tigertim said:
Not true what he says about homosexuality being forbidden in Aboriginal cultures. He may be speaking for Bandjalang (spelling) but I doubt it to be honest. Post missionisation of course it’s a different story.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Anthony Mundine bizarre antigay rant
- Thread starter tigertim
- Start date
Not true what he says about homosexuality being forbidden in Aboriginal cultures. He may be speaking for Bandjalang (spelling) but I doubt it to be honest. Post missionisation of course it’s a different story.
There is no such thing as "Aboriginal culture" anyway. It infers that Aboriginal people were/are one large homogeneous group, with a homogeneous culture. As if people indigenous to the Kimberley region are the same as those indigenous to parts of Victoria or Tasmania and so on.fastin bulbous said:
It would be equivalent to saying a Slavic person from the Balkans and an English person both have the same culture, as they are all indigenous to Europe.
As such, there would be a complex web of many different cultures in pre-European Australia, with varying views and practices on sexuality. Like any human civilisation, this would cover the entire spectrum of views and practices relating to homosexuality.
Thanks FB.fastin bulbous said:
I suppose the logical conclusion I reach from my line of thinking is that Anthony Mundine is neither entirely right nor entirely wrong in what he says.
Giardiasis said:
Perhaps that one is. But would you accept that as a clearly committed christian that Israel support all passage of the bible? Israel has made statements such as below, he can't change what the word of god says.
“In Ezekiel, chapter 33, verse 11, it says that ‘God has no pleasure in the person that’s living in sin’
“He’s a loving God and he wants people to turn away from what they’re living in and he’ll give them life. That’s the message I’m trying to share, even though it comes across as harsh.
“I can’t change what the word of God says. As we heard today, those that live for Christ will be persecuted for his name.
“I have love towards everyone that might be saying negative things. I choose to love them because God loves me.”
So young gay Christians could satisfy themselves that Israel also supports passages such as:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Gary might "Like" those passages too?
I'd be speculating but I'd suggest he wouldn't, or certainly not the literal meaning behind the words, or he wouldn't see the passage you quoted as meaning homosexuals need to be put to death by other people. Seems he thinks God will punish them himself. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell he believes homosexuality to be immoral, but I haven't seen him make any calls to persecute homosexuals.MD Jazz said:
Giardiasis said:
So it sounds like he (and I imagine most Christians) do compromise their faith when it suits them ie we don't take the bible literally when it calls for extreme punishments such as death but we do go with the general gist.
He either believes in the bible or he doesn't, he hides behind the freedom of religion principle afforded him. He quotes a passage condemning homosexuality, surely he can be taken to task for other passages that discuss homosexuality?
Interested to know how anyone could read the passage below and not accept it asks for homosexuals be put to death.
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)"
I find the exaggerated outrage perplexing. People so offended by being told they're going to a place they know doesn't exist :headscratch.
Not to mention, homosexuals were one of several groups of people that the post infers are going to hell. Unbelievers included. Hence, I'd hazard a guess that a good number of us here are going to hell by the criteria listed :don't know.
Not to mention, homosexuals were one of several groups of people that the post infers are going to hell. Unbelievers included. Hence, I'd hazard a guess that a good number of us here are going to hell by the criteria listed :don't know.
MD Jazz said:
Interpreting the Bible is a bit trickier than just grabbing a verse from the OT and saying it applies to Christians who are under the new Covenant, not the old. Folau's scripture merely states that homosexuality is immoral and to practice it invites God's judgement. Many won't agree but it it really a hanging offence?
He is free to believe and say what he wants. The problem for him and ARU is that he signed a contract that means he must abide by certain conditions when using social media (and probably behaving in other ways).
His freedom of speech is not threatened. ARU and other corporations put these clauses in place to protect their brands and reputation with the broader community. He was warned about this behaviour last year so it's not as if he didn't understand the consequences.
His freedom of speech is not threatened. ARU and other corporations put these clauses in place to protect their brands and reputation with the broader community. He was warned about this behaviour last year so it's not as if he didn't understand the consequences.
antman said:
It's got nothing to do with reputation when so many have sided with Folau. It's all about Alan Joyce's money. RA would do well to seek a less manipulative and hypocritical major sponsor.
Absolutely right! This whole thing has been orchestrated by the thin-skinned Joyce and his media mates when there is little in the actual post which is offensive. So Folau is warning sinners of the dangers of hell - and deserves to be sacked for it? It damages rugby’s brand exactly how?LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Anyway the other problem the ARU has as there is no such clause in his contract :hihi. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in court. The ARU already has egg on its face. Maybe it will be Raylene who gets the sack for this oversight.
MD Jazz said:
That's why the Catechism exists. #2357-2359 would be illuminating to those labelling Folau's views "extreme".
IanG said:
Is that like the independent tribunal that found Essendon not guilty of doping?
Funny how e.g. Karmichael Hunt being convicted of drug offences is a low-level breach while posting Biblical teachings online rates as "high-level". The panel duly handed down the finding that RA required.
<
Politics
|
Leaving Neverland.
>
