This is amusing. The author thinks this is a new phenomenon.
I'd hazard a guess, believer and non believer alike, see the evil in this world simply branded with different names.

Dan

We've all seen the happy-clapping and swaying on TV. No need to actually visit such a church. What we have here is just another swipe at the private life of our Prime Minister: a life that he keeps private and doesn't allow into his day job.

ttbn,
Well said ! So to the real point !

AskBucko is the author's website. Just look at how desperately he picks unflattering photos of Coalition pollies.
I would not risk asking this mutt for a sandwich if I was starving. That man, for want of a better description, doesn't even know the definition of integrity.
He's just so typical of the academic opportunists out there !

Come on guys. You need to get out more. It was interesting to visit the church, and educational. You know, rather than just sitting at a screen. Actually get out of the house, talk to real, breathing people, it will enhance your life.

Well said Bucko. An open mind is an asset.
I do suspect though that there may be a lot of people disappointed after they die.
Me, I`ll just lie there and help a new tree grow.

'Although the congregation was made up of well-meaning, kindly people with no obvious signs of elitism, or even of being judgmental, there is the dualism, the division of the world into those for Good, versus those for Evil,'

Well Bucko you surprised me and I actually felt your assessment was quite reasonable. The above reasoning however is flawed. The bible declares all as sinful hence the division of a world for those that are good versus those who are evil a little misleading. More like those who are forgiven and made righteous through Christ in contrast to those who reject Christ and remain unrighteous is more accurate.

Any church worth its salt will recognise the depravity of man and the mercy of God through Christ.

The devil is very powerful and uses the addictive tools of brainwashing, cultism, power, greed, jealousy hate anger and avarice to obtain outcomes/devotees.

It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.

What gaineth a man if he gains the entire world, but loses his immortal soul.

Hillsong seems hell-bent of making Mannon what it is that they pursue/worship/adore? And camouflaged with holier than thou, joy to the world, come by yar, selected biblical quotations taken out of context and charged with new meaning/translation? Pastors with business cards?

What's next? Rolls/Bentleys and Chauffeurs? Board meetings, Shareholder annuals?

Speaking as a returning eye witness I can attest to a life beyond this one and some of it, none too pleasant, but, far more terrifying than being kicked to near-death or being buried alive!

And heaven is what you believe it will be and a place of never-ending euphoria/peace beyond understanding. In my Father's house, there are many mansions.

Surrounded by loved ones and animals you've bonded with. Those we have lost ae not really lost o us, but have stepped into another room as it were, and are waiting there for us to join them! And soon given the passage of time, becomes as a few minutes, once you are reunited.

And love is exampled by the simplicity of treating others as you would have them treat you!

Nothing more than brotherhood/sisterhood/family love and unconditionally so! Not to be confused with the fire and passion of lovers etc.

If the devil is represented by Mannon and the acquisition of money and power?

Then God is represented by the most powerful of all forces,
LOVE. There isn't enough darkness in the entire world, to extinguish the light of a single candle!

And opposed on all sides as much as possible by all-consuming, irrational hate, anger and fear and the fear of fear!
Alan B.

.

I understand the biblical quotation is, "it is easier for a camel to pass through THE EYE of the needle". The eye of the needle was a man gate in the Jerusalem wall. You can get a camel through but it would not be easy. Gives a different meaning then, difficult but possible.
This bloke is hopeless he uses this forum just has to have a hack at people he does not agree but this should not be an avenue of abuse here surely?

Dear individual,

Missed the mark there old boy. Even runner thought the assessment was fine. You claim the title individual yet all you did was fall in line to condemn the piece. How about living up to your namesake a little more.

I have had a bit to do with Pentecostal churches and the devil does feature very prominently. At one sermon I attended pegged the references to the inquisitor at three times those of the father, son, or the holy ghost.

This depiction of Satan is certainly at odds to how the vast majority of those practicing Judaism see him. The incarnation of the purveyor of evil is certainly a Christian fixation and far more acute within the Pentecostal movement than of the more mainstream versions.

I think this is in part a product of the black and white take on the world, literally and figuratively given the roots of the movement, that pervades this fundamentalist sect.

