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?