Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Folau and Rugby Australia 'have both come out winners'" video.

@vickicaravella6087 Yes, some heterosexual couples need to involve a third party. But so what? That doesn't change that your claim that homosexual couples can have kids is wrong. And homosexuals are around 1-2% of the population, for what it's worth.
2
Edward Gross "The money must be donated or he will show his soul is not pure..." That does not follow.
2
@probably_a_pro4118 They weren't "blatant homophobia". A phobia is an irrational fear, and nobody's shown that his comments were based on an irrational fear rather than fact. It's also not at all clear that he breached his contract (and if he did, the contract itself is bigoted and discriminatory).
1
Edward Gross How do these two comments of yours not contradict each other? * "God will judge him for his greed" * "only he and God know if greed has entered his heart."
1
@thomasmcgillivray3997 First, that's hearsay. Second, God changes people. Third, so what? Jesus dined with sinners because he loved them, even though he didn't agree with their sin.
1
@vickicaravella6087 Seriously? Homosexual couples cannot have kids without involving a third party. As I'm sure you know.
1
@thomasmcgillivray3997 "It's a bit like ex smokers eh...they can become the harshest critics of smokers....so often the way eh..." That can be true. But as I pointed out, there are other explanations, and even though your point is true, it doesn't follow that this is the case with Folau. Perhaps it is, but equally, perhaps it's not.
1
zacthecatty35 I agree that no legal precedent will be set, and that's not a good thing. But that doesn't mean that he lost, nor does it mean that the law stays the same. A court case would only determine how this case came under the law; it would not have changed the law. That's what parliament is for. Your reference to bigots makes you sound like the bigoted one. And what is homophobic about disagreeing with so-called same-sex marriage? That seems to be just name-calling.
1
How is he "clearly short upstairs"?
1
zacthecatty35 What makes you think he lost?
1
@alexandermelbaus2351 Absolutely correct, Alexander. If you haven't seen it, you might be very interested in this clip, in which non-Christian historian Tom Holland is doing the talking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIJ9gK47Ogw Which part of Melbourne are you from?
1
I think it's correct that the constitution doesn't affect this case, as that section is about the Commonwealth imposing a religious restriction, not about other bodies doing so.
1
@nickheath1927 Rugby Australia is not a government department. Laws might (try to) protect religious freedom in all or various cases, but section 116 of the constitution only restricts the federal government from discriminating on religious grounds (as I understand it). That is, it doesn't affect state governments nor non-government bodies.
1
@nickheath1927 It actually says that when a state law conflicts with a federal law the federal law prevails. But that's also in the context of what laws the commonwealth can make; they can only make laws in areas that the constitution allows, or that the states have agreed to.
1
Was it this very video (I'm not sure now) that said that with the settlement, he would be repaying everyone who donated to his cause.
1
@happychappy1974 Didn't you see my comment?
1
Goughs Bastard That reference to "religious bigots" make you seem like the bigot. But I agree that the lack of a court settlement means that discrimination like this could happen again, so it resolved little.
1
Goughs Bastard I don't see any evidence that the "guy above" is a bigot. Sure, not all the public was behind Folau, but a lot were, so I don't think the statement is unreasonable. What's your evidence that it was never about freedom or speech or religious persecution? It seems pretty clear that that's exactly what it was about. And yes, our freedoms are being trampled by the Marxist left.
1
Goughs Bastard "You're probably right, I was a little OTT last night with 'bigot'." Thank you. "None of Izzy's freedoms were curtailed then or now, we're still the same nation." He was sacked. That meant that he wasn't free to make the comments he did. On the other hand, he didn't do anything to atheists, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. He merely expressed a view. He didn't curtail anyone's freedoms, but Rugby Australia curtailed his freedom to play rugby. "There's no evidence at all it was ever about religious persecution,..." Sure. He was sacked for quoting (albeit paraphrasing) from the the Bible, and Raelene Castle said that the problem was quoting that from the Bible; it was most definitely about what Christianity (a religion) teaches. "Factually, if Izzy had lost, people could still get up & say drunks & liars are going to burn eternally. I haven't met anyone who wants that curtailed." People could still say it. And depending on the circumstances, they could be sacked too. Clearly, Rugby Australia or someone connected to them did want that curtailed. "What Marxist left?" The Marxist left that control much of the media and the education system and some corporations, as well as many politicians, especially in the Victorian Labor government. That Marxist left. I agree I wouldn't use that term of the current Federal government, but then we weren't talking about them. "Marxist left (another inaccurate term)..." What's inaccurate about it?
1
@probably_a_pro4118 Collins dictionary (British English): "intense hatred or fear of homosexual people or homosexuality" (American English): "irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" Further, the the term "homophobia" was coined George Weinberg in 1969 with the intention that it referred to something irrational. And it is commonly used as a term of abuse. In addition, there is no evidence that Folau dislikes or is prejudiced against homosexual people , as opposed to the lifestyle. Also, he hasn't created "a system of hatred", whatever that exactly means. It's not hate to tell the truth. In fact, it's love to correct someone.
1
Edward Gross No, he didn't "take" money from the public. The public gave it to him. And no, he did not take money from Rugby Australia in his fight for the Lord's work. He (apparently) accepted a payment in compensation for being sacked. And no again, keeping money is not in itself greed; that depends on his motive, which you've not shown and in all probability can't show. And finally, I'd suggest that you have no idea what he's going to do with the money. You are simply assuming, and assuming bad motive.
1
Edward Gross He might well give the money away, and yes, that would make him look good. But he might also have valid reasons not to, and if those reason are indeed valid, then that's nothing to condemn him for.
1
Edward Gross What greed? You haven't shown that he is greedy.
1
@crazyprayingmantis5596 "Would you say that conquering death violates the laws of nature, Therefore is supernatural?" Yes, I would. "If so, do we have a way to confirm that anything supernatural exists?" That question seems somewhat back to front. It's like asking if the existence of tyre tracks suggests that a car had been there, then asking if we have any evidence of a car. The tyre tracks are evidence of a car. Unless you are asking about further evidence, in which case, yes, there is plenty.
1
Edward Gross The contradiction is that although you say that only he and God will know, you've been making comments as though you already think he's greedy. You are commenting as though it's been established that he's greedy. For example, your comment that "God will judge him for his greed" assumes that he is greedy.
1
Edward Gross I'm not saying that it's wrong to pass judgement (and yes, I did it too). We are instructed to judge righteously. I'm saying that you were passing judgement on Folau's supposed greed, without establishing that he was in fact greedy.
1
Edward Gross I believe that it's a duty of every Christian to earn as much as he can (balancing that with other duties), so that he can give to the Lord's work as much as possible. So Folau trying to earn more is not, in itself, an indication of greed. Matthew 19:21 was in reference to a particular case where the person loved money more than anything. It's not a command for everybody.
1
Jesus was very visible, and conquered death, so I think that contest has been decided already.
1
@martinpercy12 "The fact that you even ask that question shows your short upstairs too." Again, how does it show that? "It was of course God's will for...[snipped]" That's just mockery, not argument. "This isn't about discriminating against religion, it's about standing up to someone that's intolerant towards other people." Ah, yes, the old intolerance of the intolerant. Folau expressed a view. Someone else forced their view onto him. Who is really the intolerant one? "The world would be a much better place without people that hate on others. One day you might have an epiphany and realise that." Oh, I know that already. And yes, it would be better if God-haters stopped trying to falsely accuse others of hate. Perhaps one day you might have an epiphany and realise that.
1