They can be very nice people to engage with but there is some real nastiness when you scratch the surface, much of it driven from the leadership but certainly amply supported by a literal reading of the scriptures.

Dear JBowyer,

It seems you are quoting the Quran which does indeed say 'the'. The Christian version is most avowedly 'a'. if you would like to thumb through the various translations you can do so here;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A24&version=KJV

So your interpretation is poppycock.

“The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.”
Wikipedia

This is a quote from the Babylonian Talmud; “They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle.” so it was obviously in wider use as an aphorism than just a single quote from Jesus.

It is rightly used to condemn the prosperity gospel which has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus not matter how much the likes of Hillsong would have it otherwise.

Strange how the subject of God and money turns even the unbelievers into experts on the issue. People here claiming that the God they don't believe in is being misrepresented.

I have found over the years that god haters like the many on the abc will criticise the church if wealthy and mock the church when it is poor.

Personally I cringe and despise preachers who appeal to people's greeds while living lavish lifestyles. This is deceitful and unbiblical. The apostle Paul warned of the love of money rather than money itself. Some of the greediest people in the world have little money and despise some who have worked hard for it. At the end of the day money given to the poor and to support the proclamation of the gospel is never wasted. God is no man's debtor.

Dear runner,

You whine; "People here claiming that the God they don't believe in is being misrepresented."

Jesus was not a God but rather a gifted and extraordinary teacher who hated and exposed hypocrites. I am attempting to emulate that part of his efforts where I can and this thread is one of those places.

The disciples 'astonishment' does not come from the thought of a camel squeezing through a gate but rather the impossible scenario of a camel making its way through the eye of a sewing needle.

He couldn't have been more clear yet there are those among us who would pollute that message and give solace if not licence to the rich.

You're right on the topic of earned money runner and it's not money (a useful tool) that's the problem. But love of money clearly is!

And Steele I agree with your analysis of the prosperity teaching of Hillsong, J. C. may well have taken to those using his Father's house in this manner, with that legendary whip?

And thanks for the clarification of the needle.

If it's all talk and talk and no walk? In what way does it serve humanity or the Christian golden code? Or hate speech?

IT'S A VERY LONGBOW TO ACCUSE THE ABC OF BEING ANTI-CHRISTIAN OR EVEN LEFT LEANING! Or that anyone who advocates a flat tax is!
Alan B.

You guys are endlessly entertaining. A simple visit to a church has expanded to include talk of camels and elephants fitting through the "eye of a needle" or the metaphorical "eye of a needle", aka a man gate. I would love someone, preferably enriched by lots of 'prosperity gospel' loot, to gather us all in a tv studio, and film our discussion(s). I would accept NO declines on the invite! Love youse all.

A simple visit to a church has expanded...
askbucko,
has resulted in an opportunistic swipe at the PM.
Unwarranted & pointless !

To Mark Buckley

Good for you to check out the church and attend the service. It sounded like a fairly good one. Without listening to the sermon myself, what it sounds like is that this church starts as an encouragement to those who come there, (both the music, and the small groups of men or women, and the stories from people's lives), is friendly to newcomers and visitors and without preasure, as well as has a message to help people to strive on through tough times. It sound like a good place based on your assessment.

As for the church being part of the PM's world view? Does that service paint a bad world view? You were there and most of us weren't so you'd most likely have a better answer then the rest who didn't attend. But based on your discription it sounds like if this church is part of Morrison's world view, then it might be a positive influence for him.

Good for him, and good for you. :)

Dear individual,

An “opportunistic swipe at the PM”?

My God you lot can be the ultimate snowflakes can't you. The author mentions him almost in passing and you are having conniptions all over the place.

Would someone going to an environmental rally to get a better understanding of what drives someone like Bob Brown also be regarded as taking a swipe at him?

You are pissing in the wind and most of it is getting all over you. Time to stop.

Dear NNS,

Fundamentalists are the ultimate elitists. You are either with Christ or you are not. They do not believe other denominations like the Catholics are Christian. If you are one of them then you can be directed via sometimes quite toxic interpretations of the word to believe and behave in ways which are not all that edifying to the rest of us.

mentions him almost in passing
SteeleRedux,
.. in passing ? Yeah, right !

