The reason why freedom of speech is no longer the keystone of western democracy, Augusto, is because of multiculturalism.

When both sides of parliament see the benefits of undermining democracy for their own ends, then democracy is in real trouble. The trick is to use immigration to "diversify" the electorate so much that the country becomes almost ungovernable. What was once traditionally considered to be right and wrong becomes completely fuzzy as imported groups with diametrically opposed value systems compete against each other at election times.

Both sides of parliament then compete with each other in saying nothing that could offend any group. Pollsters look at the different demographic voting blocks and advise politicians on what topics must be avoided at all costs.

Take freedom of speech. Muslims do not believe in freedom of speech and they support 18C. people who "identify" as "indigenous don't ;ole freedom of speech either because they don't want their lifestyle examined and criticised. But the most ardent advocates censorship today are the educated elite world savers who were once "liberals", but are now the Establishment. They don't want their new religion of multiculturalism criticised. The reason is, because just like any evangelical religion they think that their particular ideology is the only hope for mankind (sorry, personkind) and it is beyond criticism.

And there are quite a lot of them. Not only that, they are influential. Some of them are running corporations and media outlets like Facebook and YouTube and they have to power to shut down free speech. And they are doing just that.

Morrison's problem is the same for every western politician today, witht he exception of real leaders like Hanson, Farage, and Trump. Morrisons advisers are telling him that free advocating free speech could upset several demographic voting blocks that could cost him an election. The problem for Morrison is, that this issue is gaining in importance among the electorate and it can not be swept under the carpet any longer.

Another Zimmermann upchuck!

This follows Zimmermann's secret diplomatic communication proposing a military alliance

between Germany and Mexico. Dah!! http://youtu.be/KKhgrCDkm0s

I think ScuMo has dictatorial ambitions. And I definitely think he was behind the police raids on journalists several weeks ago.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was revealed that he is in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party. He does seem to be a great admirer of Zhi Jing Ping and a supporter of Chinese international expansionism even when such expansion looks to be fraught with aggressive imperialism. He does seem to me to be intent on giving control of the Australian economy to Chinese Communist Party supported corporations. And he did allow a Chinese fleet to enter an Australian harbour unannounced to the public, which basically said to Beijing 'You can come in anytime boys! It's all yours.'

Folau's freedom to speak and religious freedom just doesn't include taking three passages from the bible then misrepresenting them and or their accurate translation from the original Greek. Which when correctly translated just doesn't infer what Folau says it does!

Freedom of religion doesn't give anyone the right to impose flawed views or flawed brainwashed teaching on anyone. Moreover, there's absolutely no imperative for SoMo to defend Folau's religious rant/breach of contract!

Your religious (flat earth) beliefs are for you and you alone.

Folau is a fine footballer, not a theologian! And as a self-proclaimed biblical expert, doesn't know his ass from his elbow!

His religious rant, little more than hate speech and bigotry writ large. The God of love would never say what Folau say he said and the God of love alone decides who merits heaven! And given his bigotry, hate speech and latent homophobia. There's no guarantee that Folau will ever get there?

Not for nothing is it writ large, judge not and ye shall not be judged!
Alan B.

I read this article in The Spectator, and I agree with it, making comments on in it in the forum.

I agree with Mr. Opinion’s view of Morrison’s attitude to China. He is either a good friend of China, or he is frightened stiff of China. Just as he wouldn’t comment on Folau, he will not comment on China. Even Malcolm Turnbull spoke out against the China threat.

Morrison needs to realise that he is PM only because the thought of Labor was too awful to contemplate. The Liberal party needs to realise that it picked the wrong man. Dutton was the obvious tough guy we need.

Alas, Mr. Morrison doesn’t appear to believe in anything or stand for anything of use to Australia

Freedom of speech means supporting the right of others to say things you don't agree with.

Freedom of speech means being able to tell others what you think or know without being threatened with violence by the State. Several weeks ago the State under ScuMo's watch raided journalists to prevent them from telling others what they know or think. I think ScuMo would have got more than a few polite nods from the Chinese Communist Party when that happened.

Headline today:

"Scott Morrison will today deliver a direct plea to Donald Trump to bring an end to the US President's trade war with China."

Lets's hope Trump will give Morrison a lesson on patriotism, being a man, and just what in means to actually represent your country and people.

I think Trump will see ScuMo as a wannabe dictator who is in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party.

Augusto,

You have highlighted this freedom of speech brick wall so well. The PM is contributing to it with his distancing himself from comments about his view.

In my understanding, ScoMo does not know how to integrate his Christian faith with politics and a biblical world view. He should have come out in support of Australia as a bastion of free speech for Folau, Socialists, adulterers, liars, homosexuals and others.

To encourage such free speech puts those beliefs in the public square where we can debate the negatives and positives of them.

Did you view Q&A on ABC TV last Monday night, 24 June 19, which included the Coalition’s Minister for Education, Hon Dan Tehan MP, who stated the Coalition’s position: ‘We need a religious discrimination act in Australia? See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQokMBNAvvo

Then Mr Tehan discussed how there is a need to define the boundaries for religious faith. He wouldn’t say what those boundaries might be but put the questions by Tony Jones and others into the ‘wait and see’ mode of what the legislation will look like. He wouldn’t state that the Israel Folau case would be helped or harmed by this hypothetical law that is being formulated.

