Biblical matters

[Jackie Brown]

You need to stop persisting with the anonymous author thing as well, because you're wrong

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... 6055482534

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

You need to be better informed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[UlsterAreBrill]

There's a lot of contradictions here. Just because they are from 2000 years ago doesn't discredit them, nor make them unreliable. How exactly would they do so? Would you deny the existence of Nero in spite of corroborated historical records because they are from so long ago? Alexander the Great? Lincoln? The American Civil war? Are those people or events fact or fiction?

You can't ask for primary sources, get given them, and then label them unreliable because they are old. A primary source from those events can't be anything but old, other wise it's not a primary source. To say the person needs to be living to esteem something "factual" is nonsense

Brill sometimes I'm not sure just how old you are. I'm pretty certain now that you are trying to get me to do your homework. Sources become less reliable with age. Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc. If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

Jesus was an relatively unknown person. There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him. Lincoln has pictures taken of him and he was around during the era of the printing press. Are you just as certain in the existence of Jesus as Lincoln? Do you think the evidence is of equal quality?

Yes, you got me. I’m actually 14, I’ve private messaged you my homework

Anyway, there are major flaws in your argument

Sources become less reliable with age

No, they don’t. For example, if I wrote an account today of what I did, and then this day next month wrote down what I did today, the older one would actually be more reliable. Both are primary sources, but the reliability could be questioned in the later source because it is just that

Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc.

Should the disciples have live tweeted the events? Taken some pictures? Regardless, you wouldn’t question the reliability of recorded events happening elsewhere by the same medium to the same extent you are scrutinising the events revolving around Jesus

If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

So now you’re saying Nero etc didn’t exist? But I thought there was old writings about them? What if they were tampered with? Maybe Nero didn’t exist after all

Jesus was an relatively unknown person

Relatively unknown yet one of the most well known people still over 2000 years later? How is that possible for a Palestinian in 30AD that didn’t exist?

There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him.

Nah, that info is all old so I don’t believe you. It’s probably been tampered with

[UlsterAreBrill]

You need to stop persisting with the anonymous author thing as well, because you're wrong

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... 6055482534

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they" — Jesus and the disciples — were doing, never about what "we" — Jesus and the rest of us — were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

You need to be better informed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I didn’t realise posting a snippet from an article validates all claims made, thanks for the heads up

[UlsterAreBrill]

Folau played the man not the ball.

While it's not my cup of tea, this stuff is not directed at any individual or group of individuals. Baggy gets censored for abusing UAFC members, not for abusing deities.

Yes he does, but here's the rub.
In the Christian spectrum, I'm a bit of a maverick and would be viewed as being more than a bit liberal.
I'm a long way from the fundamentalist Free P end of the broad church diaspora.
Having said that, my Christian faith is the be-all and end-all of my sense of personal identity. It is the foundational and defining principle of my life. It is more important to me than my nationality, my ethnicity, skin colour, my sexuality or anything else about me.
It is not a jacket I put on every Sunday and discard the rest of the week, although plenty of people do live that way, go to church on a Sunday and have a less personal, transactional relationship with Christianity. For me, it's a 24/7/52 way of life.

Now I don't expect non-believers to agree with my world view or even understand my beliefs and I don't expect them to live by the same set of rules as i do, that would be entirely wrong.
What I do expect is for non-believers to respect my right to believe. Despite the fact that to them, holding such "seemingly irrational" belief appears absurd and an absolute mystery. I don't think the fact that you don't get or understand something gives you the right to ridicule those who do get it.

I'll repeat myself for the record. Folau's post was crass, a cheap shot designed to be provocative. Just like the other memes floating around this week.
When the debate is reduced memes, jibes and name calling, I'm out.

