
So unless you're a feminist, or God shows himself, or itself, we have always believed, and will continue to believe, that God is male.

ALTRAV,

<<For my part, if I were even a little more religious, I would remind everyone that God is not human but a spiritual creation by those who realised a way of controlling people easily, because a God is an unknown entity and if you put it out there that HE is all powerful and can strike you down at a moments notice if he desires or you do something to piss him off, then you'd better watch out.>>

From whom or where did you generate those ideas about God?

OzSpen wrote: "Let's get back to the topic: Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated. You are outspoken in your comments against God on OLO. Why are you not attacked like Israel Folau has been?"

Folau has been sacked for breach of contract. He obligated himself to abide by the rules of his sporting club. Those rules limited his speech. He is a public person who has agreed to certain limits on his behaviour and speech as part of his employment. I am free to say that Christianity is a silly superstition. I have agreed to no limitation on my speech outside of what is already in law. You are attacking me, but you are free to do so as long as it is only a verbal attack. I have a right to point out what I think as wrong in any belief system. If Israel Folau did not have a contractual obligation he would be as free as I am to express an opinion. I disagree with his opinion, but I certainly think he has a right to express it as a private person. As an employee who agreed to certain restrictions in his contract he has given up that right. I have said nothing against God. I don't criticise what does not exist.

OzSpen wrote: "Let's get back to the topic: Outspoken Christians will not be tolerated. You are outspoken in your comments against God on OLO. Why are you not attacked like Israel Folau has been?"

Please cite any comment I have made against God. I have never said anything against fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, elves, griffins, Satan, God, Harry Potter or any other creation of the human imagination.

Dear OzSpen,

You wrote to davidf;

“I know what THEY mean. I suggest you come up to speed with your knowledge of the various types of Ad Hominem fallacies.”

No you obviously don't know what they mean otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to flag them where they don't exist. How about you stop posting links to sites listing these logical fallacies and instead clearly state why you think davidf is using them within his arguments.

This should be good.

Banjo,

One could call Lourdes a miracle of job creation!!

OzSpen, don't be precocious and petulant.
You know full well your question has no objective answer.
It therefore leaves the way open for a subjective answer.
And that is, as you well know, throughout the ages, and if you have done any reading, you will find that what I have described in my post is merely repeating what has been in the public domain for as long as that guy called Jesus made his bid for the office of 'the son of God', people have been discussing God.
Then there's the other tiny little detail that you seem to conveniently overlook, and that is, if you're going to believe in God, as a Christian, you may recall 'he made man in his own image'.
Now I know little to nothing about religion, and I'm ok with that but I think you will find those out there who are a little more bulked up on the subject than both of us and would give you a verbal hiding for your opinion/comment.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« You misrepresent what I've stated. I've NOT given the Bible as the sole evidence of the existence of God. I've referred you to the intricate creation and sustenance of the universe. 'The Earth would become uninhabitable if its average distance from the Sun was reduced by as little as 1.5 million km – which is only about four times the Moon’s distance from Earth!', http://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-much-closer-to-the-sun-could-earths-orbit-get-and-still-be-habitable/ »
.

I just re-read all your posts to me on this thread but I can’t find any trace of the post you quote above. Would you kindly indicate the reference so that I may locate it, please ?

I note that you consider that “the intricate creation and sustenance of the universe” is “evidence of the existence of God”. I think it would be more accurate to say that it leads you to “believe” there is a God”.

What seems “evident” (obvious) to you, does not necessarily qualify as “evidence”.

Belief is not evidence. Belief is subjective. Evidence is objective, i.e., independent of ideas concerning it.

Belief based on nature is close to the pantheistic philosophies of the Italian Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno and the Jewish-Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza. The former was burnt at the stake for heresy in1600 and the latter was excommunicated in 1656.
.

The Bible was written over a period of time covering more than 1500-years, from 1450 B.C, to almost 100 AD. It was written within the context of the historical events of the day. If it is to be considered accurate and true, the events recorded in it should correspond with the recorded historical events outside of it.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence outside any of the so-called “holy scriptures” of any of the monotheistic religions, of the existence of a monotheistic deity, nor that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a monotheistic deity.

If you are aware of any such evidence, I should be grateful if you would be so kind as to let me have the corresponding references.

.

Banjo Paterson wrote: "Belief based on nature is close to the pantheistic philosophies of the Italian Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno and the Jewish-Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza. The former was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600 and the latter was excommunicated in 1656."

You are right. Belief based on nature is close to the pantheistic philosophy of Baruch Spinoza but not quite the same. Spinoza did not base his belief on nature. Basing belief on the wonder and intricacy of nature can imply a creator God outside of nature. Spinoza's God was coterminous with nature. Spinoza denied 'narrative' religion - the stories of God's actions in the Jewish Bible and the New Testament.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 11 August 1464) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Cusa had many of same ideas that Bruno (1548 – 17 February 1600) had and was quoted by Bruno. However, Nicholas was a cardinal, and Bruno was only a friar. Apparently, rank has its privileges, and cardinals can get away with ideas that a mere friar cannot express without being burned at the stake.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« One could call Lourdes a miracle of job creation!! »
.