To SteeleRedux.

Based on the author's discription of that church, it was a welcoming enviornment, not an elitist one. There might be churches that fit your discription, but it didn't sound like this was one of them.

Askbucko, can you confirm or correct me on this. Was the church in your article elitist or welcoming?

Any proselytising faith is welcoming by definition. That hardly precludes it being from being elitist or having an elitist world view.

Specifically elitism is "relating to or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite".

Isn't that elite Christ?

SteeleRedux,

so your complaint is that Christians follow Jesus? Because if that is your complaint then let me stop you right there for a worthless complaint. What's next? Are nations eletists because they give a PM a lot of power to lead the country?

Simple question NNS, would you prefer to live in a theocracy where decisions of government were dictated by the provisions of the scripture, or as we have things now?

To SteeleRedux.

It is a simple question isn't it? And I have a simple answer. Everyone should be able to follow their convictions, including the ones that are based on their faith.

If there are convictions that are wrong and thay do harm, then that person should not hold those convictions and may want to reexamine their views or even their religious views. This would be my simple answer and it would include politicians as well as everyone else to act in this way, even in office.

Let me give an example. The recent issue with Homosexuality and SSM became a huge enough issue between Australia Rugby and Issy. Huge issues that ask how much does an employer own you, even to the point of your religious views and what you say and do in while not at work. If someone thinks their convictions towards homosexuality is a good enough reason to fire someone else over, then their convictions are in error. They should reevaluate their views or acknowledge that their convictions were wrong.

Use the same logic in governing and that is my answer.

Now before you go to pick apart my answer, let me ask you a counter question, that is equally simple. Does having Scott Morrison go to church (or even just be part of the Pentecostal denomination) mean that Australia is a theocracy? What your question is doing is trying to exaggerate the issue in order to support your perspective, instead of acknowledge if you were wrong.

SteeleRedux,

<<Jesus was not a God but rather a gifted and extraordinary teacher who hated and exposed hypocrites. I am attempting to emulate that part of his efforts where I can and this thread is one of those places.>>

The Scriptures refute your statement. Of Jesus they state, 'In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning' (John 1:1). Philippians 2:6 confirms that Jesus was more than a gifted teacher: 'Though he was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped'.

C.S. Lewis was for many years a professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University and once an atheist. He understood these claims of Jesus as God or something else ('extraordinary teacher') and wrote:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse (Lewis, Mere Christianity,1943:55-56), http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/Book2/cs-lewis-mere-christianity-book2.php

Then Lewis added: “You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" (loc. cit.).

A statement about Jesus being "a gifted and extraordinary teacher" obscures the fact he was and is God.

SteeleRedux,

<<Isn't that elite Christ?>>

Jesus' washing his disciples' feet in the upper room during the Last Supper (John 13:17) was an act of humility and demonstrated his servanthood.This was not the ministry of any elite Christ.

One day everyone, including you and me, will bow down and proclaim Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Book of Revelation 17:14; 19:16). We won't proclaim him as 'the elite Christ' but as One who has the power to exercise absolute dominion over His realm. For Christ, this will be over all creation.

Jesus will return to judge the world and establish his earthly kingdom as He predicted in Mark 13:26, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk+13%3A26&version=NIVUK

Dear Ozpen,

The cult around Jesus was one of the many which sprang up during the Roman occupation of Palestine. That it prevailed was a testament to Jesus' teachings. John was the last Gospel written and the fact that its providence was after the Jewish rebellion and the destruction of the temple explains why the claims within are so spectacular.

That you and Mr Lewis find sustenance from said cult is fine. Whatever gets you through the day. You can go about telling all and sundry what you believe in but you really don't get to pass it off as fact.

'Jesus was a part of the Trinity. Why? Because his cult says he was.' doesn't really fly does it.

As to the elitism of Lewis this is a good example;

“Enemy-occupied territory-that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage. When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and intellectual snobbery.”

In other words 'That which is not of Christ is of the world and therefore evil'.

By the way the elitism doesn't come from Christ but from his followers. The Gospel of John is a prime example. Go read Mark, far more earthy and humble.