I commend you for careful analysis of the discrimination towards Christians today. As an evangelical Christian, I also am concerned at where freedom of speech, faith, and religion are heading in Australia

' I think Trump will see ScuMo as a wannabe dictator who is in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party.'

I think you are a fine example why weed should not be legalised.

What is the basis of the dichotomy between “discrimination” and “inclusivity”?
Israel Folau's appeal for financial assistance for his legal fight against Rugby Australia has been shut down by GoFundMe Australia .“ We have concluded that this campaign violates our terms of service," GoFundMe Australia regional manager Nicola Britton said. "As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity…we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion.”
There had been growing calls for the "hypocritical" website, which proudly displays a gay pride flag on its social media accounts, to shut down the fundraising exercise.
It is relevant to note the Australian National Imams Council Statement of 10 March 2018 . “Islam’s position on homosexuality has always been clear and perspicuous from the time of the revelation of the Quran to our Prophet Mohammad …From the Islamic standpoint, homosexuality is a forbidden action; a major sin and anyone who partakes in it is considered a disobedient servant to Allah that will acquire His displeasure and disapproval. This is clearly stated in the three main sources of the Shariah: The Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of all scholars, which extends from the time of the Prophet till today…”

You are 100% right Leslie. Christophobe is alive and well.

I cannot understand why a person who doesn’t support the gay lifestyle is automatically labelled a bigot and hater.
Just because you may disapprove of one area of a persons lifestyle doesn’t mean you hate that person. Surely we are able separate a persons sexual activities from who they are as a person? The parents of drug addicts hate what their child is doing in relation to their drug habit but still loves their child as a person. I personally would never judge the worth of a person based on what they do in their bedroom, as long as children weren’t involved.
I have lesbian friends I really admire and like and my attitude towards their sexual activities doesn’t interfere with our friendship at all. It’s not something we ever discuss as it’s a private issue.
You can legislate for equality but you cannot legislate acceptance and people should not be labelled haters because they can’t bring themselves to approve of activities others have no objection to. We all have the right to our own opinions.

What a pathetic article/essay from someone who is both a professional legal scholar and philosopher. But such poorly argued rants are par for the course in the Australian Spectator.

For instance there is absolutely zero evidence that there is a "reign of terror against christians" in Australia.

And in my opinion very few mainstream Australian christians who are in any sense sane would now believe that "sinners burn in hell" when they die. There is of course ZERO evidence for such an absurd belief.

'There is of course ZERO evidence for such an absurd belief.'

except for the words of the Man who never lied and rose from the dead.

If homosexual sex/annal sex is a sin? So also annal sex practised between consenting informed heterosexual couples! Big Nana.

Simply put, what consenting couples decide to do in the privacy of their home is no business of Folau or any other religious bigot.

If you are going to persecute others for the crime of being born different, make sure that you have all your facts/translations absolutely right, lest you stand before God, accused of the most heinous evil yourself!?

(I didn't put that rope around that young man's neck Lord!) [No not personally, but you're the reason he chose to end his young life, just a surely as you placed the noose around his young neck yourself!]

That said, freedom of religion allows one to be a bigot and express flat earth or stone age religious views.

It's called freedom of speech, only around 10% of us, believe like Folau and runner, we speak for god on religious matters!?

None of which have to be proven or true! Thus we have to tolerate the intolerance of runner, his endless religious diatribe/rant!

Wars have been fought over religious belief, genocide committed in God's name!

Given this is so, historically proven/recorded! It, therefore, follows, that never ever proven, religion/intolerant views are inherently evil, as are those who confer such hate-filled intolerance on a God of love!

Whose teachings do the aforementioned follow, Jesus or, pagan sun worshiper, Constantine? Because most of the modern bible is his official creation!

One can't say that massacres committed in God's name, were some kind of act of love any more than the burning at the stake Saint Joan of Arc was!

So much evil in this evil empire, with buggered boys/raped babies, lined up for centuries, sword welding bishops at the head of blood-lusting armies.

Gay bashing isn't as prevalent as it used to be, explains why runner runs off at the mouth at every opportunity.

Trying to cover for/justify the unjustifiable?

Wants to return to the good old days, when that sort of thing was acceptable
Alan B.

Alan, how many times do I have to tell you that I’m not religious?
My opinion has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with biology.
Sodomy, whether heterosexual or gay is an activity the human body was not designed for and as such causes damage and medical problems, not the least of which is the world wide spread of aids.
I don’t advocate stopping what people do in their bedroom but I do care that I’m not allowed to present my opinion of certain activities done there.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion without being labelled a hater because I actually dont know any person who hates gays just for being gay. Most of us are mature enough to be able to not judge a person based on their private sexual activities, but rather judge a person by their actions and day to day behaviour.
I don’t understand how you don’t see that.

Daffy Duck,

I found nothing productive for open discussion in your 3 paragraphs.

<<What a pathetic article/essay … such poorly argued rants.>>

We cannot have a rational discussion when you resort to an Ad Hominem (Abusive) fallacy like this. It is fallacious reasoning.