Totally agree Snipe. While I don’t expect people to agree with me, I do have a bit of an interest in apologetics (mostly civilised, if possible) to at least try to get people to understand, in part, what I believe, as rationally as possible. For me I can totally understand why people wouldn’t believe in God, but you are right when you say just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you can ridicule it, which is what this thread has clearly become. Perhaps, like Billy V, it is time to say enough is enough

On that point, i’m Still waiting on the mods to answer - I assume it is fair game to post memes mocking other religions and world views? It’s only a joke, and should be seen as that - no offense intended whatsoever, as the forum rules don’t apply when its a bit of craic?

[Dave]

There's a lot of contradictions here. Just because they are from 2000 years ago doesn't discredit them, nor make them unreliable. How exactly would they do so? Would you deny the existence of Nero in spite of corroborated historical records because they are from so long ago? Alexander the Great? Lincoln? The American Civil war? Are those people or events fact or fiction?

You can't ask for primary sources, get given them, and then label them unreliable because they are old. A primary source from those events can't be anything but old, other wise it's not a primary source. To say the person needs to be living to esteem something "factual" is nonsense

Brill sometimes I'm not sure just how old you are. I'm pretty certain now that you are trying to get me to do your homework. Sources become less reliable with age. Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc. If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

Jesus was an relatively unknown person. There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him. Lincoln has pictures taken of him and he was around during the era of the printing press. Are you just as certain in the existence of Jesus as Lincoln? Do you think the evidence is of equal quality?

Yes, you got me. I’m actually 14, I’ve private messaged you my homework

Anyway, there are major flaws in your argument

Sources become less reliable with age

No, they don’t. For example, if I wrote an account today of what I did, and then this day next month wrote down what I did today, the older one would actually be more reliable. Both are primary sources, but the reliability could be questioned in the later source because it is just that

Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc.

Should the disciples have live tweeted the events? Taken some pictures? Regardless, you wouldn’t question the reliability of recorded events happening elsewhere to the same extent you are scrutinising the events revolving around Jesus

If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

So now you’re saying Nero etc didn’t exist? But I thought there was old writings about them? What if they were tampered with? Maybe Nero didn’t exist after all

Jesus was an relatively unknown person

Relatively unknown yet one of the most well known people still over 2000 years later? How is that possible for a Palestinian in 30AD that didn’t exist?

There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him.

Nah, that info is all old so I don’t believe you. It’s probably been tampered with

I never said Jesus didn't exist nor did I say Nero didn't exist. I challenged you to look at the evidence for both. Just as a comparison to maybe improve your own understanding. The story of Jesus being well known is not proof that he existed. Your example regarding your belief of how the age of the source does not effect validity is just too infantile to comment on.

I'm not applying extra scrutiny because it's Jesus. I actually spend a large part of my days critiquing scientific studies for a post grad. I can tell you I apply much more critical analysis in doing so. I also do not look at anything over 5 years old.

I notice you didn't answer my question. I think you were trying to be funny in parts of your post here so I'm not sure how seriously you are taking this. Perhaps your plans fell through in the end.

Anyway, good night.

[Dave]

[UlsterAreBrill]

There's a lot of contradictions here. Just because they are from 2000 years ago doesn't discredit them, nor make them unreliable. How exactly would they do so? Would you deny the existence of Nero in spite of corroborated historical records because they are from so long ago? Alexander the Great? Lincoln? The American Civil war? Are those people or events fact or fiction?

You can't ask for primary sources, get given them, and then label them unreliable because they are old. A primary source from those events can't be anything but old, other wise it's not a primary source. To say the person needs to be living to esteem something "factual" is nonsense

Brill sometimes I'm not sure just how old you are. I'm pretty certain now that you are trying to get me to do your homework. Sources become less reliable with age. Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc. If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

Jesus was an relatively unknown person. There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him. Lincoln has pictures taken of him and he was around during the era of the printing press. Are you just as certain in the existence of Jesus as Lincoln? Do you think the evidence is of equal quality?

