NRL Fantasy 2022 - Part 67 - Only two threads to go

wolfking wrote:If someone wants to attack my avatar, go for it.  Do your worst.  If not I'll try and edit it with something in the morning.  My lack of skills will be exposed however lol.

White Lightning wrote:This Manly episode just proves why politics/religion should not be mixed with sport. All identity politics does is separates people into warring groups & all you produce is hatred & more division. So all you do is push people apart not bring them together.

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:

Ill do something for ya mate.

Feels like my only meaningful contribution to the forum these days

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:

Ill do something for ya mate.

Feels like my only meaningful contribution to the forum these days

easytiger wrote:

Sometimes people need a push and the space to find understanding.

Sometimes a shared common interest can allow the platform and motivation to bridge a divide and consider a new perspective.

There's been multiple perspectives on here already, you can't tell me the better state would have been to sweep things under the carpet and pretend everything is fine

The Bludger#2 wrote:

In the interests of some deeper reflection into Bludger's post - the truth be told it is not really all that complex

The truth is, this is a complex issue 

These players (I believe they are all from an islander cultural background) are all young men. Their views are a reflection of the Bible preaching and teaching that they have been exposed to.

Colonization is the issue here - they are parroting a worldview that was forced upon a very different culture

I honestly doubt they have investigated the whole issue very deeply and more than likely are just parroting the teachings they may have heard in their community.

This was done in the name of Jesus - but with the intention to take control of land and resources

Rather than condemning them for being 'homophobes', we should encourage them to discuss their concerns with a player support person (perhaps a team chaplain) who can explain to them the teachings of Jesus that instruct us to be accepting and loving towards all people. (Just a thought).

So, I thought I'd add my perspective for you to ponder.

I am a Christian.
I believe in God (yes, the "invisible man in the sky")
I work in a Christian School (yes, that means a whole range of negative media coverage) and in my school we have had a number of students (both male and female, and trans) who are on a journey in which they are questioning their sexuality, or their gender identity. None of these students have been condemned, isolated or rejected. Indeed our vice captain a couple of years ago came out as gay and we (the staff) accepted him as he is, because he was created by God and is deserving of dignity because of who he is, not his sexuality. 

This student IS his sexuality. He is gay and he is deserving of dignity and celebration BECAUSE he is gay

Some thoughts for you:
1. Quoting the Old Testament to support a position (for or against the LGBTQIA+ community) is naive. It is the "Old" Testament and therefore does not represent the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
2. Jesus' taught his followers about the 'Kingdom of God' - it is characterised by acceptance, respect, inclusion of all and most importantly GRACE. 
This means: we (Christians) accept that we all sin (do selfish things that disrespect or hurt ourselves and others) and that God does not rank or categorise different "sins" - it is all rebellion against God. 
This means we are all equally in need of saving - and Jesus paid the debt (as outlined in the Old Testament covenant) so we can all be forgiven and re-connect with our creator (God - the invisible man in the sky). It is a free gift and I do not have the right to judge anyone else's journey with God. 
If you choose to not believe this - that is totally fine. God respects your individual rights and so do I (as should all followers of Jesus).

Pacific Islanders - or anyone else for that matter - do not need saving from sin

The New Testament is actually quite clear on how we (followers of Jesus) should treat other people.
He stated that how we treat "the least of these" - in other words the people on the fringes of society; the poor, the vulnerable etc. (which means definitely members of the LGBTQIA+ community) is a direct reflection of our faithfulness to Him. This means, if we mistreat, are uncaring, harsh, bullying etc. to the "least", Jesus will judge us. You may not believe this, but Christians do and should follow this teaching.

The most famous verse in the Bible - John 3:16 isn't just a cliche`. It means Jesus directly stated that he loves "all the world" - that's everyone, regardless of sexuality, gender identity or whatever (I would go so far as to say, even Queenslanders!!) EVERYONE. That's being inclusive. 

The rest of this stuff here is related to Worldview - here is where we do have a choice - ethics comes down to reflexive practice... the issue here was never about Christianity - it was about the basis of the reflection [Christianity] - which in Pacific Island communities was evangelical and linked to survival... ultimately we should be reflecting on how these adults have come to hate other forms of love so vehemently - it did not arise from a cultural context - it arose from a [historical] religious context

Please know that there are a lot of Christians in society - you probably work with them - who do not judge the LGBTQIA+ community. 
I am saddened that these young men have expressed their personal views on an issue that they probably do not really understand and this has led to Christianity as a whole being diminished. 

Christianity - where it has had detrimental outcomes should be criticized and reflected upon but this was never the issue here. The young adults who did this - are emboldened by a colonial religion

Thanks for reading.

I greatly appreciate what you were trying to do here Bludger - but Christians have not been persecuted in this case and I do not believe this was ever part of the issue - I whole-heartedly welcome your contribution - but ultimately - it does not make much sense to hide behind religious teachings - we all have responsibility to protect our personal integrity - and try to become more aware of the basis for out ethical foundations

If the moderators feel that my continued involvement with this forum is going to cause undue arguments or negativity - please let me know and I will no longer be a part of it.
I do enjoy all of the footy chat and even copping a blast from Queenslanders at SOO time. So, I would miss all the fun. 

I did not see any evidence of you contributing to any negativity or being the cause of disharmony and I really did not want to share my reaction to your words - but in the interest of promoting deeper reflection I did

The Bludger.

wolfking wrote:If someone wants to attack my avatar, go for it.  Do your worst.

wolfking wrote:

The Bludger#2 wrote:
If the moderators feel that my continued involvement with this forum is going to cause undue arguments or negativity - please let me know and I will no longer be a part of it.
I do enjoy all of the footy chat and even copping a blast from Queenslanders at SOO time. So, I would miss all the fun. 

The Bludger.

The Dolphin Conspiracies wrote:

Apologies in advance - but I feel this needs saying

Revraiser wrote:And someone had an issue with some coffee chat... pffftt... gimme a break !

Revraiser wrote:And someone had an issue with some coffee chat... pffftt... gimme a break !

AL wrote:

I’ll have a crack - your avatar is absolute horseshit.

How’s that?