<<For instance there is absolutely zero evidence that there is a "reign of terror against christians" in Australia.>>

Have you checked in ALL workplaces in Australia, in every school, seen how Christian people in the medical profession are treated, seen how Graham Preston has been persecuted and prosecuted in his advocacy for unborn children and against abortion. See: http://www.eternitynews.com.au/in-depth/i-go-to-jail-to-save-babies/

<<And in my opinion very few mainstream Australian christians who are in any sense sane would now believe that "sinners burn in hell" when they die. There is of course ZERO evidence for such an absurd belief.>>

You have committed an Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity. Because many people accept a certain view does not make it correct. We need to debate the evidence. You have not done that here with your assertions.

In addition, have you checked with all mainstream (definition please) Christians to discover how many of them believe the Bible’s statement: ‘And they (the unrighteous) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life’ (Matthew 25:46)?

You gave us a lot of your unsupported presuppositions in the post.

C S Lewis wrote: ‘There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason’.

Your a classic runner...I love it...your on fire...

Dan

Armchair critic,

<<Freedom of speech means supporting the right of others to say things you don't agree with.>>

Have you noticed that the accusations against Folau of anti-diversity and non-inclusiveness have missed something strategic? Where is the support for diversity and inclusiveness including Israel Folau's evangelical Christian beliefs?

He said on Instagram what has been part of the Christian Gospel for 2,000 years.

Nothing new for Christianity in what Folau said, but what is new is the new politically correct meaning of diversity and inclusiveness.

Alan B is totally lost on this subject.

Before you beat the empty vessel any louder, try educating yourself.

Here is a link to a well researched book on Amazon, which will update (sic) you on the public health issues of homosexuality. In the book are facts and current figures which refute your entire stand on the issue.

You can read this publication for anywhere between $00 and $27.00. It's up to you!

Link:

https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Homosexuality-Psychological-Research/dp/1539983811

Selection from Amazon profile of the book…

*…There is an astoundingly disproportionate incidence of medical and psychological pathologies among homosexual men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet the general public knows little about the baneful nature of homosexuality and its associated addictions and behaviours that invite disease…*

And from a reviewer (Dr).

*...Admittedly, this 500 page tome with 98 pages of references in the endnotes, is a challenge to read. It is a challenge on more than one level, in that it presents facts about homosexuality to which the very people who need them won't listen...*

Dan.

I don’t think we need more laws to enforce our freedoms. We just need a bit of sense to apply to the laws we already have.

The RA have been so heavy handed that is has worked against them, enough that many feel compelled to want to support Folau’s court battles with their wallets. I think Folau should also have been more careful and less heavy handed with his message.

He and RA should have managed to sit down and better talk things through. I still think they should try and reconcile their differences.

Maybe I’ll change my view after the Folau cases has been dealt with in the courts. Maybe ScoMo at that time will do something about the issue. He’s still got a couple of years to make good on his promises

Morrison is just being a typical politician.

Despite his apparent stance, remember that he didn't even vote on the marriage equality bill rather than publicly expose his personal beliefs.

When he was asked what he thought about "Gay Conversion Therapy" he replied that he "doesn't think about it" - typical weasel words to avoid professing his official Pentacostal religious stance on the matter.

He has a price and it's apparently his job that comes first - but he can't hide forever.

Alan B's freedom of speech should not allow him to come on OLO and impose his flawed beliefs, or flawed brainwashed teachings on anyone. His social opinions are for him and him alone. Alan B. should be censored because expressing opinions about how homosexuality is normal should be considered hate speech.

Similarly, there should be a Religious Discrimination Act so that intolerant bigots like Alan B. could be prosecuted for causing "offence, insult and hurt" to any religious person offended by his opinion.

Big Nana and Dan S de Merengue. Common sense has no role today."He who pays the piper calls a tune of hypocrisy".
Such is the universal dominance of commodification, that sponsors now dictate contracts and free speech. Australian employment law requires that an employee cooperate with their employer, and not engage in any conduct that would undermine the business or bring it into disrepute. Courts have increasingly interpreted these principles to enable employers to control the private or out-of-hours conduct of employees.As the Wallabies’ main sponsor, Qantas pressured Rugby Australia to take action against Folau. Qantas, led by homosexual chief executive Alan Joyce was at the forefront of campaigning for same sex marriage during the 2017 plebiscite. Joyce has vowed the airline will continue to campaign on matters of public controversy.
Rugby Australia has attempted to dodge the fundamental principle of free speech by claiming that no one is denying Israel’s right to have a point of view. They’re not engaging in the freedom of speech debate, they defensively profess, “it’s a contractual public persona debate."
Since 2012, Qantas and Emirates airline have been in partnership. At the time, Mr Joyce gushed, “Emirates is the ideal partner for Qantas”. In 2017, he boasted “The first five years of the Qantas-Emirates alliance has been a great success”.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights are heavily suppressed in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE Penal Code is ambiguous as to whether homosexuality is punishable by death.
Such hypocrisy bedevils any attempt at rational debate on free speech

Leslie Continued
And equivocation further clouds the issue. A plank of Pentecostal doctrine is that only born-again Christians will gain salvation. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and non-born-again Christians will be punished by an eternity in the torments of hell.
During the election campaign,the Pentecostal Mr Morrison came under increasing pressure to define his position, which seems to be all points of the moral compass. Asked directly if he believed gay people go to hell, Mr Morrison replied: "I support the law of the country…I don't mix my religion with politics or my faith with politics…” The Prime Minister backed freedom of speech and freedom of religion but also backed the right of employers to terminate contracts if they are breached.