Yes, you got me. I’m actually 14, I’ve private messaged you my homework

Anyway, there are major flaws in your argument

Sources become less reliable with age

No, they don’t. For example, if I wrote an account today of what I did, and then this day next month wrote down what I did today, the older one would actually be more reliable. Both are primary sources, but the reliability could be questioned in the later source because it is just that

Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc.

Should the disciples have live tweeted the events? Taken some pictures? Regardless, you wouldn’t question the reliability of recorded events happening elsewhere to the same extent you are scrutinising the events revolving around Jesus

If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

So now you’re saying Nero etc didn’t exist? But I thought there was old writings about them? What if they were tampered with? Maybe Nero didn’t exist after all

Jesus was an relatively unknown person

Relatively unknown yet one of the most well known people still over 2000 years later? How is that possible for a Palestinian in 30AD that didn’t exist?

There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him.

Nah, that info is all old so I don’t believe you. It’s probably been tampered with

I never said Jesus didn't exist nor did I say Nero didn't exist. I challenged you to look at the evidence for both. Just as a comparison to maybe improve your own understanding. The story of Jesus being well known is not proof that he existed. Your example regarding your belief of how the age of the source does not effect validity is just too infantile to comment on.

I'm not applying extra scrutiny because it's Jesus. I actually spend a large part of my days critiquing scientific studies for a post grad. I can tell you I apply much more critical analysis in doing so. I also do not look at anything over 5 years old.

I notice you didn't answer my question. I think you were trying to be funny in parts of your post here so I'm not sure how seriously you are taking this. Perhaps your plans fell through in the end.

Anyway, good night.

Again, there is much wrong with this. If you’re posting credentials, as I think I have said before, I studied history at post grad level, and continue to work in part in a historical field. But anyway, the major issue is that you’re going to apply the rules for scientific analysis to the rule of historical analysis, which doesn’t fit. Obviously in science you want the most up to date evidence or information because of the rate of change and introduction of new theories and trains of thought, that much is obvious

However you can’t apply quite the same logic to historical analysis because there is the different types of sources available and different types of evidence itself. The example I gave was basic but the principle remains true. Take Alexander the Great for example. You are going to put greater weight on evidence for his existence on documents and records, when corroborated, from closer to the time than you would compared to documents hundreds of years after. And you can’t claim the method of documentation cheapens the accuracy, because that’s all anyone had, so all sources are on a level playing field in that regard

In hypothetical terms, say a court cases is ongoing over 100 years. While all evidence would be valued, the evidence presented in the first 50 years of the case is,generally speaking, going to have much more sway than the last 50 because it’s more likely to come from eyewitnesses and be a primary source, so much more relevant to the case. I’m most cases the “new” evidence is actually less accurate, because, again generally speaking, it’s only hearsay or a secondary source

[Shan]

I think there are misunderstandings with some folk. Science and religious belief are not connected. What constitutes evidence for one is not the same for the other.

One cannot say for example that the bible would pass any scientific evidence test but the thing is it does not have to as that is not its purpose. It's purpose, largely, is to document religious truth. In other words it should not be questioned by a firm believer as it has all the answers, regardless of whether it has any accuracy or not in overall terms.


I'm not particularly in favour of mocking folk because of their belief or lack of belief in any of the claimed Gods. However there are two important things 1) Banning of fun-poking on any subject can only be desired by somebody who does not wish to have freedom and 2) There are and should be limits on this to ensure it does not degenerate into victimisation and the potential dangers that can bring via influencing others into negative and harmful action.....Falou would fall under that category for example.

[UlsterAreBrill]

I think there are misunderstandings with some folk. Science and religious belief are not connected. What constitutes evidence for one is not the same for the other.

One cannot say for example that the bible would pass any scientific evidence test but the thing is it does not have to as that is not its purpose. It's purpose, largely, is to document religious truth. In other words it should not be questioned by a firm believer as it has all the answers, regardless of whether it has any accuracy or not in overall terms.


