Home  |  Message Board  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Fan Pics  |  Fan Polls  |  RSS Feed  |  Top of Thread  |  Login  |  Register
Display By:
Home  |  Message Board  |  Top of Thread  |  Login  |  Register
Display By:

 

 

Previous Thread   |  Top Of Board  |  Start New Thread  |   Next Thread
1finny Posted on 13/04/2019 10:21
Edited On: 13/04/2019 10:21Billy Vunipola
 
 
Will be interesting to see what the RFU do o the back of the Aussies taking a zero tolerance tance on bigotry.
IP: Logged
Fabios_porkpie_provider Posted on 13/04/2019 10:27

Billy Vunipola

 
I find it absolutely staggering that educated people in this day and age people are still coming out with such stuff, essentially because of ĎGodí.
Utterly bonkers
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 13/04/2019 10:33

Billy Vunipola

 
What some find 'bonkers' isn't the point.

The point is: Should people be allowed to declare their religious beliefs.

There's some pretty disgusting practices routinely taking place in the name of religions that don't come under such scrutiny.
IP: Logged
supersinghy Posted on 13/04/2019 10:33

Billy Vunipola

 
Neither player should be banned. Vunipola has done absolutely nothing wrong and is just expressing his beliefs in a very harmless, dignified and normal way. As he says he does not hate anyone but he was brought up in a strict religious family and these are his own beliefs. he doesnt seem to be forcing them on others or peddling hate so I do not see a problem. I k ow a little less about the aussie guy but it seems a bit of an over reaction and i'm quite sensitive about things like this.
IP: Logged
Abel_Tasman Posted on 13/04/2019 10:36
Edited On: 13/04/2019 10:41
Billy Vunipola

 
Not wanting to appear to defend Vunipola or indeed Folau, the argument put forward for them holding such outdated views is due to their Tongan/Pacific Island backgrounds where religious beliefs do reflect back to early times.

No excuse this day and age when sport is promoting LBGT inclusivity. Sportsmen do need to step away from social media
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 13/04/2019 10:36

Billy Vunipola

 
Hopefully the RFU will do something with Billy.

Anyone who thinks RA shouldnít be contemplating sacking Folau obviously havenít realised heís been sacked for violating social media policy. Which he clearly has.

Iím all for freedom of speech, and Folau is welcome to his beliefs. People need to realise that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of that speech.
IP: Logged
BoroFur Posted on 13/04/2019 10:53

Billy Vunipola

 
Religion should never be used as an excuse for bigotry.
IP: Logged
coluka Posted on 13/04/2019 12:02

Billy Vunipola

 
I am not sure he has done much wrong but equally understand why people would be offended. I dont believe from what i have read he intended to come across as a bigot, but do understand the viewpoint he has. That said there may be more to this than meets they eye.

Sometimes people use words that are not meant how some interpret them, ( not on here obvs) [8)]. Let the authorities investigate and see what they come up with
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 13/04/2019 12:13

Billy Vunipola

 
The difficulty is his twitter comments stating he doesnít Ďhateí anyone were written after he Ďlikedí Folauís grotesque comments.
All a bit tricky.

Usually people of religion Ďpick and chooseí which beliefs to hang on to - their choice.
Personal view - if he has thise beliefs he shouldnít be honoured by being picked for England.

I nearly said he shouldnít be allowed to represent his country but I couldnít work out whether that would be Australia, Tonga, Wales or England [;)]
IP: Logged
borobuddah Posted on 13/04/2019 12:16
Edited On: 13/04/2019 12:42
Billy Vunipola

 
As with the Koran, In the bible you can find passages and teachings that can be twisted, taken out of context, highlighted beyond their importance to suit the particular cult agenda
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 13/04/2019 12:54

Billy Vunipola

 
I can remember when a Labour MP liked and shared a tweet telling Rotherham sex abuse victims to Ďshut their mouths for the good of diversityí because she was the same religion as the perps.

Can't remember anyone on here saying she was driven by hate or that she wasn't fit to represent.
IP: Logged
BillyBill Posted on 13/04/2019 12:55

Billy Vunipola

 
1Finny & BB [^] too many people of God pick the bits they like and then start preaching whilst forgetting other parts or conflicting statements.