There are a few folks here, who claim that I'm in favour of annal or homosexual sex. Nowhere have I stated such a view! I did say, if homosexual sex, i.e., anal sex is a sin, so also is anal sex between consenting heterosexual couples.

Anal sex performed by whoever remains anal sex! Those so engaged, be they gay or straight, should at least practice safe sex/always wear a condom.

Because I say these things, Dan just doesn't mean my approving of the activity per se! Your quite blatant misrepresentation of my words is hardly that of any ethical religious orthodoxy!

Doesn't give any of the other ignorance personified, homophobes expressing their "religious" rants here, licence to attack me on massively/willfully misrepresented grounds!

Big Nana. Never ever claimed you were religious!

You can't have both ways!

Sorry, the obvious pun wasn't intended. If homosexual sex, i.e., anal sex, is wrong, sinful, dirty, just plain unhygienic. So also is the same backdoor practice between consenting heterosexuals!

Some of who could also be born again Christians/Muslim. Or if you will those who follow the imposed from without, "Christianity as permitted by pagan sun worshipper/Christian persecuting, Roman Emporer Constantine!.

Who was only baptised on his deathbed, appointed the bishops of Rome/Constantinople, decided what text would be allowed or included in the first official bible, which makes the first official bible the creation of a Pagan Sun Worshiper, runner!

He had lots of formerly acceptable text excluded on the grounds of personal preferences. Like that where we are all of us fallen angels trying to get back.

This "Bible" to become one of the most revised books in history, save that of the Qoran?

The oldest known Bible in existence resides in a Munich museum, bears little semblance to today's endlessly revised editions!

So much so, you'd be forgiven for believing they were completely different books by completely different Authors.

Many of who clearly plagiarised/embellished the work of previous scholars!

(Suggested reading, Pillars of the earth. A ripping good yarn that is historically accurate!)
Alan B.

typical weasel words to avoid professing his official Pentacostal religious stance on the matter.

rache,
Because he's not a politician first & foremost is what makes him a more suitable manager of this Nation. Politicians simply politic their way through the years without actually achieving anything for their country.
You'll find over the next decade these people will be made much more accountable now that the process has begun ! Ability & competence are already replacing mere education certificate waving !

I've just finished writing on another post, about the sheer lunacy of this whole Folau affair and it's relativity to free speech.
There's absolutely nothing to debate or discuss.
Firstly and I think, mainly, is the fact that we are discussing free speech and religion.
I'm not sure if anyone else has actually given thought to 'religion', and it's relevance, especially today.
I can understand that 2000 years ago people were un-informed and very gullible.
Well, apparently, they still are, 2000 years later.
Which is amazing considering we are supposed to be better educated and informed than those of 2000 years ago.
I was raised a christian but as I 'grew up', I began questioning many of the things written in the Bible.
I realised the Bible, in fact ALL so called religious scripts, are in fact 'fiction'.
No one has, ever 'walked' on water, nor turned a fish into a banquet, or water into wine, died and was reborn, (well not without modern medical intervention) shall I go on?
These are simply stories and just maybe should be considered as such, and NOT true accounts of what a 'man' did.
That a guy called Jesus existed, I have no doubt.
That he was and did the things reported in the Bible I have no doubt that they are absolutely NOT TRUE!
C'mon people, what are you 3 years old?
The question of free speech when someone is talking absolute shite, in reality, or opinion, is moot.
Because Folau made a statement which has no substance, it was therefore not credible.
Therefore he did not offend anyone, because if there is no heaven or hell or God, in fact let's just say religion doesn't exist, it's made up.
Anything said in the name of religion is therefore moot.
Someone maligns a particular club or group which everyone knows, does not exist, renders any comments whether free speech or hate speech, irrelevant, or moot, why? because the entity mentioned or being maligned DOES NOT EXIST!
NRA should have said his comments had no substance, but he was entitled to make them.

Altrav,
I totally agree. Those who didn't like what Folau said, I can't understand why they just couldn't ignore it.

Or if they really, really couldn't ignore it, they had the freedom to argue against it.

Dear Altrav,

The accusations against Folau are that the content of what he types hurt certain people. Some go to extent of claiming that this content potentially leads those people (and practically everyone would be on his list of hell-goers in some way or another) into depression and even suicide - this is regardless whether or not that content is true.

Now how is what you just wrote any better?
When you [falsely] claim that "religion doesn't exist", you are telling billions of people that their life is futile, that it has no purpose, that they are not getting anywhere, that all their efforts are in vain!

Now I do not buy into this. I confidently trust my scripture, my teachers and my own religious experiences, but others might possibly be affected by your cruel comment and become depressed, even suicidal. Is this what you wish? Is this the freedom you seek?