What Jesus was able to impart through his parables was an antidote to a calcified Jewish faith twisted by the vicissitudes of Roman occupation.

While those teachings didn't have the deep wisdom presented in the Old Testament they were extraordinary for their time and should always be acknowledged as such. That their tenets influenced the likes of Gandhi and Mandela should bare witness to their power. But they don't make him God.

SteeleRedux,

<<That you and Mr Lewis find sustenance from said cult is fine. Whatever gets you through the day. You can go about telling all and sundry what you believe in but you really don't get to pass it off as fact.>>

I know the difference between those who investigate the history of the Bible, including Jesus and early Christianity - and those who dump their anti-Christian presuppositions on us.

You fall into the latter category.

yep typcial Steelie, refuse the invitation to have all your sin forgiven and then claim elitism for those humble enough to do so. You really do twist everything to fit your narrative.

Dear Ozspen,

You wrote; “I know the difference between those who investigate the history of the Bible, including Jesus and early Christianity - and those who dump their anti-Christian presuppositions on us.”

No you obviously don't. What did I say that constituted an anti-christian presupposition as opposed to an investigation of the history of the Bible?

Was it a reference to a cult?”

Well a cult is “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.”

That Christianity is now considered a religion is a given, but it certainly started as one of the many cults that existed in that time.

I happily refer to myself, when asked, as a cultural Christian. I have a real affection for the Bible and will take issue with anyone misusing it as you appear to want to do.

If that gets your nose out of joint then so be it.

SteeleRedux,

<<I have a real affection for the Bible and will take issue with anyone misusing it as you appear to want to do.>>

An affection for the Bible will not get you into God's kingdom. However, this will: 'Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again [or, born from above], you cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

God writes the rules as to who will make it into His kingdom. Having a real affection for the Bible is not one of them.

<<What did I say that constituted an anti-christian presupposition as opposed to an investigation of the history of the Bible?>>

Go back to your post from earlier today when you said: <<That you and Mr Lewis find sustenance from said cult is fine. Whatever gets you through the day. You can go about telling all and sundry what you believe in but you really don't get to pass it off as fact. 'Jesus was a part of the Trinity. Why? Because his cult says he was.' doesn't really fly does it.>>

So Jesus, one person in the Trinity, is a member of a cult and that 'doesn't really fly' with you.

I'm not so naive as to think your earlier post is not a put down of Christianity.

Dear Ozspen,

Sigh.

You wrote; “So Jesus, one person in the Trinity, is a member of a cult and that 'doesn't really fly' with you.”

No Jesus was the object of the cult. Stop trying to twist my words.

Then you said; “I'm not so naive as to think your earlier post is not a put down of Christianity.”

No it is only a put down to someone like yourself who is trying to assert a matter of faith as a fact. Please stop. You are being creepy enough as it is.

As to the divinity of Christ I will refer you to th good teacher's words, from Mark 10, my favourite of the Gospels;

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 

That is the kind of humility you could do well to take note of.

To SteeleRedux.

Noticed you are quick to ask questions that challenge people, or exaggerate the topic, but when asked a question yourself, you remain silent.

Does your silence mean you acknowledge you were wrong?

Dear NNS,

I will admit to not reading your post to the end and therefore missed the question you put to me.

I got as far as Issy and SSM then bailed. BTW you never seem to even take into account that publicly and widely demonising and denigrating homosexuals by famous people may well lead to harm through bullying, condemnation and suicide. I know a number of Christians who act in a way that shows they are mindful of this and I respect them for it.

You appear to be a different breed.

To your question.

“Does having Scott Morrison go to church (or even just be part of the Pentecostal denomination) mean that Australia is a theocracy?”

Going to church? In and of itself no. Being part of a Pentecostal denomination? The answer gets a little more murky.

We are technically living in a theocracy at the moment. Our ultimate head of state is also the head of our major religious order.

We also have a third of our students in faith based schools, pretty well a record in the developing world I suspect. Further we have federally funded and universal chaplaincy program in every secondary school.

So as a collective, including the fact our Prime Minister is a clap happy, speaking in tongues, end times believing more fundamentalist style of Christian than we have ever had does push the theocracy indicators higher than they have been for a very long while.

