Israel Folau can send this thread to hell and no others

[Ulrich]

Victim? Not yet, but the torches are assembling, the outrage is strong in defence of others as usual. I doubt if any gay person in Aus doesn't already know that a multitude of different religions\sects think they are going to hell.

I disagree with his sentiments, but will defend his right to express his beliefs.

My "modern society" has people able to hold different beliefs.

Offended by his words? So what.

If you don't like what he says on twitter, don't follow him. Or start following him and try to change his mind

But the concept, as suggested above, of fining someone or suspending someone for stating their religious beliefs? Yeh, nah

I have to agree and it is important to take into consideration what his faith says, whether you agree with it or not:

1.) He is supposed to spread the gospel (the truth according to his faith).
2.) He is pretty much condemned if he does not. "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven." and subsequently "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
3.) Given points 1 and 2, what do you think is more important to Folau? His soul and the truth he believes in the eyes of his God or the opinion of those he may offend when stating what he believes?

Lastly, he was asked a question and duly answered what is written in the book he believes in - which coincidentally also states that he will be persecuted for telling the truth.

 

[cyclopath]

I have to agree and it is important to take into consideration what his faith says, whether you agree with it or not:

1.) He is supposed to spread the gospel (the truth according to his faith).
2.) He is pretty much condemned if he does not. "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven." and subsequently "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
3.) Given points 1 and 2, what do you think is more important to Folau? His soul and the truth he believes in the eyes of his God or the opinion of those he may offend when stating what he believes?

Lastly, he was asked a question and duly answered what is written in the book he believes in - which coincidentally also states that he will be persecuted for telling the truth.

Gee, you'd want to read the Product Disclosure Statement carefully before signing up to that contract.

 

[Ulrich]

Gee, you'd want to read the Product Disclosure Statement carefully before signing up to that contract.

Perhaps you don't have a choice in the matter either way.

 

[wamberal]

Perhaps you don't have a choice in the matter either way.

With all due respect, a careful selection of isolated Biblical texts can prove just about anything.


But at the end of the day, when in doubt, ask yourself this simple question: "what would Jesus do?"

 

[cyclopath]

Perhaps you don't have a choice in the matter either way.

You always have a choice.

 

[Pfitzy]

With all due respect, a careful selection of isolated Biblical texts can prove just about anything.


But at the end of the day, when in doubt, ask yourself this simple question: "what would Jesus do?"

 

[Quick Hands]

He's allowed to express his religious beliefs but he isn't free from having those views critiqued and, if they are deemed too offensive, acted on by his employer for directly contradicting their stated policy.

Folau's comments are highly offensive. He chose to express it in a way that is clearly inflammatory.

I think there will have to be some reaction from Rugby Australia.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Who deems opinions too offensive?

It seems to me that this is not the way a free society works. People are entitled to express views and others are entitled to disagree, but I don't believe that anyone has the moral authority to decide that the views of others are not legitmate. This is how totalitarian societies work - everyone must observe the "officially endorsed" view.

Personally, I couldn't really care less what Israel Folau thinks about anything other than rugby, same goes for David Pocock, he's a rugby player and I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what he thinks about anything other than rugby. I could go on for pages naming sports stars and celebrities who feel it necessary to tell us what they think about all manner of things, when they're no more qualified than anyone else on the subject at hand.

 

[Quick Hands]

Pity they can't act with such speed to fix the myriad of problems facing the game.

 

[Quick Hands]

Context. He didn’t say go to hell. He was asked where gay people go and he responded ‘hell’. In the religious sense

Secondly he thought he was having a private conversation albeit on social media. Given what transpired later he would be forgiven for thinking he was stitched up. It certainly reads like he was baited, the dude that asked the question knew what the answer was going to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The best post on this thread - and I was about to say the same thing.

 

[cyclopath]

Pity they can't act with such speed to fix the myriad of problems facing the game.

Well, this costs them nothing.
Until the sponsors walk.

 

[liquor box]

I dont see how he can be held to account for the comment.

He is not saying HE thinks that gay people should go to hell.

He is answering a question and saying what HE believes GOD planned.

That being said I think his beliefs appear to be the same but it is only news due to his high profile.


He simply answered a question with what he considered the correct answer.


It would be no different to if someone asked him what Hitler thought of the Jews and he posted that Hitler wanted to kill them. This would not mean that he also wants to kill Jews it just means that based on his education and reading this is what he believes another persons thoughts were.

I do not condone the post but surely we want people to answer questions from supporters and not ignore them, we also expect honesty from athletes.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Who deems opinions too offensive?