I'm not particularly in favour of mocking folk because of their belief or lack of belief in any of the claimed Gods. However there are two important things 1) Banning of fun-poking on any subject can only be desired by somebody who does not wish to have freedom and 2) There are and should be limits on this to ensure it does not degenerate into victimisation and the potential dangers that can bring via influencing others into negative and harmful action.....Falou would fall under that category for example.

I agree with you Shan, and I said as much in my first paragraph that scientific and historical analysis are not based on the same principle

[justinr73]

I attended a Presbyterian service on Sunday

I thought the songs were a bit dour in the circumstances. If I’m going to sit through an hour of it, i do quite like a crack at something decent like Jerusalem.

It goes from one extreme to another though. I was recently at the wedding of a 20 something daughter of a colleague who was getting hitched to a Saffer and that was full-on happy clappy.

Each to their own so far as I’m concerned, but it would be good if people didn’t feel the need to fight about it.

That ship has kind of sailed though I guess.

[UlsterAreBrill]

And yes Dave, I didn’t answer your question (similarly like you didn’t answer mine). There is different evidence for Lincoln as there is for a historical Jesus. The method of documentation doesn’t necessarily invalidate the record itself. It’s like asking, am I as certain of the existence of Mussolini compared to Genghis Khan? Absolutely. The evidence itself is different, but it’s reliability is not

[Dave]

There's a lot of contradictions here. Just because they are from 2000 years ago doesn't discredit them, nor make them unreliable. How exactly would they do so? Would you deny the existence of Nero in spite of corroborated historical records because they are from so long ago? Alexander the Great? Lincoln? The American Civil war? Are those people or events fact or fiction?

You can't ask for primary sources, get given them, and then label them unreliable because they are old. A primary source from those events can't be anything but old, other wise it's not a primary source. To say the person needs to be living to esteem something "factual" is nonsense

Brill sometimes I'm not sure just how old you are. I'm pretty certain now that you are trying to get me to do your homework. Sources become less reliable with age. Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc. If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

Jesus was an relatively unknown person. There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him. Lincoln has pictures taken of him and he was around during the era of the printing press. Are you just as certain in the existence of Jesus as Lincoln? Do you think the evidence is of equal quality?

Yes, you got me. I’m actually 14, I’ve private messaged you my homework

Anyway, there are major flaws in your argument

Sources become less reliable with age

No, they don’t. For example, if I wrote an account today of what I did, and then this day next month wrote down what I did today, the older one would actually be more reliable. Both are primary sources, but the reliability could be questioned in the later source because it is just that

Particularly those which are just written down in some way. Lots of opportunity for tampering and embellishment etc.

Should the disciples have live tweeted the events? Taken some pictures? Regardless, you wouldn’t question the reliability of recorded events happening elsewhere to the same extent you are scrutinising the events revolving around Jesus

If you look at all the historical events mentioned you will determine differing degrees of certainty over whether those figures existed.

So now you’re saying Nero etc didn’t exist? But I thought there was old writings about them? What if they were tampered with? Maybe Nero didn’t exist after all

Jesus was an relatively unknown person

Relatively unknown yet one of the most well known people still over 2000 years later? How is that possible for a Palestinian in 30AD that didn’t exist?

There will be a lot recorded info on someone noteworthy like Nero and Alexander, he has numerous cities named after him.

Nah, that info is all old so I don’t believe you. It’s probably been tampered with

I never said Jesus didn't exist nor did I say Nero didn't exist. I challenged you to look at the evidence for both. Just as a comparison to maybe improve your own understanding. The story of Jesus being well known is not proof that he existed. Your example regarding your belief of how the age of the source does not effect validity is just too infantile to comment on.

I'm not applying extra scrutiny because it's Jesus. I actually spend a large part of my days critiquing scientific studies for a post grad. I can tell you I apply much more critical analysis in doing so. I also do not look at anything over 5 years old.