As for walking on water, etc., no wonder we do not see it happening today: matter is made of concentrated energy (E=mc²) and energy is made of concentrated mind. For spirit to overcome the averaged-inert-behaviour of matter, a high degree of mental concentration is required and this requires many years of training, but how could this happen in a society like ours which instead of teaching and encouraging us to control and be in charge of our own minds, abhors boredom and values entertainment and distraction?

Yuyutsu,

<<Now how is what you just wrote any better?
When you [falsely] claim that "religion doesn't exist", you are telling billions of people that their life is futile, that it has no purpose, that they are not getting anywhere, that all their efforts are in vain!>>

This is a brilliant assessment of the hypocrisy of the blogger you addressed. I commend you for such insight.

I was chatting to a friend today who told me that he was impressed that Rugby Australia “took a stand”, as they decided “they had to be the ones to do it”. And when the dust settles, no matter how many thousands or millions of dollars of rugby’s money they've wasted trying to end Israel’s Folau’s career, “it will have all been worth it.”

This made me think of some of the causes that football codes have adopted in recent years. Actually, I quite like the AFL’s Indigenous Round celebrating indigenous culture, and an Anzac Day Round commemorating the sacrifice of the armed forces. But the AFL surely realise that are pushing the limit of how many causes they can make us adopt. People mainly just want to go an enjoy a game of footy. Often we see football as something that can bring us all together and give us an escape from politics.

Consequently, I read that the head of NSW Rugby last week admitted that he is starting to have doubts whether this cause that Rugby Union has taken on is really all that worth it. They’re fighting for some strange principle, some half-baked social agenda; fighting against a guy who is fighting for his life, or at least his livelihood, who has plenty of support from all around Australia from both rugby and non-rugby people alike. It’s hardly the business of rugby to be spending millions defending somebody else’s social policy all the way to the High Court of Australia.

It was starting to dawn on this bloke from NSW Rugby that perhaps defining Australia’s social agenda is best left to others, maybe politicians, for example. Their core business is actually to play rugby. What a pickle they’ve found themselves in. They’re in this pickle because they picked on the wrong bloke. They’ve chosen the wrong hill to die on. They got on the wrong tram.

Yuyutsu, OzSpen, if I read your comments correctly, you are completely off track.
Now which part/s don't you want to understand/accept.
Is it the part that some mentally and emotionally deficient snowflakes might commit suicide because of some words?
Or is it the part where I remind people that religion is the creation of another breed of 'sick' people, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF GOD and these cults are the making of men, 'not' some spiritual being.
Or is it that I 'am telling billions of people that their life is futile, that it has no purpose, that they are not getting anywhere, that all their efforts are in vain', all your words, and BTW, you're right.
Now you say this is not what you believe, and that you trust your scriptures, your teachers and your own religious experiences.
Then you attribute these words to someone with mental and emotional issues as the trigger for his demise.
Finally you ask, 'is that what you wish?, is that the freedom you seek'?
Now let me address these issues one at a time.
As for people committing suicide over some words, I don't care.
If they are so mentally ill, I would be more concerned for those around them rather than them.
They are free to do whatever they want, that question is for himself and his conscience.
Guys, he's sick, OK?
The next point.
Now why would ANYONE 'not' question religion?
We have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of God and these events that have been stated in the Bible to back up any of the Bibles allegations.
C'mon, stop and think, a man walking on water, turning an item of food into a banquet, water into wine, but the best one of all, is dying and coming back to life, days later, without any external or medical intervention, which would only be available in about 2000 years time.
If people want to believe in a fantasy or fabrication which gives them false hopes and comfort, who am I to dash their hopes and beliefs.
But someone should!

Yuyutsu, I felt that your last paragraph needed it's own response.
My immediate and unprovoked response to what you said was, ARE YOU NUTS?
I could not believe that you were, in effect, trying to explain/justify 'levitation'.
Just because there is a word for it does not mean a man can achieve it by simply thinking 'real hard' and it will happen.
Look all through the ages we have had con-men, and they are still amongst us today.
People are simple minded, naive, gullible, and weak, so they expect everyone else to be the same, it makes THEM feel better.
We have such people here on OLO, they insist on their version of the state of things and will not accept that they are wrong.
It's a con, why do so many govt ministers want to be seen going to church?
Because the sheeple get sucked in to believing that they must be good people because they believe in God.
When all along the opposite is true.
If someone can give me ANY tangible, objective, evidence of these spiritual beings even existing, anything, I just might come around.
In the meantime religion is a fabrication created, not by the creator, but by evil men with a selfish and sometimes dangerous agenda.
Christianity, at least promoted an inclusive doctrine, maybe a little too extreme in some cases, but the Muslims promote an intrusive and evil doctrine.
What kind of 'religion' advocates killing and aggression?

I think there's a fairly good chance the Dogman is real.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DogmanEncounters

ALTRAV,

<<Yuyutsu, OzSpen, if I read your comments correctly, you are completely off track. Now which part/s don't you want to understand/accept.

Is it the part that some mentally and emotionally deficient snowflakes might commit suicide because of some words?

Or is it the part where I remind people that religion is the creation of another breed of 'sick' people, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF GOD and these cults are the making of men, 'not' some spiritual being.>>

Those are your presuppositions you impose on us in this post. 'Absolutely no proof for God'? God disagrees.