As far as homosexuality is concerned people need to accept it canít be learnt or caught , itís certainly not something people pick to be because of their environment.
IP: Logged
hopesoboro Posted on 13/04/2019 13:03

Billy Vunipola

 
Would you care to expand on that Colin!
IP: Logged
supersinghy Posted on 13/04/2019 13:05

Billy Vunipola

 
I think he means this one but I dont know if it true or not.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 13/04/2019 13:07
Edited On: 13/04/2019 13:08
Billy Vunipola

 
Colin is basically saying because he canít remember if people did or didnít call out that Labour MP then we should tolerate bigotry by others.
Its a compelling argument [:D]

Its that Ďwhatabouteryí nonsense
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 13/04/2019 13:09

Billy Vunipola

 
Martin Luther King preached that homosexuality could be 'cured' but society has move on and we now realise that it is innate to the person holding those feelings.

That is not the point, the point is that some people believe it is wrong.

The matter at hand is should they be allowed to say so. Should any of us be prevented from saying what we believe to be right or wrong?
IP: Logged
supersinghy Posted on 13/04/2019 13:19

Billy Vunipola

 
I was raised to be strong enough to criticise, fight, condemn, stop all form of bigotry regardless of who was responsible, what their religion was, if they were family or friend. That is how I believe this gets stopped. It is not right to condemn one and not the other just because they are on you "side".
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 13/04/2019 13:32

Billy Vunipola

 
Colin: yes he's allowed to say so. I don't think his Instagram post has been taken down. See my earlier post though. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. In this case he violated his employers social media policy.
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 13/04/2019 13:39

Billy Vunipola

 
Of course he can say and believe anything he wants (within the law of course)
The question is should he face any consequences.
In my view, if we are serious about encouraging a tolerant society (and sometimes I doubt we are) then we simply say Ďok, fair enough, but you are not playing Rugby for Englandí

Iím not Ďupí on religion but I believe Christianity asks followers to observe the sabbath as a day of worship. If thatís the case, his beliefís are selective.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 13/04/2019 13:43
Edited On: 13/04/2019 13:46
Billy Vunipola

 
Once you start restricting FoS it opens a whole new can of worms.

For example:

Who sets the parameters of what is right and wrong?

What is their motivation?

Who decides the consequences?

FoS is constricted depending on the prevailing circumstances. As we have seen in Soviet/Communist/Nazi states.


I think that unless speech directly incites violence then broadly it should be allowed.
IP: Logged
LeitrimBoro Posted on 13/04/2019 13:54
Edited On: 13/04/2019 13:55
Billy Vunipola

 
Folau has a history of this XXXXXX. He broke his contract re social media comments. It seems that VP has done the same.
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 13/04/2019 13:57

Billy Vunipola

 
Thatís fair enough Colin - I get your thought process.
We just come to different conclusions.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 13/04/2019 13:58

Billy Vunipola

 
Colin, please try and read what we are saying, no one at all is restricting his freedom of speech. Heís been allowed to speak for his beleifs. Try and understand the concept we are getting across.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 13/04/2019 14:12
Edited On: 13/04/2019 14:14
Billy Vunipola

 
If the consequences are draconian or partisan enough then that is tantamount to restriction of FoS.

I don't see what it is that you think I'm not getting.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 13/04/2019 14:39

Billy Vunipola

 
Not sure about Billy but Izzy broke his companies social media code of conduct.

I don't see how that's draconian? If your employers told you not to post homophobic tweets or support homophobic views you have to face the consequences. It's that you appear to not understand.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 13/04/2019 19:18

Billy Vunipola

 
You don't think it's draconian (or partisan) of an employer to tell an employee what they are allowed to perceive as right or wrong?

You don't think it's draconian of an employer to tell an employee what religious beliefs they can hold and who they can talk to them about?

Like I said, unless they are inciting hatred or violence people should be allowed Freedom of Speech.
IP: Logged
Scarsalt Posted on 13/04/2019 20:06

Billy Vunipola

 
He is allowed his opinions...PC gone mad to stop people saying what they believe.
IP: Logged
BigUnit Posted on 13/04/2019 21:11

Billy Vunipola

 
That's Relegion for you.
I would hate to have them views
IP: Logged
ZippytheHippy Posted on 13/04/2019 21:43

Billy Vunipola

 
he's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. if you don't agree then that your right.

What you don't have the right to do is force your opinion on him or punish him because it is "fashionable" to hold to a certain thought.

to do otherwise is simply discriminatory, to punish is nazisim in all but words.
IP: Logged
JCis50 Posted on 14/04/2019 06:42

Billy Vunipola

 
Itís strange that so many here seem to think that extreme viewpoints can simply be defended as FoS. Surely the counter argument regarding societal norms trumps that? Religious orthodoxy has stayed the same whilst society has moved on and views, prevalent in earlier decade regarding homosexuality, are now only held by a few. I would argue that BV can hold any view he wishes but clearly because of his profile those he espoused, particularly on social media, should now be viewed as extreme and are rightly being condemned. Gay people still have a hard enough time accepting themselves, never mind being accepted by society as a whole, just look at the suicide rates for gay young men. What right has BV to make judgments upon others lives because thatís exact what he has done in a very public and damaging way.


IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 14/04/2019 09:45

Billy Vunipola

 
Extremism depends on your starting point and which way you're facing.

What's is extreme to me may not be to you. That's the problem.

As you correctly say, societal norms are constantly shifting and therefore so does our notion of extremism.

FoS is a precious resource and we must not lose it on the whim of current-day subjective opinion.

To use your example, suicide is the biggest killer of ALL men under 50 but the BBC still think it's OK to call masculinity 'toxic'. I'd say that's 'extreme'. They also call people wanting to leave the EU in accordance with the result of a referendum 'extremists'[:O]

Unless it incites violence then I'm OK with it.
IP: Logged
The_same_as_before Posted on 14/04/2019 09:48

Billy Vunipola

 
Sometimes it is best to keep your mouth shut. He can have his views, best he keeps them tk himself
IP: Logged
LeitrimBoro Posted on 14/04/2019 10:28
Edited On: 14/04/2019 10:29
Billy Vunipola

 
Sarries played at Bristol yesterday. The PA played 'It's raining men' Hope BV enjoyed it.
IP: Logged
JCis50 Posted on 14/04/2019 10:58

Billy Vunipola

 
So if your correct Colin and Extremism depends on your starting point and which way youíre facing, then surely any actions and points of view are valid and not extreme if someone holds those views which is clearly twaddle. Should we all be able to say anything we want regardless of the damage? I wonder what possible harm that could do. Society does indeed shift and you could argue that the tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. However having consideration for others is something that adds to our humanity, it doesnít take something away. BV by using his fame as a platform to espouse views that are hurtful to a vulnerable minority shows his own ignorance and that of those who wrote his Holy Book. Strange that those supposed Christians have so little Christian spirit.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 14/04/2019 11:10

Billy Vunipola

 
I'm not saying they are valid, I'm saying that they are points of view, as are yours.

Some people could find your opinions on Christianity 'twaddle'...that's the point
IP: Logged
JCis50 Posted on 14/04/2019 11:18

Billy Vunipola

 
You donít know my opinions on Christianity and they may surprise you if you did. Letís agree to difffer on this as you seem to think that blatant homophobia is just something that relates to FoS and, I as a gay man donít.
IP: Logged
LeitrimBoro Posted on 14/04/2019 12:55

Billy Vunipola

 
No one is denying VP and IF their freedom of speech. That's a total red herring.
IP: Logged
harker Posted on 14/04/2019 12:57
Edited On: 18/04/2019 16:33
Billy Vunipola

 
.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 14/04/2019 13:23

Billy Vunipola

 
You have the right to say what you want about Christianity, as he does about Homosexuality. What you see as 'blatant homophobia' is part of his religious tenet.

Some would find it objectionable that you wish to inhibit his right to practice his religion, justifiably so. Some might want to prevent you from even publicly stating as much...That's why FoS benefits EVERYONE.

Of course restricting his employment opportunities b/c of his religious beliefs is removal of FoS.

How could it not be?
IP: Logged
LeitrimBoro Posted on 14/04/2019 13:38

Billy Vunipola

 
Again. He can say what he wants but he must also take the consequences of his words.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 14/04/2019 16:32

Billy Vunipola

 
Colin: the question you should be asking is do I think it's Draconian that a high profile organisation that relies on sponsorship (and whose principle sponsors have a homosexual CEO) should ask it's high profile employees to have a social media presence that doesn't damage them. In which case no, I do not. I think it's right and fair.

You really aren't getting the freedom from speech not freedom from consequences arguement are you. I wonder why?
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 14/04/2019 16:37

Billy Vunipola

 
Colin
If I expressed Billyís views my CEO would be asking me to leave the company.
Much like if I expressed other form of bigotry

Iíd still be free to have my beliefs tho
IP: Logged
Calculus Posted on 14/04/2019 17:01

Billy Vunipola

 
Iíll send an email round my company tomorrow saying gays are going to hell. Iím sure theyíll understand my right to free speech and to express my beliefs
IP: Logged
Colgates_shaving_foam Posted on 14/04/2019 21:09

Billy Vunipola

 
seperate things.

belief in sky fary and primitive morals - free to have these views.

Expressing them publicly - bringing your company (RA) into disripute.

Sacked.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 14/04/2019 22:09

Billy Vunipola

 
If the 'consequences of his words' are loss of employment then he doesn't have freedom of speech.

I also don't think suppressing/silencing a person expressing their religious beliefs with the aim of increasing profits is a positive thing either.

He may upset some people's feelings but he has a right to offend, as those offended have a right to be offended.

Small_town, what are you accusing me of?
IP: Logged
LeitrimBoro Posted on 14/04/2019 22:53

Billy Vunipola

 
Your first paragraph is incorrect. Obvious you're very poor at trolling. Or dim.
IP: Logged
JCis50 Posted on 15/04/2019 03:45
Edited On: 15/04/2019 04:04
Billy Vunipola

 
I often find that people who who are not part of any type of minority are the first to shout about their rights to FoS as they have never been a victim of discrimination, due to being a bit different. They have no idea how damaging their taunts and hate speech can be and they arenít interested in finding out. Closed minds and cold hearts. Would rather be in my head than theirs thatís for sure.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 08:47

Billy Vunipola

 
Iím accusing you of failing to grasp the concept. He DOES have freedom of speech. No one is saying he isnít entitled to his view and I believe his instagram post is still up.

If you canít grasp that, in this day and age, a very public figure, representing an organisation that relies heavily on sponsorship (and, again, itís principle sponsor has a homosexual CEO at a time they are renogotiating the contract) shouldnít be disciplined for portraying an image directly at odds with the image of the company then there is no hope for you.

I honestly donít know how you canít grasp the simple concept that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences but your clearly canít despite a few on here trying to explain what that means to you. Itís baffling.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 15/04/2019 09:14

Billy Vunipola

 
If I threatened to punch you in the face if you said you didn't like my tie, you'd still have the freedom to say it. But you probably wouldn't.

We have prominent politicians saying opposing politicians should be 'lynched' and hounded off the streets. They are still in post because of FoS.

At the same time the same people are calling for a man to lose employment because his religious beliefs lead him to believe that people who he doesn't agree with will end up in a place that doesn't exist.

And some head-nodded along when Donald Tusk suggested people he doesn't agree with meet a similar fate.

And then there's David Lammy[|)]
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 09:19
Edited On: 15/04/2019 09:30
Billy Vunipola

 
I mean on a personal level Iíd laugh at that sort of threat but Iím not sure what you are trying to say?

And, I can barely believe I have to say this again but, here goes: Folau should lose his contract because he broke his companies social media policy. If Billy did the same (which Iím not sure he did) he should suffer the same fate. Not sure how you canít understand this? Is it because you believe homophobia should be acceptable in a civilised society?
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 15/04/2019 09:32
Edited On: 15/04/2019 09:33
Billy Vunipola

 
ST
You are being trolled
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 09:34

Billy Vunipola

 
Disappointing if true, still itís better than him being a homophobe, which is how it was coming across.
IP: Logged
Anton_Berg Posted on 15/04/2019 09:43

Billy Vunipola

 
I think Colin is saying that you can't be selective about what people should be allowed to say. It would, of course, be better if they kept their views to themselves, but should your employer be able to silence you (effectively a NDC).
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 09:46

Billy Vunipola

 
You CAN if youíre an employer with an image to uphold. IN fact, of course you can. For example my employer would probably let me say I didnít like Tony Pulis (unless I work for Bulhual I guess) but would certainly not late me say ďI hate JewsĒ. Of course employers can expect civilised comments from their very public employees. Do you seriously think Sports stars should be able to say whatever they like without facing the consequences?
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 15/04/2019 10:49

Billy Vunipola

 
My point is should your employer be able to control your freedom to express your religious beliefs?

Folau has been sacked because of his, Vunipola next?

I'm not a homophobe, I believe in FoS. We either have it for ALL or it's not worth having.

If we ration it then it can (and often is) used as a weapon to silence opponents.

For example:

Charges are brought against a man who calls Anna Soubry a 'Nazi'.

David Lammy calls Brexiteers 'worse than Nazis'.

Who has FoS and who doesn't?
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 12:21

Billy Vunipola

 
Everyone has freedom of speech. And yes your employer has EVERY right to terminate your contract if you break their social media rules.

If you think this is about freedom of religious expression then youíre even dumber than hope initalliy came across, which is pretty dumb.
IP: Logged
The_same_as_before Posted on 15/04/2019 12:24

Billy Vunipola

 
You have to take into consideratoon the environment he was brought up in. From what I have read it is a very religious high level church. He should have been warned tk keep his views to himself.

Personally I have always been against Abortion, should that effect my career?
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 12:30

Billy Vunipola

 
That depends, do you oppose abortion on social media sites? And does your company forbid this? If so, then yes, if not, then no. I donít understand why people are getting so confused by RAís very simple decision.
IP: Logged
The_same_as_before Posted on 15/04/2019 12:41

Billy Vunipola

 
My company could say its wrong to support the Labour party, should I be dismissed?
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 12:43

Billy Vunipola

 
Have they? Do they ban you from supporting them on social media? Same question really. You MUST try and grasp what has happened
IP: Logged
The_same_as_before Posted on 15/04/2019 12:46

Billy Vunipola

 
It just goes to show how difficult it is. Like i said he should have shut it.
IP: Logged
Muttley Posted on 15/04/2019 12:58
Edited On: 15/04/2019 12:59
Billy Vunipola

 
"My company could say its wrong to support the Labour party"

No, they couldn't. Just like they couldn't say it is wrong to support UKIP, BP, Cons or any other valid political party, they could say it was wrong/unacceptable to support a proscribed organisation like ISIS or IRA.
IP: Logged
The_same_as_before Posted on 15/04/2019 13:00

Billy Vunipola

 
Fair enough, bad anology
IP: Logged
1finny Posted on 15/04/2019 13:21

Billy Vunipola

 
Letís not fall into the Ďkop outí of religious beliefs.
Billy follows a religion and chooses what he wants to take from it.
He is happy to get blathered, ignore the sabbath but hangs on to the things he chooses to.
Also, he has been in a relatively Ďliberalí society for most of his life.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 15/04/2019 13:26
Edited On: 15/04/2019 13:28
Billy Vunipola

 
I think political affiliations and religious beliefs are two very different things.

Some countries even have statutes prohibiting the restriction of the free exercise of religious expression.

So why should a company be able to prescribe what a person's religion has them believe or say (as long as it's not inciting violence)?

I think not.... If some smart@rse on a football forum thinks that makes me 'dumb' then so be it.

I support his right to say it even though I may find it offensive.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 13:58

Billy Vunipola

 
Last attempt. They are not prescribing his religious belief. Lest we forget, Folau is picking and choosing what he believes from the religion anyway.

That last sentence makes me think that either a: you ARE a troll or b: youíve failed to grasp anything that has been said in the thread.

I really hope for your sake itís a.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 15/04/2019 14:51

Billy Vunipola

 
Give it up Pal. I think your problem is that you're just not nearly as bright as you think you are.

Does anyone less arrogant think it's wrong for employers to restrict employee's freedom of religious expression?
IP: Logged
Ticker_Tape Posted on 15/04/2019 15:00

Billy Vunipola

 
A bit surprised that players a have a contract for a number of years with the Governing body[?]

His conduct will be subject to his contract, before they would have just been able to drop him. He will no doubt take it to court , as his regular work will be effected financially and contractually.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 15/04/2019 16:23

Billy Vunipola

 
Youíre right Iím giving it up Colin. The fact you have asked again about freedom of religious expression shows you donít grasp why RA sacked him. I have TRIED to explain it to you but fine, you canít get it.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 15/04/2019 21:06

Billy Vunipola

 
Do you miss the point professionally or is it still something of a hobby?
IP: Logged
ZippytheHippy Posted on 15/04/2019 21:43

Billy Vunipola

 
You could of course argue that the ARU are acting in a bigoted & blinkered way. After all it is no doubt offensive for many when they are deemed "blinkered idiots from another era" for there belief in God. You cannot get away from the fact that the bible, New & Old Testament condemns the practice (note the practice Rom 1:24-27) of homosexuality in the same way it condemns sexual relations before marriage.

Now if you believe that the Bible is the word of God you will accept these teachings as true.

To condemn a person for these beliefs is bigoted & to be condemned for the Christian phobia that it is. It is no coincidence that Christians are now the most persecuted region on the planet.
IP: Logged
JCis50 Posted on 16/04/2019 04:07

Billy Vunipola

 
Zippy, I donít think anyone is condemning their Christianity though are they, nor his right to practice his beliefs. However, his beliefs do seem to be selective do they not? It also appears that both the Aussie and English RFU are attempting to be inclusive so both players are acting in contradiction to that aim when using their influence on Social Media. Plus the players are using their beliefs to attack and judge others that are already victimised. Shame on them.
IP: Logged
ZippytheHippy Posted on 16/04/2019 07:29

Billy Vunipola

 
so to be "inclusive" you have to exclude those who's tennants you disagree with? To say "we accept & tolerate all" & then it turns out your toleration only extends to those with whom you agree imho is anything but tolerant.
IP: Logged
JCis50 Posted on 16/04/2019 07:49

Billy Vunipola

 
Inclusion means exactly that Zippy. No one is excluding them, they are excluding themselves by their actions. Why should a minority be attacked due to the use of selective text from a dogmatic religious book. As others have pointed out BV and the other guy donít exactly follow their religions teaching to the letter but the homo thing seems to be their issue. Thatís clearly bigotry and nothing else. I note that they wear clothes of different material, presumably eat shell fish and play on a Sunday, not many tweets I guess regarding those sins!! You say that tolerance and acceptance of all is being used selectively and you may have a point but this all began when two rugby players used their popularity to attack a vulnerable minority over something the minority canít change. If this was a white footballer attacking black people becaude they were black, would you think thatís fine, itís his freedom of speech? I doubt you would.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 16/04/2019 08:27

Billy Vunipola

 
Good points. Zippy thinks he was sacked because of his religion. He was sacked because of homophobia. Big difference. Folau picks and chooses what he wants out of the Bible, making him homophobic. As mentioned above he wears synthetic clothing, works on a Sunday and has tattoos. All of which are banned by the Bible. You've got to have quite a skewed or archaic view of the world not to see why RA sacked him or defend his homophobia.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 16/04/2019 11:13
Edited On: 16/04/2019 11:14
Billy Vunipola

 
So if you don't follow every aspect of a religion you preclude yourself from expressing your religious beliefs[:O]

I didn't have fish on a Friday once, guess I'm 'lapsed'.

