• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Cruz_del_Sur said:
Actually, i do, and i am not the only on atheist or religious, to point out Bergoglio's contradictions. He is a pompous hypocrite known for his populist rhetoric, recognized for adapting truths to fit his agenda.

Saying an atheist can go to heaven means, necessarily, that the 1st commandment is useless. This is not a minor detail or a technicality. He is overruling the first commandment. It even contradicts the apostles' creed, which is considered by the most lenient as the bare minimum requirement that qualifies you as a catholic.

A non religious equivalent would be saying that the first amendment doesnt stand any more so because the president said so. Then the president is wrong, just as the pope is here. This is not a matter of interpretation.
This is cathechism 101.
So yes, i wouldn't mind arguing about this with him, not one bit.

Pope is considered the interpreter of the word of god, but not even he can re-write it. By design, the religion he presides, long time ago, set some things in stone so that even he cannot change them. They are like that by design, by choice.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS!

You are aware that many christian churches whether it's Catholic, Protestant, Dutch Reformed or whatever else they are called have all their own teaching philosophies based on the bible and some take the scripture more literally than others? Also some follow the old and new testament, and some only the old.

Then it's also about how the professors teach at the university and the theological process they follow. So there is a possibility that interpretation may differ. That's part of being human and how contextual teachings work.

The way I see it, an atheist doesn't believe in any God, so to me, the 1st commandment, in some way is still applicable, as an atheist have no other God... But again, that's just my point of view, I'm not a professor or a priest or the pope.
 
Hey Cruz, fancy taking a gander at my post in response to you on page 19? Hopefully helps in clarifying a few things :)
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Actually, i do, and i am not the only on atheist or religious, to point out Bergoglio's contradictions. He is a pompous hypocrite known for his populist rhetoric, recognized for adapting truths to fit his agenda.

Saying an atheist can go to heaven means, necessarily, that the 1st commandment is useless. This is not a minor detail or a technicality. He is overruling the first commandment. It even contradicts the apostles' creed, which is considered by the most lenient as the bare minimum requirement that qualifies you as a catholic.

A non religious equivalent would be saying that the first amendment doesnt stand any more so because the president said so. Then the president is wrong, just as the pope is here. This is not a matter of interpretation.
This is cathechism 101.
So yes, i wouldn't mind arguing about this with him, not one bit.

Pope is considered the interpreter of the word of god, but not even he can re-write it. By design, the religion he presides, long time ago, set some things in stone so that even he cannot change them. They are like that by design, by choice.
Click to expand...

Really? Because religion now is very different to the past and the whole point is that people are constantly re-writing it and ignoring bits they don't like. But you know just sit there claiming the pope has got it all wrong with the whole emphasis on the love and giving side of Christianity rather than the fire and brimstone.

It sort of proves the point, the Bible is always being interpreted and so if you choose an interpretation that is one of hatred, that's because you CHOOSE to and not because you are compelled to. The Bible also said that a man sleeping with a female slave meant for another man is a sin but this sin can be removed by bringing a ram to the front door as an offering. This should indicate the word "sin" is thrown about pretty casually in the Bible. This is in the same part of the Bible that calls homosexuality a sin.
 
Bill said:
I would have thought that being gay could be a choice in some instances, just as being a drunk might not be a choice in some cases.
Click to expand...
no one in their right mind would choose to be gay. why would you choose to go through all that persecution and stigma?!?
ive seen what my fafafine cousins and have been through and i cant imagine anyone wanting to go through what they've been through. there are just so many levels of how they get discriminated against.
 
Bill said:
a blistering answer !!!!! LMFAO

What a ******* prick.
Click to expand...

Yada yada yada! Read my signature!

Personal attacks are the last resort of the ignorant - I wear them as a badge of honour!
 
ragerancher said:
The Bible also said that a man sleeping with a female slave meant for another man is a sin but this sin can be removed by bringing a ram to the front door as an offering.
Click to expand...
Genuinely lol'd.
 
ragerancher said:
The Bible also said that a man sleeping with a female slave meant for another man is a sin but this sin can be removed by bringing a ram to the front door as an offering. This should indicate the word "sin" is thrown about pretty casually in the Bible. This is in the same part of the Bible that calls homosexuality a sin.
Click to expand...

Bbbbut what about the Hail Marys? You can't be absolved of sins without Hail Marys!
 
So, Australian Rugby won but they're still wrong. This is tragedy. The precedent set here is alarming to say the least.
 
Bean said:
So, Australian Rugby won but they're still wrong. This is tragedy. The precedent set here is alarming to say the least.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they're wrong? What precedent do you think has been set that alarms you?
 
Bean said:
So, Australian Rugby won but they're still wrong. This is tragedy. The precedent set here is alarming to say the least.
Click to expand...
Breach your contract and get sacked? The very foundations of our civilization are rocked! Can we survive in the wild, lawless time to come? No one can say for certain.
 