'When people refuse God’s answer, they are living against the revelation of the universe and against the revelation of themselves' (Francis A Schaeffer).

You can know of God's existence from evidence in the universe and in your conscience. This 'no proof of God' is a furphy.

<<C'mon, stop and think, a man walking on water, turning an item of food into a banquet, water into wine, but the best one of all, is dying and coming back to life, days later, without any external or medical intervention, which would only be available in about 2000 years time.>>

One minute after your last breath you will know the truth about miracles from the Almighty God Himself. Your presuppositional opposition won't stand a chance against Him.

OzSpen,
You are welcome to your beliefs.
I merely ask that you give me something to work with here.
I'm not one to take people 'at their word'.
I have always been open minded about life and all it's quirks and ironies, but religion is at the forefront of my 'need proof' list.
If there is a God and all that goes with it, if the teachings of the gospel are true, then even if I don't believe in God I will be treated or judged fairly and on my merits.
Until I receive absolute proof of all this religious posturing, I must go with what I know and not with what I am told.
In fact QzSpen, I feel disappointed and conned that I am expected to believe in something without any proof.
Well, I don't scare easily and if God exists and he wants me to believe in him, he knows where 'I' am, I have no idea where 'he' is, and If I have to die to meet him, well that will happen soon enough, and then I will know.
In the meantime OzSpen, I cannot in good conscience believe in something as completely far fetched as Gods and miracles.
At least Christianity preaches love and inclusion which is a good thing.
Islam preaches hate and exclusion, which is a bad thing, yet the morons who follow Islam refuse to see it.
Maybe because they live under constant threat of death if they even think about rejecting Islam.
OzSpen, religions are man-made, they are NOT the word of God.
They are a fabrication, a cause, a way of life, just like any other group or club or cult.
You know sadly the Koran makes more sense, not the part that 'God told Gabriel' and all that rot, but the part that a warmongering moron Muhammad, preached all that bull to scare the bejesus out of his troops to get them gee'd up to fight, even to the point of death, all in the name of Allah and martyrdom.

Dear Altrav,

This particular discussion is about [public] free speech and whether or not it ought to be allowed when others are hurt.

The LGBT lobby claims that denunciation of their sexual tendencies and practices is likely to lead their members to depression and the brink of suicide - and that this is why they would like to curb the speech of people like Folau.

I do not have the expertise to tell whether the lobby's claims are correct or otherwise, but if they are, then claims as if "religion does not exist" are likely to cause by far more damage, both because religion is a more core issue to life than sexuality; and because numerically, more people would be affected. Therefore any honest person who opposes Folau's free speech, must even more so oppose your freedom to publicly state that "religion does not exist".

I mentioned in passing that your claims as if "religion does not exist" is false: this is because some people opine that the right to [public] free speech should depend, at least to some extent, on the veracity of the contents. I do not share this opinion, but perhaps you do? I personally consider the risk of people falling into depression/suicide (if indeed they would) far more important than whether or not the contents of the speech which causes it are correct.

«Is it the part that some mentally and emotionally deficient snowflakes might commit suicide because of some words?»

Had I believed such words to be true, that indeed religion did not exist, then perhaps I would have committed suicide. Fortunately I do not believe any of this, yet some snowflakes could believe your words, I cannot discard that possibility.

That said, the existence of religion does not depend on God's existence nor on the veracity of the bible. While we could discuss these issues, even enjoy so, for the purpose of this discussion, these are red herrings.

Dear Altrav,

«it does not mean a man can achieve it by simply thinking 'real hard' and it will happen.»

We do digress a bit here, because had I *discovered* that religion did not exist, then I would become very depressed, possibly suicidal, but had I only *discovered* that nobody ever walked on water, oh well, the effect on me would not be that big.

Nevertheless, the difficulty here is not just to think one thought "real hard", but to also at the same time avoid any other thoughts: how can you appreciate that potential when you just never encounter such concentration in our shallow society, where we are so busy with external objects that we take no time for training to control our minds? Can you even for one minute consciously avoid thinking of monkeys?

You see, if you told someone 300 years ago that man will land on the moon, they too would consider you to be nuts! It so happens that the moderns developed certain new material technologies that allow us to do so many things which previously would be considered "miracles". The ancient Yogis, similarly developed and documented different technologies to achieve more or less the same. The main difference is that we use material tools while they used the mind alone. It is probable and not unsound that Jesus and some other biblical prophets were privy to this technology.

«Look all through the ages we have had con-men, and they are still amongst us today.»

Yes, there are - so what does it prove?

«It's a con, why do so many govt ministers want to be seen going to church?»

Does going to church for the sake of being seen make them more religious? I think not, they must be deluding themselves, but this does not imply that religion does not exist, only that the above ministers are not truly religious.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«If someone can give me ANY tangible, objective, evidence of these spiritual beings even existing, anything, I just might come around.»

You seem to be asking for a logical contradiction: "Spiritual" is the opposite of "tangible"/"objective", had there been objective evidence, then "that" would refer to an object and no longer be spiritual!

The way to arrive at the spiritual is by subtraction, rather than by addition: to discover the spiritual, you should remove your involvement and attachment to objective sense-objects. Once you do, the spiritual will reveal itself.