I notice you didn't answer my question. I think you were trying to be funny in parts of your post here so I'm not sure how seriously you are taking this. Perhaps your plans fell through in the end.

Anyway, good night.

Again, there is much wrong with this. If you’re posting credentials, as I think I have said before, I studied history at post grad level, and continue to work in part in a historical field. But anyway, the major issue is that you’re going to apply the rules for scientific analysis to the rule of historical analysis, which doesn’t fit. Obviously in science you want the most up to date evidence or information because of the rate of change and introduction of new theories and trains of thought, that much is obvious

However you can’t apply quite the same logic to historical analysis because there is the different types of sources available and different types of evidence itself. The example I gave was basic but the principle remains true. Take Alexander the Great for example. You are going to put greater weight on evidence for his existence on documents and records, when corroborated, from closer to the time than you would compared to documents hundreds of years after. And you can’t claim the method of documentation cheapens the accuracy, because that’s all anyone had, so all sources are on a level playing field in that regard

In hypothetical terms, say a court cases is ongoing over 100 years. While all evidence would be valued, the evidence presented in the first 50 years of the case is,generally speaking, going to have much more sway than the last 50 because it’s more likely to come from eyewitnesses and be a primary source, so much more relevant to the case. I’m most cases the “new” evidence is actually less accurate, because, again generally speaking, it’s only hearsay or a secondary source

Well I have no credentials as yet. I might give up studying to post more on here.

I'm not critiquing the existence of Jesus based on scientific principles. I'm using a philosophical analysis approach which duffs science and atheism as much as religion or history. There are as many spurious claims made by scientists as so-called experts in other fields of study.

The level or methods of documentation available at the time does not lesson the rigor in which you apply a critical appraisal. Saying 'that's all they had' does not change the criteria for accepting the evidence as irrefutable or factual. Historians, just like scientists and theologians try to claim their particular assertions as knowledge. To truly know something is to say that it cannot be false.

If you evaluate all the data surrounding the existence of some of the various figures mentioned you might apply a percentage of certainty as follows:

Jesus 30%
Alexander 50%
Lincoln 90%

These are not my percentages, I've used them as an example. Most historians will be focused on the 30% of supporting evidence. Philosophically I'm interested in the 70% of uncertainty. I cannot assert that the evidence supporting the existence of Jesus is not false nor can anyone. It is impossible to determine the 'knowledge how' as well as the 'knowledge that'. Particularly if it is 2000 years old. You cannot claim that the evidence for Lincoln is as factually supported as for Jesus. There is evidence that he might have existed but that falls well short of being considered knowledge. It's very much theoretical.

[UlsterAreBrill]

Ok, you win. If you’re thinking that deeply about what is “fact” or not, you’re definitely going too far for me. Let’s just settle and say, there is very compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus, I suppose it goes down to what you do with the evidence there is

Anyway, my original question still hasnt got answered. Are there any mods for this place?

[Cap'n Grumpy]

The Irish Rugby Football Union (Ulster Branch) is responsible for and committed to ensuring that no employee, job applicant, volunteer, participant or member receives less favourable treatment on the grounds of age, gender, disability, ethnic origin, race, colour, nationality, parental or marital status, religious belief, class or social background, sexual preference or political belief.

Does UAFC agree?

Not gonna try to answer any of the questions or points made in the last 5 pages or so since I posted the above. I asked if the above statement was an acceptable way for people to act on this forum, because it is broadly the way people in general would expect others to behave, and if there was a breach in this, some could quite rightly be called to account.

If I or anyone else were to poke fun at an individual or a group of people, or treat them differently because of their age in such a way that anyone in that grouping could take offence, I would quite rightly be criticised and called to account.

If I or anyone else were to poke fun at an individual or a group of people, or treat them differently because of their gender in such a way that anyone in that grouping could take offence, I would quite rightly be criticised and called to account.