Bean said:
So, Australian Rugby won but they're still wrong. This is tragedy. The precedent set here is alarming to say the least.
Click to expand...
How can you have a civilised society that has people discriminating against others based on who they are? You can't. Unfortunately there isn't enough land resource in the world to send the discriminators to live in their own society but you can outlaw that discriminating behaviour that by its nature is at odds with society. So if you want the roads and waste pipes and McDonald's that comes with society you can play nice. Otherwise you can **** off. To the moon or something. Try living under the sea.
 
BobbyM said:
Why do you think they're wrong? What precedent do you think has been set that alarms you?
Click to expand...

Bean probably thinks that "queers" should not be allowed on the field with "straight" people; they should go play sport with others of their kind...
 
Umaga's Witness said:
How can you have a civilised society that has people discriminating against others based on who they are? You can't. Unfortunately there isn't enough land resource in the world to send the discriminators to live in their own society but you can outlaw that discriminating behaviour that by its nature is at odds with society. So if you want the roads and waste pipes and McDonald's that comes with society you can play nice. Otherwise you can **** off. To the moon or something. Try living under the sea.
Click to expand...

We did originally have a place to send people who broke the rules, unfortunately Folau is already there.

smartcooky said:
Bean probably thinks that "queers" should not be allowed on the field with "straight" people; they should go play sport with others of their kind...
Click to expand...

Damn right, a queer hooker can't throw straight, a queer scrumhalf will do bent feeds (all scrumhalves are gay?) and in openly play the queers will mince all over the place because straightening up their runs is homophobic.
 
Umaga's Witness said:
How can you have a civilised society that has people discriminating against others based on who they are? You can't. Unfortunately there isn't enough land resource in the world to send the discriminators to live in their own society but you can outlaw that discriminating behaviour that by its nature is at odds with society. So if you want the roads and waste pipes and McDonald's that comes with society you can play nice. Otherwise you can **** off. To the moon or something. Try living under the sea.
Click to expand...
We've already tried an authoritarian society where the state decides what is acceptable discourse and it didn't work out so well, to put it mildly. Be careful what you wish for.
One of the issues with progressivism is that it's relative. What is considered "acceptable" in the progressive movement which, well it's in the name, progresses? Who decides where the acceptance level is? Whoever is in power at the time?

For example, the current self identification movement. Who is going to decide where the line acceptable? We've already reached the point where psychological risks/considerations have already trumped biological risks/considerations, so it seems to be mostly in the hands of law makers at the moment. Are you happy to accept what law makers deem that is? And anybody who raises an objection gets cast from society?

It's hilarious/scary how this post doesn't get any of the thumbs downs that has been flying around in this thread.
 
Steve-o said:
For example, the current self identification movement. Who is going to decide where the line acceptable? We've already reached the point where psychological risks/considerations have already trumped biological risks/considerations, so it seems to be mostly in the hands of law makers at the moment. Are you happy to accept what law makers deem that is? And anybody who raises an objection gets cast from society?
Click to expand...
This is a pretty big issue in political and moral philosophy. I personally find cultural relativism very convincing.
 
Umaga's Witness said:
How can you have a civilised society that has people discriminating against others based on who they are? You can't. Unfortunately there isn't enough land resource in the world to send the discriminators to live in their own society but you can outlaw that discriminating behaviour that by its nature is at odds with society. So if you want the roads and waste pipes and McDonald's that comes with society you can play nice. Otherwise you can **** off.
Click to expand...
Steve-o said:
We've already tried an authoritarian society where the state decides what is acceptable discourse and it didn't work out so well, to put it mildly. Be careful what you wish for.
One of the issues with progressivism is that it's relative. What is considered "acceptable" in the progressive movement which, well it's in the name, progresses? Who decides where the acceptance level is? Whoever is in power at the time?

For example, the current self identification movement. Who is going to decide where the line acceptable? We've already reached the point where psychological risks/considerations have already trumped biological risks/considerations, so it seems to be mostly in the hands of law makers at the moment. Are you happy to accept what law makers deem that is? And anybody who raises an objection gets cast from society?

It's hilarious/scary how this post doesn't get any of the thumbs downs that has been flying around in this thread.
Click to expand...

Im not sure I follow. We currently have a society where hate speech is not acceptable.
It's called most western societies.

This is not discriminating, it's saying discriminating based on who someone is is not ok.

This has none of the connotations you are suggesting.

Lawmakers are simply saying everyone in the society is ok, except those who think others in the society are not ok. Pretty obvious basis for a society.

Imagine some ancient people back in the day. If there were 5 people who could live in an area, and 4 of them thought everyone was ok people, but person 5 thought person 3 was immoral and liked to point it out all the time this offending person 3, person 3 wouldn't want to live with person 5. Persons 1,2,and 4 would then have to decide whether they wanted to live with person 3 or person 5. Who would they choose? It's a pretty safe bet.
 
Derpus said:
This is a pretty big issue in political and moral philosophy. I personally find cultural relativism very convincing.
Click to expand...
It's theoretically good, but when there are cultures mixing it requires all to buy in

Any culture that thinks another culture is not ok won't agree, because by definition of those beliefs they aren't considering things from the point of view of the other culture. Unless the other culture are self haters.
 
[QUOTE="Steve-o, post: 943228, member: 40986"]

biological risks/considerations.[/QUOTE]
?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top