It seems to me that this is not the way a free society works. People are entitled to express views and others are entitled to disagree, but I don't believe that anyone has the moral authority to decide that the views of others are not legitmate. This is how totalitarian societies work - everyone must observe the "officially endorsed" view.

Everyone doesn't have to observe RA's view, however some do, they'd be the ones that have agreed to follow their policies, have a contract with them and accept millions of dollars of compensation from them.

 

[Quick Hands]

Everyone doesn't have to observe RA's view, however some do, they'd be the ones that have agreed to follow their policies, have a contract with them and accept millions of dollars of compensation from them.

I wasn't aware that RA had a policy on heaven and hell, whether they exist and who went there. Please enlighten me as to this policy.

I'd love to see that contract that binds employees to this.

And who gets millions of dollars in compensation from RA?

Don't players get paid for work performed?

 

[Quick Hands]

Well, this costs them nothing.
Until the sponsors walk.

I think that they will be able to go broke all by themselves, with or without sponsors.

 

[Kenny Powers]

So it's OK for Alan Joyce to use his position as CEO of Qantas to advocate his personal opinions and beliefs, whilst receiving a generous salary from his shareholders to run an airline, not sure they are paying him to be a social justice warrior.

I think Alan Joyce should stick to running an airline, Israel Folau should stick to footy and everyone else should have more important things in their life to worry about.

 

[TOCC]

So it's OK for Alan Joyce to use his position as CEO of Qantas to advocate his personal opinions and beliefs, whilst receiving a generous salary from his shareholders to run an airline, not sure they are paying him to be a social justice warrior.

I think Alan Joyce should stick to running an airline, Israel Folau should stick to footy and everyone else should have more important things in their life to worry about.

No, its ok for someone to use his position as CEO of QANTAS to promote an inclusive policy and diversity in the workplace.

There is a difference between promoting exclusion and inclusion, i'l let you figure out which one Folau was preaching and which one Joyce was preaching.

 

[Gnostic]

The biggest problem with "freedom" is that people expect to be free. Even the C&^%$ts.

Now it is my strongly held opinion that the Profession of Law is populated by people with a warped sense of ethics that are alien to most reasonable people and career Politicians are absolute parasites who I would not feed or even offer a glass of water to on a hot day. Now I can put forward many factual reasons why these are completely valid opinions but it means nothing, because I am free to hold those opinions and express them as well as long as it is done in a manner such as not to contravene the various sections of the various Discrimination Acts or in a manner with such intent to incite violence or other breaches of Law.

I don't give a shit what Folau's opinion of Homosexuality is and neither should anybody else really, in this modern age of social media opinions are like arseholes and like figurative arseholes its the idiots (possible like myself it could be argued quite validly) who preach loudest and most often, turn off to it and it doesn't matter.

I'd also say that nothing of any real value has ever been posted in 140 characters or less.

 

[The Honey Badger]

So it's OK for Alan Joyce to use his position as CEO of Qantas to advocate his personal opinions and beliefs, whilst receiving a generous salary from his shareholders to run an airline, not sure they are paying him to be a social justice warrior.

I think Alan Joyce should stick to running an airline, Israel Folau should stick to footy and everyone else should have more important things in their life to worry about.

Good post KP.

You would think Israel advocating his beliefs whilst in the employ of RA, is no different to Alan Joyce advocating his whilst in the employ of Qantas.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

I have to agree and it is important to take into consideration what his faith says, whether you agree with it or not:

1.) He is supposed to spread the gospel (the truth according to his faith).
2.) He is pretty much condemned if he does not. "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven." and subsequently "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
3.) Given points 1 and 2, what do you think is more important to Folau? His soul and the truth he believes in the eyes of his God or the opinion of those he may offend when stating what he believes?

Lastly, he was asked a question and duly answered what is written in the book he believes in - which coincidentally also states that he will be persecuted for telling the truth.

You gotta love the precedence people put into a belief over fucken reality.

it's cool to believe in shit that makes life ok for you. Rationally, there is no reason not to. If life is better believing that then fucken sweet as m8. But when you start adversely affecting reality with your belief in the metaphysical you gotta wonder how people decide to prioritize that shit.

s'like, here is some shit that actually exists and i can touch it and that. And here is a bunch of thoughts i have that i can't validate in any way. Guess the latter is more important. Righto chum.

 

[half]

He is allowed to have an independent mind and to hold his own views.

The carry on about his comments sadden me.

Democratic freedoms attacked by I don't like that view folk IMO is a cause for concern.