«In the meantime religion is a fabrication created, not by the creator, but by evil men with a selfish and sometimes dangerous agenda.»

Evil men created fabrications, we know that, and some even claimed their fabrications to be a "religion": it is no different to money-counterfeiters, but you cannot claim that because there are counterfeit coins, money does not exist.

«Christianity, at least promoted an inclusive doctrine, maybe a little too extreme in some cases, but the Muslims promote an intrusive and evil doctrine.
What kind of 'religion' advocates killing and aggression?»

No religion does. If you wish to claim that Christianity/Islam are not religions, then a valid discussion may ensue and fair arguments made, but this would not mean that religion itself does not exist, only that Christianity/Islam fall short.

Yuyutsu,

The topic of this thread is: 'Where’s the Prime Minister on the free speech crisis?' You stated:

<<the existence of religion does not depend on God's existence nor on the veracity of the bible. While we could discuss these issues, even enjoy so, for the purpose of this discussion, these are red herrings.>>

To the contrary, the existence of the Christian religion depends on God's existence and the reliability of the Bible. 'Anyone who wants to come to him [God] must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him' (Hebrews 11:6).

Jesus' teaching on the veracity of the OT was: 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished' (Matthew 5:17-18).

As for the reliability of the Bible: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2 Timothy 3:16-17). External evidence confirms its trustworthiness.

This was verified in 2015 by 2,500 year old Babylonian tablets discovered in Iraq that

'... provide a glimpse of Jewish life in Babylonian exile. Put simply, the tablets corroborate the Biblical tale. They describe a town called Al-Yahudu i.e., “the village of the Jews”, by the river Chebar, mentioned in Ezekiel 1:1. They also attest to Judaic names such as “Gedalyahu”, “Hanan”, “Dana”, “Shaltiel” and a man with the same name as Israel’s current Prime Minister, “Netanyahu”. The “yahu” ending to these names is called “theophoric”, meaning, they attest to a belief in the God of the Torah, by including part of God’s name in people’s personal names….’ Further details are at: http://www.huffpost.com/entry/2500-year-old-jewish-tabl_b_6579996

The HuffPost, a secular source, concluded: ‘This discovery is a remarkable confirmation of the historical reliability of the Biblical text’.

Dear Spencer,

Thank you for correcting me on the topic of this thread.

In any case, it seems that we are getting further and further from the topic, so I will try to be brief.

«the existence of the Christian religion depends on God's existence and the reliability of the Bible.»

I fail to see why this must be so:
One could still follow Jesus' footsteps and teachings irrespective of the Bible's reliability or otherwise; and as for Hebrews 11:6, assuming that the translation is correct (so the Greek words used for "believe" and "exist" are anything similar to our modern/scientific understanding of 'belief' and 'existence') and assuming that the belief in the existence of God (as opposed to having FAITH in God!) is such an essential part of the Christian religion, nothing stops anyone from believing that God exists, even if He does not.

As I see it, the claim as if God exists is actually an insult to God, because Existence itself is in God, because it is nonsensical and outrageous to speak of, or even try to imagine, an Existence that is outside or independent of God. That claim implies a limited finite God, reduced to the role of an object within His own creation... what a heresy, if not even idolatry.

In any case, on Friday, Altrav wrote that "religion doesn't exist", as well as "I [=Altrav] realised the Bible, in fact ALL so called religious scripts, are in fact 'fiction'.". While failing to explain how s/he arrived at this conclusion,his/her remarks are clearly not limited to Christianity.

«Jesus' teaching on the veracity of the OT was...»

Assuming this was indeed his teaching, rather than perhaps some misunderstanding by his disciple, but we need not even speculate and go that far if only we note the differences between "the law and the prophets" and the OT (which was not yet finalised at Jesus' times).

Yuyutsu, I realise we are well off topic by now, but maybe so far off that it might be considered a more interesting one than what a moron like a PM thinks about ANYTHING!
Anyway to answer your question about how I arrived at my remarks about religions and the conclusions I spoke of.
Well over time, I came to realise that at no time did God show himself to anyone thereby giving rise to the fact that his existance was the creation of a human.
Then I began to disseminate the various passages and teachings of the Bible.
With only 350 word limit, I cannot explain all that needs to be said, but I will go with a few examples.
The Bible is full of references, acording to LUKE, or JOHN, or MATHEW.
There is nothing which gives us any insight into God actually existing in some physical or tangible form.
Then there are the 'miracles'.
I won't bother describing them because you can pick anyone of them and see that without modern technology as used on a movie set, they are impossible to have happened as described in the Bible.
Now I realise that religion became a means of controlling people by the Pope's of the day.
People were much more gullible and ignorant than those today, (actually that's not quite true) so I thought, but it turns out that people are still just as ignorant as those 2000 years ago.
We are told that to believe in God we only have to let ourselves believe in him and that he exists, and that is how we know he exists.
Well I'm sorry, that is reverse engineering, a double negative, and so on.
No, I'm sorry guys, you can believe in whatever thing makes you happy, I on the other hand will keep on believing in the one entity that I am familiar and comfortable with, that I can rely on to guide me through life and all it's variables.
When asked, then what or who do I believe in?
'ME', 'MYSELF' and 'I'!