SteeleRedux,

<<As to the divinity of Christ I will refer you to th good teacher's words, from Mark 10, my favourite of the Gospels; 17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.>>

There is not a word in these 2 verses or the context that refutes Jesus as God. This shows your cherry picking of verses to suit your presuppositions about Jesus. Matthew and Luke call this man rich and a ruler and he is known as the 'rich young ruler'.

(continued)

Rationalists and Unitarians use these verses (particularly v. 18) to try to demonstrate that Jesus is not God. You seem to be in that category and it is a superficial reading of Jesus' words. To highlight Jesus' answer he points to what goodness really means (as is articulated in v. 19). It is predicated only on God.

Jesus' statement is a long way off denying his Godhead. He actually asserts that, contrary to the common meaning of 'good', good really applies to God.

SteeleRedux,

(continued)

Note the man's question, 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' He wanted an answer that had everlasting impact for his life. He was not talking with a Johnny-come-lately who could provide him with a good schooner of XXXX at the local pub. He wanted 'good' from the one who grants eternal life.

Jesus' response was a radical difference between the good way to live ordinary life and the good life that only God can give. So, he told the young bloke that he conceived of good on a superficial level.

Besides, SteeleRedux, to discover the nature of Jesus and whether he is God or not, you need to take a more comprehensive read of the New Testament. There you'll discover:

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity:

(1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24);

(2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17);

(3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13);

(4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8; Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18);

(5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8);

(6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

Dear OzSpen,

You charge; "This shows your cherry picking of verses to suit your presuppositions about Jesus."

Mate, you gave 20 references to the Gospels, 15 of the bloody things were from John, the last 5 were from Matthew. No mention of Mark.

You have done exactly what you have attempted to accuse me of.

Mark had no virgin birth nor a spectacular ascent to heaven. I get why that might be problematic for you, but just as you choose John as your Christian narrative I choose Mark for mine. Why is yours any more legitimate than mine?

SteeleRedux,

<<Mark had no virgin birth nor a spectacular ascent to heaven. I get why that might be problematic for you, but just as you choose John as your Christian narrative I choose Mark for mine. Why is yours any more legitimate than mine?>>

It is NOT problematic for me because I read the TOTAL New Testament. That's where I learn the message of Jesus.

To SteeleRedux.

I think it's a stretch to consider Australia a theocracy. Expecially when a lot of people consider Australia to be "post-Christian."

As for the comment on homosexuality. I'm sure you think I'm a bully for even bringing it up, but my point isn't about homosexuality, it's about being employed. It was meant as an example of a bad convection that sometimes people hold. Putting their politics as mandated for employment. That is a bad conviction. If someone has a bad convection then they should rethink their ideals.

Dear OzSpen,

Yep I've read all of the Gospels too. Just as you have chosen to focus on John I have done the same with Mark. What of it.

Dear NNS,

Not sure what you are trying to say here. What do you deem to be the wrong conviction?

As to a theocracy it is what we consider exists in Iran;

“Iran has a religious ruler and many religious officials in powerful government posts. The head of state, or "Supreme Leader", is a faqih (scholar of Islamic law), and possesses more power than Iran's president. The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts: the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the powerful major religious foundations, the chief justice, the attorney general (indirectly through the chief justice), special tribunals, and members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs.”

The Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church, possesses more power that the PM in that her officials can dismiss the government, Royal Commissions are formalised by the relevant Governor Generals who represent the Queen and have sweeping powers outside the normal Australian legal framework. Constitutionally the head of our armed forces is the Governor General, the Queen's primary representative in Australia. Our highest court in the land is officially appointed by this same representative.

Now you are fine to make the case that in practice Australia may not quite fit the definition of a theocracy but equally it is quite open to me to make the alternative case, that legally and in principle it certainly qualifies as one.

To SteeleRedux.

You asked "what was the wrong conviction?"

The wrong conviction is to fire another person over political views they express outside of work. To compare this to another event a while back, in the US's American football season, there was a player who did not stand for the American Anthem during the game. The reason being was a sign of protest against police shootings that were in the news at that time. That man did not get fired for making a political statement while in the sports field. If he would have gotten fired, then that would also be wrong, and the football team that fired him would have been in error.

