SR,

I am well aware of your tactics. Throwing up extreme strawman arguments is meant to deflect from the collapse in the case against Folau. A murderer's interpretation of the bible is not a valid quote, and even if St Augustine sprouted wings, what he said is not considered a biblical quote.

I concede nothing. It is not the quoting of the bible that is considered vilification, rather the stuff surrounding it which indicates the intent. A note tied to a brick thrown through a window has an entirely different context to the same note posted through the letter box.

context
noun
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:

I would suggest consulting a dictionary to prevent further basic errors.

Altrav,

That's really beyond the pale. I suggest that you closely re-examine the sources of your conspiracy theories.

Buildebergers ? Hitler's paternity ? Christ, it must be so easy to make up yarns, even the sources of yarns, that some fool somewhere will believe.

Joe

Issy, Loudmouth I don't make these wild allegations up, I merely repeat them, because they are so far fetched, not even I want to believe them.
It only begins to make a LITTLE sense when added to other, seemingly, irrelevant information, and then 'sometimes', it actually makes sense, not always.
What is the truth?
I don't know.
Do any of you?
NO!
Why? Because we weren't there, so we have to read what others have written about events which occurred well before our time.
Obviously having come across enough information about a particular topic and the breakdown of events which led the author/s to write what they did, is the closest we are going to get to the truth about a particular topic or incident.
The difference with me and many other people is that they have a pre-concieved idea about something before they start researching or reading about it.
The idea that Hitler was an illegitimate son of a Rothschild and therefore a Rothschild is just plain 'nuts', or is it?
If it is true, you will not find the truth in all the 'right' places, as it was not in the elites agenda to be seen as imperfect.
But hey, I'm not going to say what I've read and written is the gospel truth, but as I've already said, until I get more conclusive information debunking this story (and others), I have to pass on what I have become aware of, whether I like it or not, and believe me I don't like what I find/read, more often than I care to admit.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“I am well aware of your tactics. Throwing up extreme strawman arguments is meant to deflect from the collapse in the case against Folau. A murderer's interpretation of the bible is not a valid quote, and even if St Augustine sprouted wings, what he said is not considered a biblical quote.”

Lol.

You do realise when you go off like this what it signals?

It seems you are hoisting yourself by the proverbial once again and you sir have kindly made my argument for me.

We both know neither the killer nor StA can be classed as valid biblical quotes although granted the killer's does technically come bloody close.

By your own measure Falou's quote was markedly less valid than the killer's given the Galatians verse he offered to support his quote did not mention anything about homosexuals full stop. It was his addition.

Falou went out of his way to say to the world that same sex attracted people were deserving of eternal damnation and torture and as such also deserving of the treatment from other people which comes with such a charge.

You haven't yet put up a decent argument as to why that should be permitted and judged an expression of religious freedom while quoting scriptures about 'the Jews' should not. Mumbling about 'context' just doesn't cut it and citing a topical example of the Synagogue shooter is not in the least 'straw man' material. What else do you have?

SR,

A brief search:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Which is exactly what Folau was saying.

In fact the UK court went further:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/folau-s-prospects-bolstered-by-landmark-religious-freedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

"Britain's second-highest court handed down a decision on religious freedom yesterday that will send chills down the collective spine of Rugby Australia. In contrast, Israel Folau and his team will be thanking God for divine providence that is akin to manna from heaven.

In Ngole v the University of Sheffield, the English Court of Appeal has decided: “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.”

There are plenty of other translations which say the same thing using different language, whereas your "quote" from John 8:44 is fabricated and nowhere near close to the meaning intended.

Altrav,

Surely you can give a reference or two to the sources that have helped make up your mind?

I'm particularly interested in Hitler's paternity; if the dad was a Rothschild why was the baby even born?
According to you the Rothschilds are all-powerful and evil, so getting rid of a pregnant servant girl permanently would seem to be no problem or snuffing the baby, a bit of gold to the midwife and it was a still birth.

My own maternal grand-mother was a midwife in the late 19th C. and she snuffed badly deformed babies as a matter of course.
Being a good Catholic she always baptized them first.