ALTRAV,

<<Well over time, I came to realise that at no time did God show himself to anyone thereby giving rise to the fact that his existance (sic) was the creation of a human.>>

I hope you recognise how ignorant this statement is. You have never known all people who have ever lived since the beginning of time. So to state that "at no time did God show himself to anyone" is to make a an unproven statement.

Sounds more like your presuppositions speaking - without the evidence to support your claim.

OzSpen, Come on.
Really?
If such a monumental event ever happened there would be untold historical records, not only in the scriptures but from every other form of communication of the day.
Heck, in the twenty first century the POPE?, goes anywhere, it becomes 'world news'.
Don't you think the archeologists would have discovered something by now?
There just IS NOT any evidence of God showing himself to 'the people'.
We cannot take the word of 'disciples', they have a vested interest.
Just look at it by comparison to todays con-men.
See any difference?

Dear Altrav,

You mainly commented about Christianity rather than about religion, which existed from time immemorial. If your claim is that Christianity is not a religion, then I suggest that you best take that up with the Christians of this forum rather than with myself.

«There is nothing which gives us any insight into God actually existing in some physical or tangible form.»

And thank goodness for that: just suppose God actually existed with a physical/tangible form, then He would no longer be God, but rather an idol!

«Then there are the 'miracles'.»

Even thousands of years before Christianity there were people who used the power of their minds to do things that we cannot achieve even with modern technology. It is just a different technology, but call these "miracles" if you prefer.

«Now I realise that religion became a means of controlling people by the Pope's of the day.»

Due to deficiencies in human character, there were and still are charlatans who abused others in the name of religion. This has nothing to do with religion itself, which leads to freedom rather than bondage.

«but it turns out that people are still just as ignorant as those 2000 years ago.»

True: to think that one is only a body, to think that once that body dies there will be nothing and that one's actions will bear no lasting consequences, this is deep ignorance.

«We are told that to believe in God we only have to let ourselves believe in him and that he exists»

Indeed we ought to have faith in God, always, but believing that He exists is a silly distortion as well as a logical contradiction.

«When asked, then what or who do I believe in?
'ME', 'MYSELF' and 'I'!»

Excellent: this should incentivise you to find out who you are!
At the end of the road you will discover that you are none other than God, but don't take my word for it: you are not there yet and the road ahead is long, so why not remain open to experience yourself in new ways?

ALTRAV,

<<There just IS NOT any evidence of God showing himself to 'the people'.

We cannot take the word of 'disciples', they have a vested interest.
Just look at it by comparison to todays con-men.>>

But you want me to take your word for God's non-existence. You also have a vested interest.

When will you drop your guard and follow the evidence wherever it leads?

You don't want to trust the disciples but you want me to trust your word. Come on, mate! I didn't come down in the last shower.

OzSpen, I don't want you to take my word for anything.
I am suggesting the non-existence of an almighty, spiritual, super power, I am clear about that.
I have no vested interest other than in searching for the truth and explaining the facts and truths I have discovered along the way.
When I speak of God, I am not singling out Christianity, but all the groups who believe there is a spiritual being they all name differently, but ultimately it is the same, and the English name for it is 'God'.
My questioning the Bible has merit as opposed to the Bible which upon even a general scrutiny, evokes situations and occurrences that are simply NOT POSSIBLE!
As I have said, the Bible is a book of fantasy, fiction.
There are many teachings in it that hold true for a good person.
It is the canting that I will not stand for.
You may believe what you will, I will continue believing in myself, knowing I am satisfied at how I have steered myself through life thus far

ALTRAV,

In, Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 7 July 2019 8:01:17 AM, I provided you with evidence for the reliability of the OT.

What was your response? Not a word! Zero.

I don't find you to be a serious blogger who wants to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen your open mind yet.

Dear Spencer,

«ALTRAV,

In, Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 7 July 2019 8:01:17 AM, I provided you with evidence for the reliability of the OT.»

That post was addressed to me.

Yuyutsu, OzSpen, I'm sorry if I did not pick up on that question.
I am showing a certain lacking here but, what is an OT?
Maybe it will strike me once I hear it but for the life of me I've tried reviewing any similar acronyms I know of, and sadly, come up short.
So if I may trouble someone to give me a refresher.
Thanks.

OT = "Old Testament" in the bible.
Similarly NT= "New Testiment"

There really are too many acronyms out there aren't there. Most of them aren't used in real life only are short hand language for online. Oh well. Not much we can do about it.

N_N.S,

Thanks for the 'heads up', got it.
I must confess, after going back and reading your comment or question asking me about the OT, I have to humbly refrain from answering, mainly because I did not get the jist of your point or question.
I actually found myself confused and unable to highlight the points being explained.
I don't doubt your ability to explain yourself, because after all, it is a topic you are familiar with.
No it is simply my inability to separate and correlate your points or arguments.
So I'm sorry I cannot answer you about what it is you ask of me regarding the OT.

Sorry ALTRAV,

I looked for the comment I made asking about the old Testiment, and I can't seem to remember it or to find it on OLO. maybe it was a comment from OzSpen or someone else? If not and it is from me then I have to apologize for not remembering it. You're off the hook, and I'm the fool for not remembering what I've written. Hope you accept my apology.