- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 40,982
- Reaction score
- 1,181
He has a point.... but theres no way in hell Folau is returning to Rugby League.
It's Raelene... that's all you need to know.Don't these people have lawyers to confer with before putting it out there and looking like total incompetents?
they are correct to discriminate against those religious beliefs, take a look at countries that didn't discriminateI just watched raelene explain how falaou has breached the code of conduct.
She states falaou has been warned previously about his use of social media in relation to the code of conduct but the code of conduct doesn't mention social media at all.
She continues to loosely quote the relevant part of the code of conduct by alleging falaou is guilty of section( k) 'doing something to insult, offend ,intimidate or humiliate someone based on their sexual orientation. "
What falaou has done is consistent with his religious practise, in that he is spreading the gospel... if this insults, offends, intimidates or humiliates someone and Falaou is terminated for it then ARU are in breach of discriminating on grounds of religious beliefs.
Don't these people have lawyers to confer with before putting it out there and looking like total incompetents?
They are not correct to discriminate against religious practise. If the practise doesn't break any other laws it's fair game.they are correct to discriminate against those religious beliefs, take a look at countries that didn't discriminate
btw social media doesn't need to be included, its counted as 'something'
then I could claim anything as my religious beliefs and use that for protectionThey are not correct to discriminate against religious practise. If the practise doesn't break any other laws it's fair game.
Offending someone is subjective, I could claim I'm offended by the undertones of raelenes hatred of Christianity
The "pastafarian" argument. Sign of a truly towering intellect.then I could claim anything as my religious beliefs and use that for protection
actually my main argument is that the bible is insane and people are very selective about what parts they want to adhere to, still waiting for an explanation about why god killed 40 kids in a PC overkill moveThe "pastafarian" argument. Sign of a truly towering intellect.
Not a religious person, but your points are all very shallow.actually my main argument is that the bible is insane and people are very selective about what parts they want to adhere to, still waiting for an explanation about why god killed 40 kids in a PC overkill move
but I could use any number of arguments, I can even say because a certain religious group spent 1,000 years cooking to death people that didn't believe in it, then they deserve some inconvenience and should stfu
1. im capable of understanding that the bible is not about the motives of the demiurge whatever that means, its about male powerful humans at the time (probable bald and definitely bad parents with fantasies about rape) trying to create something to keep everyone scared, so they made their god someone who is extremely pissed off, its proven to be wrong already so im just entertaining the storyNot a religious person, but your points are all very shallow.
1. Humans attempting to understand or explain the action and motives of the demiurge is like an ant trying to understand or explain the motives or actions of a human. You really think you are capable of comprehending the omnipitent and eternal creator of all things?
2. Violence is the natural state of all carnivorous beings. Acting like the inquistions were somehow unique in their brutality is very narrow minded. Peaceful groups do not remain that way for long, they either learn to use violence or the cease to exist.
3. No living christian, is responsible for nor participated in the inquistions. Do you believe everybody should be subject to the same retributory inconvenience based on the actions of people who had similar religious views as them? Can I hold you responsible for the (far more recent and relevant) brutality of athiests like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot?
You can't claim anything and hide behind religion, you need to be able to back it up. Faloau has a history of being actively involved in his religious faith, his faith also requires that he spread the gospel. He didn't make it up it's what his faith preachesthen I could claim anything as my religious beliefs and use that for protection
yes I can make up a religion and hide behind it, for example im thinking about making a religion where the smaller your penis is then the more respect you get from society, coincidentally this will make me the new leader of the worldYou can't claim anything and hide behind religion, you need to be able to back it up. Faloau has a history of being actively involved in his religious faith, his faith also requires that he spread the gospel. He didn't make it up it's what his faith preaches
You don't seem to have understood my post and have resorted to yet more shallow critiques of religion that do not hold up to scrutiny.1. im capable of understanding that the bible is not about the motives of the demiurge whatever that means, its about male powerful humans at the time (probable bald and definitely bad parents with fantasies about rape) trying to create something to keep everyone scared, so they made their god someone who is extremely pissed off, its proven to be wrong already so im just entertaining the story
2. learning to use violence and boiling people for not believing in the religion is different, so you are saying that boiling people to death was necessary? I agree its necessary if you are the church only interested in church survival, so kelloggs should start killing people for eating rival breakfast cereal if they are down in sales?
3. yes people should have some inconvenience if they fought all of the way to this point and are desperate to regain lost ground, its also harsh to hold me responsible for those atheists because atheists are a group of people who just aren't part of other groups, we didn't ask to be grouped
You don't seem to have understood my post and have resorted to yet more shallow critiques of religion that do not hold up to scrutiny.
1. I wasn't saying that you were claiming thats what the bible does, I was saying that you personally wanting to ascribe certain motives to God ("Still waiting for an explaination why God killed 40 kids") is ridiculous, given that you will live for 70 years and are capable of building nothing more complex than a model aeroplane and God is eternal and built the very fabric of existence. Even assuming that an omnipitent, omniscient being HAS motivations as you or I comprehend the concept is is silly.
Your conceptualization of the foundation of the christian religion is also quite shallow. The idea of a demiurge not only pre-dates Christianity by 10's of 1000's of years but is ubiquitous across the globe, pointing to it being innate to the human psyche and not a cynical invention of those who wish to exert control over others.
Furthermore the fathers of Christianity were not "powerful men". Jesus was a carpenter who died because the Pharisees exerted control over Jerusalem, John the Revelator lived in exile on Patmos, St. Peter was a lowly fisherman etc. These are not "powerful men."
2. Violence exists among all people. Trying to single out the European Christians as being uniquely guilty for using violence in support of their beliefs is just silly. Pre-christian Europeans would throw gays into bogs and beat or even murder those who did not properly observe sacrificial rites. Muslims have waged jihad against non-believers throughout their existence. The Mayan's would sacrifice their captured enemies. Not all systemic violence is neccessarily conected to religion. The plains indians would indiscriminately scalp any member of another tribe they could get their hands on. Infants included.
My point here is that violence exists. It always has and always will. Religon didn't create violence, yet you act as though it did.
3. Athiests most certainly are a group, that's how you can use a group moniker to identify them. You actively believe that there is NO God, which itself is a form of belief system, not unlike a religion. It seems awfully inconsistent of you to want to impose collective punishment on a group of people but think your own group should be free from such punishments for your own transgressions. Another characteristic you share with the religious is that you seem to believe you have some divine insight into who ought to have punishment meted out to them for their sins.
But this is all quite far from being on topic.