If I or anyone else were to poke fun at or criticise an individual or a group of people, or treat them differently because of a disability in such a way that anyone in that grouping could take offence, I would quite rightly be called to account.

If I or anyone else were to poke fun at an individual or a group of people, or treat them differently because of their gender in such a way that anyone in that grouping could take offence, I would quite rightly be called to account.

If I or anyone else were to poke fun at or criticise an individual or a group of people, or treat them differently because of their ethnic origin in such a way that anyone in that grouping could take offence, there would be hell to pay, with numerous people (including most on this forum) calling the perp out and taking them to task.

Likewise for race, colour, nationality, parental or marital status, class or social background; and quite rightly so.

However it appears that when someone does the same with regard to religious or political belief, the gloves are off and it becomes open season on anyone who expresses a religious belief or political opinion contrary to what some others believe.

Now I will make it abundantly clear that I am not referring to debate and discussion of religion and/or politics - these are fine and dandy - and much of the previous number of pages I have no quibble about, albeit a lot of it goes round in circles and no one appears willing to shift from deeply held convictions on all sides of the debate. That is fine. That is everyone's right.

My one objection is to those (who if they broadly accept the equal opportunities statement I quoted above which is broadly in keeping with what most organisations in this country agree to abide by) post what are considered by many to be offensive because of their religious or political belief.

Now again, I will make it abundantly clear that I am not offended by any of the pictures/memes or whatever that are posted, but what I object to is that some of those who are quickest to call others to account on (for example) making offensive comments on sexual preference or racist behaviour, are themselves guilty (in my opinion) of similar when it comes to politically or more especially, religious beliefs.

I repeat that I am not personally offended by what has been posted, and some say that it is just "a bit of fun", but what offends me is the obvious provocation and intention to cause offence by posting some material.

Much is made of "playing the ball, not the man", and it has been suggested there is nothing wrong with the pictures etc posted, as they are mocking a deity, or an imaginary figure etc, not those who hold any particular belief. For me, however, it is obvious that the only reason for posting these was to cause offence or ridicule to a group of people for holding particular political or religious views.

If we are to take the Folau case as an example of how this causes offence (and I agree with Snipe's summation - it was crass, poorly done, and should have been obvious to Folau before he tweeted that it would be seen as provocative and cause offence), in this instance he did not target any individual, but could/would clearly cause hurt to a group of people as a whole. He played the ball, but in so doing, he followed through and also played the man. It was poorly done and if he had given it two minutes' thought, he should not have tweeted it. That is not to say he is not entitled to his beliefs and opinions, but he needs to exercise sensitivity and responsibility in how and when he voices those.

The same, the exact same, applies to those who post pictures on this forum which are clearly intended to mock a group of people who hold religious beliefs. It matters not that no one individual was mentioned, or targeted - any individual within that group would be right to consider that they are being targeted (if the equal opportunities statement above is accepted) because of their beliefs.

The only differences between these two are that Folau has much greater public exposure and has been criticised (quite correctly in my opinion) for offending people on the basis of their sexual orientation* (whether that was his intention or not); whereas on this forum there has been at best acceptance of, and at worst encouragement of, the intention to offend people because of their religious belief.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on all of these things, and I repeat, i have no objection to civil debate and discussion. My only objection is when such debate declines into mockery, or throwing something into the mix which does not add anything to the debate, but is clearly intended to cause offence or belittle someone's personal beliefs.

In light of all this, I can only conclude that on this forum, there is no broad acceptance of the equality aspired to in my original. I think that is a shame.

* He mentioned other reasons that "hell awaits" but it appears that it was the homosexual references that caused the most ire, which is why I reference that.

[Dave]

Ok, you win. If you’re thinking that deeply about what is “fact” or not, you’re definitely going too far for me. Let’s just settle and say, there is very compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus, I suppose it goes down to what you do with the evidence there is

Anyway, my original question still hasnt got answered. Are there any mods for this place?