Yes, it’s a very lucrative business.

The multitude of vendors of religious paraphernalia, souvenirs, baubles and trinkets that are to be found at Lourdes reminds me of the story of Jesus and the merchants at the Temple of Jerusalem :

« And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves » —&#8201;(Matthew 21:12–13).

And I can’t help thinking of those millions of pilgrims playing the last card in their crippled hands, after all else has failed … at Lourdes … waiting for the miracle to come :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EDKvXRKd0

.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thank you for introducing me to Nicholas of Cusa. He certainly seems to be an interesting person. I'm not sure what he means by "learned ignorance" but it's worth investigating.

I see that he is also considered to be a precersor of 18th century pandeism.

I'll check it out.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

One useful source for philosophy and philosophers is

https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/contents.html

You may already use it.

david f,

<<Please cite any comment I have made against God. I have never said anything against fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, elves, griffins, Satan, God, Harry Potter or any other creation of the human imagination.>>

There you go again with your Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy: See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

Here you ridicule God by associating Him with fairies, unicorns, Santa Clause, elves, griffins,Satan, Harry Potter or any other creation of human imagine.

Ridicule is 'the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behaviour' (Oxford Living Dictionaries 2019. s.v. ridicule).

That's what you have done with regard to God and thus have committed this fallacious reasoning.

ALTRAV,

<<OzSpen, don't be precocious and petulant.
You know full well your question has no objective answer.
It therefore leaves the way open for a subjective answer.>>

Would you please back quote so I know what statements you refer to?

Banjo,

<<Belief is not evidence. Belief is subjective. Evidence is objective, i.e., independent of ideas concerning it.>>

Both you and david f takes the same position, <<Belief is not evidence>>: Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 April 2019 9:42:50 PM

Belief based on historical evidence is not subjective but the result of historical investigation of the available evidence. I believe Hitler and the Nazis slaughtered about 6.5 million people (mostly Jews) in the prison camps. My belief is based on an examination of the historical evidence. I was born after the war. My belief in Hitler is NOT subjective, but based on historical evidence.

If I do not have evidence for God's existence, I do not have foundational facts on which to ground my faith. See Hebrews 11:6, 'Without faith it is impossible to please God. Those who come to God must believe that he exists. And they must believe that he rewards those who look to him'.

I've told you previously, but you overlook it or don't take it seriously:

19 The truth about God is plain to them [godless people]. God has made it plain. 20 Ever since the world was created it has been possible to see the qualities of God that are not seen. I’m talking about his eternal power and about the fact that he is God. Those things can be seen in what he has made. So people have no excuse for what they do" (Romans 1:19-20).

There you have the evidence stated in specific terms:

+ The truth about God is plain to godless, evil people. Where?

+ You can see the qualities / attributes of God. God has made it plain to them.

+ God's eternal power and facts about God's existence are SEEN in what he has made (creation).

+ That leaves all those who are hostile to God because of their godlessness WITHOUT EXCUSE when they stand before God (at death).

(continued)

(continuation)

Banjo,
Christian apologist and Lutheran theologian John Warwick Montgomery wrote: 'Lose the Bible and you lose the best evidence for God; defend the Bible and you discover "many infallible proofs" for the salvation revealed once for all through the death and resurrection of His Son (Acts 1:3)' (Faith Founded on Fact. Trinity Press 1978:xiii).

My belief in Jesus Christ for salvation is NOT subjective but is based on the objective historical evidence of the OT and NT, especially on the passion of Jesus.

You can't seem to get your head around the evidence that Christian faith is founded on facts.

You say the Bible <<was written within the context of the historical events of the day. If it is to be considered accurate and true, the events recorded in it should correspond with the recorded historical events outside of it.>>

That's only ONE of the tests historians use to check the veracity of any document, including the Bible. Why have you left the others out?

Dear OzSpen,

"I have never said anything against fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, elves, griffins, Satan, God, Harry Potter or any other creation of the human imagination."

The above does not ridicule God any more than it ridicules fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, elves, griffins, Satan or Harry Potter. God is no more real than the other entities mentioned. I don't have to respect your God or your belief system. You are unreasonable to expect me to do so. You are a human being. If I met you I would treat you with kindness and consideration. However, I have no obligation to treat your religious fantasies with kindness or consideration.

No faith, Christian or other, is founded on fact. Belief is not fact. I accept the fact that you sincerely believe. God in three parts, virgin birth, someone dying for the sins of others, transubstantiation and immaculate conception are some of the nonsense that Christianity is burdened with. Jesus is also nonsense. If God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent he doesn't need a sidekick

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Belief in historical evidence and proclaiming belief as historical evidence is not the same thing
.
I’m afraid this conversation is becoming quite ridiculous.

If you don’t mind, I’m signing off.

I wish you and yours a very happy and peaceful Easter.

.

Dear OzSpen,

The Bible which you characterised as a 'reliable' document has many inconsistencies. The following points you to a list containing 700 of them.

https://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf