Planet Rugby Forum

ScarfaceClaw wrote:Just when you thought this thread was running out of steam...

Oceanbreeze wrote:

ScarfaceClaw wrote:Just when you thought this thread was running out of steam...

I usually have that effect!

Thomas wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:He will win the case. The foundation of most western society is Christianity and Australia is no different. It was Christianity in Australia that managed the changes from when they were uncivilized convicts hell bent on crucifying the natives to what they now see themselves as so called developed beings. The reason Izzy was sacked is clear as day light. He quoted from the Bible. To accept religous freedom means to accept the Bible in it's entirety. You cannot as a country pick and chose which part you accept and which part you don't. It's pretty simple either you accept the whole truth and nothing but the truth or you renounce it in it's entirety.

I agree with you when it comes to followers of batshit stuff. I don't see it as some kind of smorgasbord. If it says gays are bad then gays are bad. Any gay who claims to be a batshit follower should be cast out. If it says women should be seen and not heard in church then they should STFU. Next thing you know the Catholic Church will have gay priests marrying each other.

The World is moving at a faster rate than any of us can imagine. We've had this a religous person sacked for expressing their views on their personal social media account and we've had the same people who supported that move by RA turn around and say that transgender people can't take part in all female sports. The contradictions is all over the place and present in every ideology. Personally I prefer ideology to develop organically. It's when they start policing or forcing people that I have a problem with!

Are you referring to me?

I said I'd be happy for my trans mate to play sport.

You'd probably stone them to death.

Big Nipper wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

ScarfaceClaw wrote:Just when you thought this thread was running out of steam...

I usually have that effect!

If you are the brightest Fiji has to offer I really feel for the place

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Thomas wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Did he? Which part?

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Did he? Which part?

So you're not going to address the trans part of your claim in relation to them not competing in all female sports?

Plastic Sarrie wrote:Has anyone ever adequately explained why the like of Folau are fine with mixed fabrics (levticus, 19:19) and tattoos (leviticus, 19:28) but hate the gays?

sockwithaticket wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:Has anyone ever adequately explained why the like of Folau are fine with mixed fabrics (levticus, 19:19) and tattoos (leviticus, 19:28) but hate the gays?

You mean aside from hypocrisy and pre-existing bias? No.

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:Has anyone ever adequately explained why the like of Folau are fine with mixed fabrics (levticus, 19:19) and tattoos (leviticus, 19:28) but hate the gays?

You mean aside from hypocrisy and pre-existing bias? No.

And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.

“And these you shall detest among the birds;[a] they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

“All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

“And by these you shall become unclean. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. Every animal that parts the hoof but is not cloven-footed or does not chew the cud is unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean. And all that walk on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours, are unclean to you. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.

“And these are unclean to you among the swarming things that swarm on the ground: the mole rat, the mouse, the great lizard of any kind, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are unclean to you among all that swarm. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening. And anything on which any of them falls when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is an article of wood or a garment or a skin or a sack, any article that is used for any purpose. It must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it shall be clean. And if any of them falls into any earthenware vessel, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it. Any food in it that could be eaten, on which water comes, shall be unclean. And all drink that could be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean. And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean. Whether oven or stove, it shall be broken in pieces. They are unclean and shall remain unclean for you. Nevertheless, a spring or a cistern holding water shall be clean, but whoever touches a carcass in them shall be unclean. And if any part of their carcass falls upon any seed grain that is to be sown, it is clean, but if water is put on the seed and any part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

“And if any animal which you may eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and whoever eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening.

“Every swarming thing that swarms on the ground is detestable; it shall not be eaten. Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable. You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Big Nipper wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

ScarfaceClaw wrote:Just when you thought this thread was running out of steam...

I usually have that effect!

If you are the brightest Fiji has to offer I really feel for the place

I've never claimed anything about my academic ability. Usually it's the white people bringing that up because it makes them feel superior. Difference though is unlike other ethnic minority Fijians haven't been taken over by white people in their own land or were forced to be ruled over by them. We've ceeded and allied ourselves with other empires but we have always been in and ruled our land for centuries. And that empowers me to call out any bullshit given by white supremacist and their flawed ideological beliefs.

Oceanbreeze wrote:I've got a masters in Economics and hoping to do my PHD in England at either Oxford University or the London School of Economics.

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

If nothing else, the thing about shellfish (at the time) makes sense as a way of avoiding food poisoning. Not so sure about the hoofed stuff though?

6.Jones wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:Has anyone ever adequately explained why the like of Folau are fine with mixed fabrics (levticus, 19:19) and tattoos (leviticus, 19:28) but hate the gays?

You mean aside from hypocrisy and pre-existing bias? No.

And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.

“And these you shall detest among the birds;[a] they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

“All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

“And by these you shall become unclean. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. Every animal that parts the hoof but is not cloven-footed or does not chew the cud is unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean. And all that walk on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours, are unclean to you. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.

“And these are unclean to you among the swarming things that swarm on the ground: the mole rat, the mouse, the great lizard of any kind, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are unclean to you among all that swarm. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening. And anything on which any of them falls when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is an article of wood or a garment or a skin or a sack, any article that is used for any purpose. It must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it shall be clean. And if any of them falls into any earthenware vessel, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it. Any food in it that could be eaten, on which water comes, shall be unclean. And all drink that could be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean. And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean. Whether oven or stove, it shall be broken in pieces. They are unclean and shall remain unclean for you. Nevertheless, a spring or a cistern holding water shall be clean, but whoever touches a carcass in them shall be unclean. And if any part of their carcass falls upon any seed grain that is to be sown, it is clean, but if water is put on the seed and any part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

“And if any animal which you may eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and whoever eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening.

“Every swarming thing that swarms on the ground is detestable; it shall not be eaten. Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable. You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

That all seems perfectly reasonable, except the insects with four feet bit.

ScarfaceClaw wrote:Just when you thought this thread was running out of steam...

sockwithaticket wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

If nothing else, the thing about shellfish (at the time) makes sense as a way of avoiding food poisoning. Not so sure about the hoofed stuff though?

Ditto pork. Pre-refrigeration pork and shellfish were huge no-nos, but that, if anything, reinforces that it's a document very much of it's time that no longer has direct relevance to how we live now.

A lot of stuff like that was effectively social policy designed to help people, but the only way to command observance was to tie it to faith/the scary man who can smite and send you to hell.

6.Jones wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

If nothing else, the thing about shellfish (at the time) makes sense as a way of avoiding food poisoning. Not so sure about the hoofed stuff though?

Ditto pork. Pre-refrigeration pork and shellfish were huge no-nos, but that, if anything, reinforces that it's a document very much of it's time that no longer has direct relevance to how we live now.

A lot of stuff like that was effectively social policy designed to help people, but the only way to command observance was to tie it to faith/the scary man who can smite and send you to hell.

That's true. It's easy to poke holes in Leviticus now, but what he was saying was perfectly suited to living a post iron age life.

Raggs wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

If nothing else, the thing about shellfish (at the time) makes sense as a way of avoiding food poisoning. Not so sure about the hoofed stuff though?

Ditto pork. Pre-refrigeration pork and shellfish were huge no-nos, but that, if anything, reinforces that it's a document very much of it's time that no longer has direct relevance to how we live now.

A lot of stuff like that was effectively social policy designed to help people, but the only way to command observance was to tie it to faith/the scary man who can smite and send you to hell.

That's true. It's easy to poke holes in Leviticus now, but what he was saying was perfectly suited to living a post iron age life.

Except... no.

No rounding your head? No exposing your sisters nakedness (you know, just in case). No carrying two different weights? No wearing mixed fibres?

And the whole health thing about pork? Pigs were only made "famous" much later, and aren't actually mentioned to my knowledge, they simply fall in with a load of other animals that aren't allowed, such as horses and rabbits, and got raised by name by one rabbi much later.

No mixing meat and dairy is a later one (not sure that's in the old testament or another book), though originally it was just no eating a goat that had been boiled in it's mothers milk, it was later interpretations that has brought it all the way to no eating tuna with cow's milk...

A lot of what's in there is just pretty batshit crazy.

EDIT - And only scaly fish, rather than smooth fish? Half the places were on the river or seaside, shellfish would have been fine fresh, as would eels etc.

The vast majority of rules weren't there for much good reason, and a lot were simply there to distinguish them from other tribes in the area and their beliefs (the goat milk one being a favourite).

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:He will win the case. The foundation of most western society is Christianity and Australia is no different. It was Christianity in Australia that managed the changes from when they were uncivilized convicts hell bent on crucifying the natives to what they now see themselves as so called developed beings. The reason Izzy was sacked is clear as day light. He quoted from the Bible. To accept religous freedom means to accept the Bible in it's entirety. You cannot as a country pick and chose which part you accept and which part you don't. It's pretty simple either you accept the whole truth and nothing but the truth or you renounce it in it's entirety.

I agree with you when it comes to followers of batshit stuff. I don't see it as some kind of smorgasbord. If it says gays are bad then gays are bad. Any gay who claims to be a batshit follower should be cast out. If it says women should be seen and not heard in church then they should STFU. Next thing you know the Catholic Church will have gay priests marrying each other.

The World is moving at a faster rate than any of us can imagine. We've had this a religous person sacked for expressing their views on their personal social media account and we've had the same people who supported that move by RA turn around and say that transgender people can't take part in all female sports. The contradictions is all over the place and present in every ideology. Personally I prefer ideology to develop organically. It's when they start policing or forcing people that I have a problem with!

Raggs wrote:

6.Jones wrote: That's true. It's easy to poke holes in Leviticus now, but what he was saying was perfectly suited to living a post iron age life.

Except... no.

No rounding your head? No exposing your sisters nakedness (you know, just in case). No carrying two different weights? No wearing mixed fibres?

And the whole health thing about pork? Pigs were only made "famous" much later, and aren't actually mentioned to my knowledge, they simply fall in with a load of other animals that aren't allowed, such as horses and rabbits, and got raised by name by one rabbi much later.

No mixing meat and dairy is a later one (not sure that's in the old testament or another book), though originally it was just no eating a goat that had been boiled in it's mothers milk, it was later interpretations that has brought it all the way to no eating tuna with cow's milk...

A lot of what's in there is just pretty batshit crazy.

EDIT - And only scaly fish, rather than smooth fish? Half the places were on the river or seaside, shellfish would have been fine fresh, as would eels etc.

The vast majority of rules weren't there for much good reason, and a lot were simply there to distinguish them from other tribes in the area and their beliefs (the goat milk one being a favourite).

fishfoodie wrote:
and this is one that really is bizarre; even the different Jewish groups apply different standards according to the tradition; so that if you're from a Ashkenazi background, you can have milk in your coffee in the afternoon, if you have meat at breakfast; but if your Yemeni, you have to wait 8 hours before you can get your dairy kick

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Plastic Sarrie wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:
and this is one that really is bizarre; even the different Jewish groups apply different standards according to the tradition; so that if you're from a Ashkenazi background, you can have milk in your coffee in the afternoon, if you have meat at breakfast; but if your Yemeni, you have to wait 8 hours before you can get your dairy kick

My favourite mad rule is the theological argument over whether or not opening the fridge is work. And from memory it is, because it switches the light on, and switching a light on = work

Plastic Sarrie wrote:It's absolutely mad.

I sort of get the "Saturday / Sunday is a day of rest" thing, but surely when you're having that kind of debate you have to take a step back and realise it's a nonsense?

Anonymous. wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:He will win the case. The foundation of most western society is Christianity and Australia is no different. It was Christianity in Australia that managed the changes from when they were uncivilized convicts hell bent on crucifying the natives to what they now see themselves as so called developed beings. The reason Izzy was sacked is clear as day light. He quoted from the Bible. To accept religous freedom means to accept the Bible in it's entirety. You cannot as a country pick and chose which part you accept and which part you don't. It's pretty simple either you accept the whole truth and nothing but the truth or you renounce it in it's entirety.