This is what happened to Issy with Rugby Australia. Except they fired him for voicing something in his privite time off of the field.

Does this make more sense now, or do you not remember this occurring when it did?

Dear NNS,

See your version of wrong conviction doesn't align with mine or that of most of Australians. We don't align homosexuality with adultery, murder, thievery or gluttony.

While I have never advocated the Falou be sacked I do believe in that people need to honour the contracts they have signed.

That his comments, which were propagated through a social media reach which is only as extensive as it is because of his involvement in the game, had the potential to legitimise bullying, exclusion, and stigmatising is not really contested. It may well have been during his private time but the medium was anything but private. If he wants to espouse these views through his private facebook group or something within his church, have a it, but that isn't what happened was it.

So when you said;

“If there are convictions that are wrong and thay do harm, then that person should not hold those convictions and may want to reexamine their views or even their religious views.”

Does this include Falou or not?

SteeleRedux

Using Twitter to post a bible verse counts as bullying now? From the details I've seen of what Falou wrote, he said nothing that could be counted as bullying. You say that Christianity is a cult, and I counter that the discription from this article is one of a welcoming and encouraging church. However with everything else you've added ?I would say that the PC brigade acts more like a cult then most religions. There was no bullying going on. Just ?Falou voicing an opinion that was unpopular enough to be fired for.

My point that you " and most of Australia" (don't make me laugh) don't get is that a different opinion should not be the standard for firing people. With the cause for homosexuality though, if people aren't 100% supportive then it's counted as bullying. I know you don't understand how that's in error, but it is. You're too far gone on a PC train to realize that you've left everyone else behind though. (By that I mean your reasoning is that "everyone agree with me," instead of remembering that Australia was fairly divided on the issues between Falou and RA. The reasoning that you and most of Australia agree is a false reasoning. It's not true at all).

Not_Now.Soon,

<<By that I mean your reasoning is that "everyone agree with me," instead of remembering that Australia was fairly divided on the issues between Falou (sic) and RA.>>

Thrown into that mixture is a redefinition of the meaning of "tolerance" by the Rugby authorities.

I read statements from Folau: "I want to thank you all for your prayers and your support. You have made it possible for me to stand up for every Australian of faith,” Folau said. “I know we are strong enough to tolerate different views without firing people from their jobs for expressing religious beliefs that not everybody agrees with”, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jun/28/israel-folau-and-rugby-australia-headed-for-court-after-failing-to-resolve-dispute.

In my view Rugby Australia did not practise tolerance but exclusion in what they did to Folau. Tolerance means “willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them” (The Cambridge Dictionary 2020. s.v. tolerance), http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance

Dear NNS,

You write; “Using Twitter to post a bible verse counts as bullying now?”

Well it was Instagram and he inserted homosexuality into Galatians verses which do not contain the word in the scriptures, so yes it was premeditated bullying if you like.

Why do you keep crapping on about me supporting him being fired when I did no such thing. I have repeatedly and consistently said he should not have been fired by Rugby Australia. You have read those posts and we have discussed them yet you keep propagation this lie. I invite you to stop it now.

As to you taking offence at this; “See your version of wrong conviction doesn't align with mine or that of most of Australians. We don't align homosexuality with adultery, murder, thievery or gluttony.” well don't be an idiot. Do you really believe the majority of Australians “align homosexuality with adultery, murder, thievery or gluttony.”

Look I know you are not from this country and that yours is a hell of a lot more invested in this rubbish that we are, but don't ever make the mistake thinking that we are in lock step with you lot because we most certainly are not.

*Sigh*
SteeleRedux,

Let's go back and start over ok. You started this conversation between you and me on 5 March 2020 8:51:27. You complain that fundamental Christians are the ultimate elitists because they follow Jesus. Which is rubbish, but setting that aside, my counterpoint was the description in this article regarding the church atmosphere. It was a welcoming attitude. You still complained about the matter that Jesus is followed by Christians making them elitists. Which again is rubbish, it's a worthless complaint. Following someone such as a country following a PM, a president, or any other title for the leader of a nation doesn't make that nation or it's people elitist.

The point from there moved on to an exaggerated point. Asking whether we should live in a theocracy lead by what's in the bible. I countered the exaggerated point to say that if Morrison goes to church that doesn't make Australia a theocracy. Instead anyone (including the PM) should live by their convictions, even the ones they have from their religious views. With that in mind though I did say that if someone's convictions are in error they should reevaluate them. For this I gave an example, Rugby Australia firing Falou over what he wrote on Instagram. And no, it still doesn't count as bullying, but that's besides the point. The point is that Rugby Australia as an employer should not have the right to fire someone over religious views they express when not at work. This should not be put in a employee contract or be acted on in such a way at all. That is the wrong conviction that I have try'd to address.

If now you have changed your attitude that Rugby Australia should not have fired Falou, then what are you arguing about? (This is different from what you said earlier that they signed a contract and that's that).

What is your point in any of this if you actually agree that Rugby Australia was wrong in this matter?

Dear NNS,

My goodness.

Let's do a quick stocktake shall we.

I laid out the case for considering Christianity as elitist even giving the definition of the term and it was quite solid. All you have done in response is to say it was 'rubbish'. No cogent argument at all.

I then spelt out why the nation could legalistically rather than on practical grounds be deemed a theocracy. Again you did nothing to address those arguments except to call them exaggerated.

You then talked about wrong convictions but entirely rejected them being applied to Folau's statements. Instead you deemed Rugby Australia having wrong convictions because they sought to defend the brand and the inclusiveness they were rightly looking to promote.

I have always said economic imperatives should not be a deciding factor in who goes on the national team. However I support the right of an individual club owner terminating a player's contract if there was legal or even verbal undertakings in place to act in a manner which did not harm the club.

I would have been okay with Folau being fined for breaking his undertakings with Rugby Australia and that money being funneled toward inclusive programs.

So to be clear I consider Folau to have the wrong convictions, ones that drove him to misquote scripture, to harangue and demonise gay people, to attempt to create us and them divisions which most certainly are elitist in intent

'to attempt to create us and them divisions which most certainly are elitist in intent'

call it elitist, bigotted, unloving just like when you scream out at Jesus when He sorts out the sheep and the goats. Whether I like it or you like it Steelie one lot will be justified entering heaven while the rest will sadly enter hell.

Dear runner,

Indeed, as spelt out in Luke; "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

To SteeleRedux

You've really got misinformation down to an art don't you? Let's clean up a bit. Afterword I have a simple question. What's your point in all of this.

Your case for Christians try being elitist starts with Christianity's elitism being harmful to the rest of you. When that is challenged that the church was welcoming, you backtracked on the harm and went with a technicality. Defining elitism by how Christians view Jesus as the head of the church. My counterpoint is that if that is what counts as elitist then every nation that holds a leadership in it, such as an MP is an elitist. It's a worthless complaint backtracking from what you said originally to hanging on a technicality. I decided to not chase down a worthless point. Calling it a worthless complaint and rubbish is enough.

As for the theocracy, what was your point in this? Originally your "simple question" asks if we should live in a theocracy or if we should live in what we have now. My reply is in the context of the topic of the thread, that A) the MP going to church does not make it a theocracy so there's nothing to complain about there, and B) that everyone even the leaders should be allowed to love by their convictions, including their religious ones. I'm not sure if you don't remember what your point is or if it's just a challenge for you to create more misinformation. Either way you've changed gears, to say that now you live in a theocracy, (which the point was challenged) and you again backtrack to say it's a theocracy technically in a legal way, even if it is not in a practical way. Not a solid argument but hanging on by a thread. One that I'm still not sure you meant to argue or that you just got caught up in for the sake of arguing. No reason to chafe your tail on this one. Again I'll call it a worthless complaint and rubbish.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for Folau and Rugby Australia, I still stand that Folau said nothing wrong. However the verse that his Instagram post is loosely based on does include homosexuality. It's not in Galations, but instead in 1 Corinthians 6. Look it up if you want, but in either case it's not an exact quote, and what's missing, misquoted, or summarized in error were not about homosexuality, which became the focus of the post. Folau even had a text portion below the Instagram picture explaining that people need Jesus to be saved. The comment was not hateful even if the pictured post included atheists, drunks, homosexuals and adulterers as going to hell unless they repent. That part of the message within Christianity. Turn from your sins and turn to God. Repent and seek forgiveness. And that we are saved through Jesus. You might not like it but active homosexuality is included as a sin to turn away from. Folau did nothing wrong here and was not bullying anyone.

Regarding the elitist intent, everyone sins. And everyone has a need to turn from our sins and have Jesus rescue us. Christians count themselves in this boat as much as they count nonchristians. It's not an elitist attitude causing division. The only division going on is that they know that Jesus is the answer and to actively try to turn from our sins. That doesn't sound elitist, divisive or even harmful.

As for Rugby Australia, if they want a moral brand to brag about, then homosexuality and inclusiveness should be way down on the list. If they want real action try to tackle domestic abuse. Too many athletes have that issue. The pro-homosexuality brand is not inclusive, it actually adds more division as we've seen happen again and again by the homosexual agendas that crop up every so often.

So Steele Redux. Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing, or do you have a point that you are trying for?

ateday,

<<I do suspect though that there may be a lot of people disappointed after they die. Me, I`ll just lie there and help a new tree grow.>>

God's view is very different: 'Everyone must die once. Then they are judged' (Hebrews 9:27).

It's time you got God's perspective and not one out of your own mind, http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2012/06/04/what-is-the-nature-of-death-according-to-the-bible/

Dear NNS,

You write;

“Your case for Christians try being elitist starts with Christianity's elitism being harmful to the rest of you. When that is challenged that the church was welcoming, you backtracked on the harm and went with a technicality. Defining elitism by how Christians view Jesus as the head of the church.”

You are doing it again. Is it just that you can't help yourself?

This is what I actually said; “Fundamentalists are the ultimate elitists. You are either with Christ or you are not. They do not believe other denominations like the Catholics are Christian. If you are one of them then you can be directed via sometimes quite toxic interpretations of the word to believe and behave in ways which are not all that edifying to the rest of us.”

I clearly delineated fundamentalists from the rest of the Christian flock yet you have painted my response as referring to them all. Why do you continue to be so disingenuous when you are trying to make your case?

The rest of what you have written is equally duplicitous. You are like a little octopus squirting ink for cover not clarity. Here is another example from you;

“However the verse that his Instagram post is loosely based on does include homosexuality. It's not in Galations(sp), but instead in 1 Corinthians 6. “

Here is the exact verse Folau attached to his instagram post;

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these , adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19&#8237;-&#8236;21 KJV “
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/israel-folau-slammed-over-latest-anti-gay-comments/10991574

You are either doing this wilfuly or through ignorance. The first makes you a liar, the second just sloppy. Both are wrong convictions and I encourage you to disavow yourself of them which ever one afflicts you.

SteeleRedux,

<<Here is the exact verse Folau attached to his instagram post>>

Then Izzy gave us the KJV version of Galatians 5:19-21.

The facts are that Izzy Folau's citation is closer to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV):

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God", http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+6%3A9-11&version=NIVUK

This list of wrongdoers (unrighteous, wicked) includes "men who have sex with men". 'The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts' (NIV footnote).

Steele Redux.

If I has misunderstood or misrepresented your words, I apologize. That said though, what is a fundamental Christian in this context? Is that the Pentecostal denomination? If not why did you write it? Is it Christians that think Jesus is the main focus of their faith (hence the name Christian), and therefore at least believe in Jesus is their salvation. Possibly even study the teachings and the actions Jesus said and did in the bible? (If so then what Christian isn't a fundamentalist by your standard.). The second description of fundamentalist is what I thought you meant because of your other comments that you say to back up and he elitists of Christians. It sounds like you are talking to christians as a whole, instead of a certian few that you describe as fundamental. I've concluded this by the comment that they are elitist because Jesus is the head of the church, and the other comment that Christianity is a cult. In fact none of your comments make it out that you are talking about a certian brand of Christians but instead your talking about Christians as a whole.

If that is not what you meant, then again I apologize. Please state what you mean by fundamental Christians so it's not concluded that you think all Christians are fundamental Christians that believe no denomination is correct except their own.