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.