I agree with you when it comes to followers of batshit stuff. I don't see it as some kind of smorgasbord. If it says gays are bad then gays are bad. Any gay who claims to be a batshit follower should be cast out. If it says women should be seen and not heard in church then they should STFU. Next thing you know the Catholic Church will have gay priests marrying each other.

The World is moving at a faster rate than any of us can imagine. We've had this a religous person sacked for expressing their views on their personal social media account and we've had the same people who supported that move by RA turn around and say that transgender people can't take part in all female sports. The contradictions is all over the place and present in every ideology. Personally I prefer ideology to develop organically. It's when they start policing or forcing people that I have a problem with!

What the fudge has o e got to do with the other. Let's just agree to disagree about Izzys supposed right to damage his employers business

FairWeather_Aussie wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Trans shouldn’t participate in any female sports.

I was a decent rugby player, although mostly at the drinking level, but played high level touch rugby. At my peak, if gender reassigned, I’d have been (this was 10 years ago) in the elite of touch rugby women and a pretty strong female rugby player. But I’m not female of course. Transgender should only be allowed to participate as their original sex.

Big Nipper wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

ScarfaceClaw wrote:Just when you thought this thread was running out of steam...

I usually have that effect!

If you are the brightest Fiji has to offer I really feel for the place

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Anonymous. wrote: What the fudge has o e got to do with the other. Let's just agree to disagree about Izzys supposed right to damage his employers business

When Izzy signed a contract it doesn't mean he's surrending his liberty. His employers business needs or contract doesn't supercedes basic fundamental rights. So yeah agree to disagree.

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Did he? Which part?

So you're not going to address the trans part of your claim in relation to them not competing in all female sports?

Zakar wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Thomas wrote:Honestly don't know what transgender sport has to do with Israel Folau.

It's all a bit weird, really. Like you have no idea what's going on.

Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking. That post was deemed by RA to breach their policy on inclusiveness with the LGBT community. Transgender are part of that community. You may not like it but they are. So when you've posted stating you don't want trans to participate in all female sports you've contradicted yourself from your support of Izzy sacking by RA.

Did he? Which part?

So you're not going to address the trans part of your claim in relation to them not competing in all female sports?

So you're not going to address the fact that Folou didn't quote the bible?

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

Anonymous. wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:While that's a comprehensive run down of what God seemed to arbitrarily decide was edible, what does it contribute to gays not being ok yet wearing multi-fabric clothing and getting inked are fine despite the bible ostensibly prohibiting all three (plus other restrictions that aren't observed)?

It's bullshit mate. There is not a god in the skys who would prohibit bacon

Oceanbreeze wrote: Israel Folau posted a quote from the bible that led to his sacking.

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Oceanbreeze wrote:He will win the case. The foundation of most western society is Christianity and Australia is no different. It was Christianity in Australia that managed the changes from when they were uncivilized convicts hell bent on crucifying the natives to what they now see themselves as so called developed beings. The reason Izzy was sacked is clear as day light. He quoted from the Bible. To accept religous freedom means to accept the Bible in it's entirety. You cannot as a country pick and chose which part you accept and which part you don't. It's pretty simple either you accept the whole truth and nothing but the truth or you renounce it in it's entirety.

I agree with you when it comes to followers of batshit stuff. I don't see it as some kind of smorgasbord. If it says gays are bad then gays are bad. Any gay who claims to be a batshit follower should be cast out. If it says women should be seen and not heard in church then they should STFU. Next thing you know the Catholic Church will have gay priests marrying each other.

The World is moving at a faster rate than any of us can imagine. We've had this a religous person sacked for expressing their views on their personal social media account and we've had the same people who supported that move by RA turn around and say that transgender people can't take part in all female sports. The contradictions is all over the place and present in every ideology. Personally I prefer ideology to develop organically. It's when they start policing or forcing people that I have a problem with!

What the fudge has o e got to do with the other. Let's just agree to disagree about Izzys supposed right to damage his employers business

When Izzy signed a contract it doesn't mean he's surrending his liberty. His employers business needs or contract doesn't supercedes basic fundamental rights. So yeah agree to disagree.