And my mate Mo doesn't believe in child genital mutilation or cruel animal slaughter...he's apostate now[|)]

You have to have a controlling, fascistic view of the world if you can't bear to hear what others think or maybe you're just a bit insular.

He was sacked b/c he expressed his religious beliefs...that's it.
IP: Logged
Indeedido Posted on 16/04/2019 11:58

Billy Vunipola

 
The Rugby lads know the score and are happy to take the rugby riches, so simply have to play the game. If they feel so strongly about their views then they would be prepared to accept the consequences.

However the Corporate Values concept is interesting.
I always felt uncomfortable as a senior leader TELLING employees what their values were on behalf of the Company - even if I agreed personally with most of them.

The Values are often imposed rather than co-constructed ; by very senior Execs who don't stay around long and often do not live themselves by the values they impose.

Company's should be able to discipline employees publicly speaking illegally, but I'm not so sure when it is a question of morals or other values?
IP: Logged
ZippytheHippy Posted on 16/04/2019 12:50

Billy Vunipola

 
"You've got to have quite a skewed or archaic view of the world not to see why RA sacked him or defend his homophobia."

Who said this is my viewpoint? I expressed an argument from a different perspective and I neither condemned or supported his comments.

I looked at the issue from a different perspective, perhaps if people did that more often than cry "righteous indignation" at ever opportunity we might get somewhere. If a person claims to be a Christian then I submit that NOWHERE in the bible will you find a defense of the practice of homosexuality. If he is a Christian he has every right to express that view. You of course have every right to disagree with him.
IP: Logged
Small_town Posted on 16/04/2019 14:23

Billy Vunipola

 
I donít disagree with his right to express that view. I never had and itís fine for him to express it.

My only argument, that I havenít seen rebutted yet, is that that doesnít make him free from the consequences of his actions, in this case being sacked for bringing company policy. People seem to suggest itís wrong to sack him, I disagree for the reason stated above.
IP: Logged
r00fie1 Posted on 16/04/2019 14:27

Billy Vunipola

 
It appears his beliefs on thieves, sinners and adulterers includes a free trip to hell!
I wonder how many virgins and angels contribute to and read this forum?
IP: Logged
Calculus Posted on 16/04/2019 14:45

Billy Vunipola

 
"I wonder how many virgins and angels contribute to and read this forum?"

At least one virgin.
IP: Logged
Muttley Posted on 16/04/2019 14:56

Billy Vunipola

 
Fret not Calc lad, there IS a lady (or gentleman) for you.
IP: Logged
Calculus Posted on 16/04/2019 15:09

Billy Vunipola

 
[:D]
IP: Logged
Heam44 Posted on 16/04/2019 15:25

Billy Vunipola

 
Colin, think of it like this.

I own a business. The sole reason I set that business up was to provide for my myself and my family.

I employ people, the contract is extensive however could be summarized as such: The employee's complete tasks in return for money. They also receive other benefits such as holidays and pensions. However I also expect something else other than the completion of their desired tasks (also detailed in the contract) which is that they do not affect my business adversely with what they say on social media. They are free to think whatever they want however if they 'share' views with public that may adversely affect my business I have the right to terminate their contract as they are no longer fulfilling the role they were employed to do. It's nothing personal, I may agree or disagree with their views, however as some or many people may be offended by those views therefore affecting my family's income which is counter productive to the reason the business was set up in the first place. As it is clearly stated in the contract, which the employees agree too,I cant have any sympathy if an employee breaks that contract and therefore loses their job.

Just to be clear I don't have a business and definitely don't agree with BV's comments.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 16/04/2019 15:32
Edited On: 16/04/2019 15:33
Billy Vunipola

 
As I said earlier, it's not freedom of religious expression if that expression brings you the sack....obviously[rle]

I'm sure Solzhenitsyn cherished his theoretical Freedom of Speech just before he arrived in the Gulag and the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto loved the fact they technically had the right to express their views.

