Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as
@dogmeat@MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job. -
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as
@dogmeat@MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
@bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
Yeah, not even sure how I did that.
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
Really not sure I agree with this. I am a big believer in freedom of speech - not freedom from consequences, but freedom of speech. The bar that an employer should have to clear to fire someone for expressing a view in their personal life is (in my opinion) very high. Expressing an opinion on the morality and religious implications of others activities doesn't get near that for me.
Otherwise where do you stop? Don't like the Mana party - so fire people for being active in there. Or Act - too extreme, push them out the door. It's a bloody slippery slope.
Finally, 38% of the voters didn't think that gay marriage should be legal. Isn't that also a form of hate speech by these metrics?
Disclaimer: I strongly disagree with Izzy
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
@bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.So is it not just me that for some odd reason get's MR and DM confused?
:astonished_face:
-
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
@pukunui said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
Don't you start with your religophobic hate speech ...
-
@pukunui said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Still a fluffybunny. Even more self righteous that Pocock.
I don't really care what he believes or thinks is the truth. He should keep it to himself while he is getting paid millions of dollars to represent an organisation that has done a lot of work to break down these sorts of barriers and include gay players and fans.
Im sure if someone told him he was genetically inferior because of the colour of his skin he wouldn't be as protective of their beliefs as he is of his own homophobic bullshit.
Fuck him and his outdated belief system.
Don't you start with your religophobic hate speech ...
@booboo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Don't you start with your religophobic hate speech ...
I have a mate who's a minister in the anglican church. They have been struggling with how to deal with homosexuality for decades. There's apparently a reading of scripture that says it's fine, and another that says it's not fine. So both opinions are likely to be acceptable.
It's also a bit of a 'hot button' topic, but it's not as important to me as other issues in the world.
-
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Cool. But if his employer says 'please don't air personal views that are contrary to our company values' then he should bite his tongue.
Only if that's in his contract. Even then I'd argue he should be free to say whatever he wants (within the bounds of legislation) as long as he doesn't disparage his employer and if his employer doesn't like it, they can elect to not renew his contract.
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as
@dogmeat@MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.
Many public servants for example, need to project a face of impartial, non partisanship. They may hold strong private views and principles but put them aside when doing their job.@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
-
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
-
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
Or they just keep their out of touch opinions to themselves?
-
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
Folau is entitled to his own beliefs but he clearly choses to put his head above the parapet, same as the not as big in real life Pocock. They both get derision for it and so be it. Folau should have just ignored the guy and not try to give him "guidance" (that bit almost made me spit out my coffee from laughter).
I also find it odd that he still talks about only ever wanting to play NRL yet he's still in rugby.
I like the Players Voice site, there's been some interesting reads on there.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
Folau is entitled to his own beliefs but he clearly choses to put his head above the parapet, same as the not as big in real life Pocock. They both get derision for it and so be it. Folau should have just ignored the guy and not try to give him "guidance" (that bit almost made me spit out my coffee from laughter).
I also find it odd that he still talks about only ever wanting to play NRL yet he's still in rugby.
I like the Players Voice site, there's been some interesting reads on there.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
Or they just keep their out of touch opinions to themselves?
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@crucial said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It is in his contract though. But then, back to the reality (as @dogmeat @MajorRage lays out) where his services are deemed more important than their rules.
As to your second point, you are free to say what you want but you must take the consequences of that against your contract.I haven't seen his contract, so I'll defer to your knowledge. But my opinion on the baroader matter isn't changed.
@virgil said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Must be cool having your highest profile and best player from the age of stoning adulterers and drowning witches.
cough, Michael Jones...
Cough, Sir Michael Jones...
A lot of religious rugby players out there, can’t recall any with the archaic beliefs that Falou keeps putting out there
Perhaps some of them haven't been asked on social media. Or someone hasn't taken offence and made an issue of it?
Or they just keep their out of touch opinions to themselves?
Perhaps to them, their opinions aren't out of touch. Just because you might not like what they have to say, doesn't mean they should be silenced.
@nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Folau is entitled to his own beliefs but he clearly choses to put his head above the parapet, same as the not as big in real life Pocock. They both get derision for it and so be it.
I'm not saying Folau should be exempt from criticism - I'm just the person who says while he's not disparaging his employer, sponsors etc. and isn't doing anything illegal, he's allowed to say what he wants.
-
Behold the TRUTH according to the word of the LORD as handed down in the BIBLE:
Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV) 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So does Israel like him a bit of crustacean?
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
I think it has been blown out of proportion at this point. Everyone might just do better to shut up and rugby.
-
Behold the TRUTH according to the word of the LORD as handed down in the BIBLE:
Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV) 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So does Israel like him a bit of crustacean?
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
I think it has been blown out of proportion at this point. Everyone might just do better to shut up and rugby.
@nta said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Behold the TRUTH according to the word of the LORD as handed down in the BIBLE:
Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV) 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So does Israel like him a bit of crustacean?
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
I think it has been blown out of proportion at this point. Everyone might just do better to shut up and rugby.
If Izzy thinks i am giving up mudcrab, prawns, and moreton bay bugs, he is so very very much mistaken
#chillicrab4life
-
Behold the TRUTH according to the word of the LORD as handed down in the BIBLE:
Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV) 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So does Israel like him a bit of crustacean?
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
I think it has been blown out of proportion at this point. Everyone might just do better to shut up and rugby.
@nta said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Behold the TRUTH according to the word of the LORD as handed down in the BIBLE:
Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV) 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So does Israel like him a bit of crustacean?
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
I think it has been blown out of proportion at this point. Everyone might just do better to shut up and rugby.
Yup, just need to let it blow over. The outrage mob will move on before long and it will be a distant memory. Just gotta stop fanning the flames.
Also, there is not a single religious person of any faith that takes all of their holy books at face value, namely because their holy books are full of contradictions.
-
Behold the TRUTH according to the word of the LORD as handed down in the BIBLE:
Leviticus 11:9-12 King James Version (KJV) 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So does Israel like him a bit of crustacean?
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
I think it has been blown out of proportion at this point. Everyone might just do better to shut up and rugby.
@nta said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
As an atheist, I've never understood that line of argument: You believe this, therefore you have to believe it all. Seems to be a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
-
@nta said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Yes, the bible is ridiculous. But if he wants to believe in it, then he has to take the whole lot at face value.
As an atheist, I've never understood that line of argument: You believe this, therefore you have to believe it all. Seems to be a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
@antipodean I think it comes down to people picking and choosing the bits they like, and feeling they're superior for doing it.
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Also, there is not a single religious person of any faith that takes all of their holy books at face value, namely because their holy books are full of contradictions.
So we can now move away from the religious angle and get on with the rugby talk. Fully aware that I was part of it, but I've finished, so the rest of you can move on with me