Freedom is not freedom if exercising that freedom means loss of some freedom.
IP: Logged
Indeedido Posted on 16/04/2019 15:42

Billy Vunipola

 
There has always been censorship and always will.
It frustrates people when their "normality" becomes on the new "wrong side".
Things are constantly evolving.
IP: Logged
Cuthbert Posted on 16/04/2019 15:53

Billy Vunipola

 
Let's face it, the Bible has loads of contradictions in it, depending on when in time the text was written, and by whom. The various authors will have had differing views on a load of stuff.

If you want to (understandably most don't bother) you can find parts of the Bible that aren't nearly as damning or condemning of homosexuality as you might think.

Personally I'm an atheist though, so I always feel a bit sorry for people who think their magic man in the sky is better than anyone elses..... or that they 'know' we're all going to hell.
IP: Logged
ABCD Posted on 16/04/2019 18:07
Edited On: 16/04/2019 18:08
Billy Vunipola

 
"ou can find parts of the Bible that aren't nearly as damning or condemning of homosexuality as you might think."

No you cannot. the bible, old & new testements condemn the practice of homosexual acts, period, no if's no buts.

lev 18:22
rom 1:26, 27
1 cor 6:9-11

it also states that sex (heterosexual) with a person who is not your marriage mate is wrong.

now you can believe it or not, but the bible is very clear on what God considers unnatural sexual practice.

as for hell, that's another topic about a place that is not a biblical teaching.
IP: Logged
r00fie1 Posted on 16/04/2019 18:10

Billy Vunipola

 
A collection of essays, third hand, fourth and fifth hand - heresay - not corroborated nor confirmed.
If you need to be told how to live thats up to you.
Dont force your pious attitude on those of us who have the capacity to make intelligent decisions[smi]
IP: Logged
ABCD Posted on 16/04/2019 18:34

Billy Vunipola

 
what a shame you are unable to accept that what what the bible acctualy says is not what you want it to say.

all I did was correct a misunderstandings yet you feel the need to insult me? is the Napoleon complex in action? I niether agreed or disagreed with what the bible has to say about the topic under "discussion". I presented a fact, it is upto you yo either disagree, disprove or accept, yet you choose to dismiss and insult. why is that?
IP: Logged
Cuthbert Posted on 16/04/2019 19:50
Edited On: 17/04/2019 07:12
Billy Vunipola

 
"what a shame you are unable to accept that what what the bible actually says is not what you want it to say"

All I did was correct a misunderstandings yet you feel the need to insult me?


Actually "all you did" was choose three extreme examples, and tried to suggest that it proves that what I said was wrong. You failed to do that.

I said "You can find parts of the Bible that aren't nearly as damning or condemning of homosexuality as you might think" - and you actually CAN.

Try "Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve":

"The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.

And throughout Christian history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships".

This is just one example. There are more.

As for your examples:

Lev 18:22
Rom 1:26, 27
1 Cor 6:9-11

You can Google those and find plenty of theologians explaining the context of when they were written, and why, and explaining why some of the extreme sounding language isn't necessarily exactly as it seems.

I guess that doesn't fit in with your Biblical agenda though? Oops!

Like I said, I'm an Atheist, and I'm not too bothered... but the Bible isn't as comprehensively damming as you're making out.
IP: Logged
ColinAllcars Posted on 16/04/2019 20:12

Here beginneth the lesson

 
Bet the OP wasn't expecting bible classes[:O]
IP: Logged
ABCD Posted on 16/04/2019 20:13

Billy Vunipola

 
four words for 1

Storge
Philia
Eros
Agape
IP: Logged
Cuthbert Posted on 16/04/2019 20:18

Here beginneth the lesson

 
"Bet the OP wasn't expecting bible classes[:O]"

LOL - Indeed.... best to move on I reckon.

[^][^]
IP: Logged
Previous Thread  |  Start New Thread  |  Top Of Board  |  Top Of Thread  |  Next Thread



Home  |Message Board  |  Top of Board  |  Login  |  Register


Copyright © 2008 to 2019 Fansonline.net Ltd

FansOnline.net Ltd
Unit 7
Brentnall Center
Gilkes Street
Middlesbrough
Cleveland
TS1 5AP
Fansonline Home | About Fansonline | Contact Fansonline | Advertise On Fansonline | Privacy Policy | TOS
10.0.166.103