Eels Blogs


              • The reality is many Christian ministries have a gay priests and accept them glady into their congregations, Uniting Church, Anglican Church , High Church of England....also women, if that is still an issue!

                I don't believe these conversations are even happening.

              • The defining characteristic of being Christian is one who follows Christ, who the Bible self describes as God's Living Word, John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". The Bible clearly lays out that God views homosexuality as an abomination.

                More importantly it also clearly lays out God's plan for humanity, the entire Bible from Adam & Eve in The Garden of Eden right through to Revelation referring to the Church as the Bride of Christ clearly indicate that heterosexuality is God's plan for humanity. 

                Now, He also gave us free will to make our own choices, but God's plan for humanity has never changed, and that plan does not include homosexuality. If you choose to reject God's plan, and therefore by extension God Himself, He won't impose Himself on you. 

                He will wait till you come to Him. If you choose not to before you die, well .....

                That's not God condemning anybody, that's humanity rejecting God.

                BTW, being a Christian is not about good vs evil. Yes, we should work out our faith by doing good works, and that is evidence that our heart has truly turned towards God, but being a good person alone is not enough, you have to fully submit your life to Him, all aspects of it, including sexuality.

                So can a homosexual be a Christian, they certainly can become Christian, but as they continue on their walk with God, if they are truly submitting their lives to Him, He will challenge them on their sexual choices, (and I don't want an argument about whether it's a choice or not).

                I hope this answers your question Michael.


    • While I am not going to argue it, I could argue he was trying to help is friends colleagues and mankind in general. He states they are going to hell unless they repent, so I could mount a case that he was trying to get people to repent.

      While I think it was insensitive to post that in his position, at the end of the day all he has done is post a quote from the most published book in history. At no point in that specific post (there may be other posts) does he state any opinion on this matter, it is a word for word quote from the bible.

      • Absolutely right Abe, an individual's human rights trumps the company's positioning statement in their business plan.

      • The most published book in history has no original copy and dates back to about 400 AD, there are so many arguments and descepancies in the contents and context it is absolutely irrelevant what is said when it comes to these type of discussions. Evangelicals are literalists that think the world is about 6500 years old and dinosaurs didn't exist. That doesn't mean they are not good people and the literal interpretation generalises Jesus teachings.

        This whole argument is a flat earth discussion, where do you want to position yourselves?

  • Les sums up the problem perfectly from the 3:40 mark.

  • The problem is that companies need to virtue signal these days to avoid profit-threatening boycots. Of course, sometimes they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. As the saying goes, get woke go broke.

    • Yes but I believe much of the problems you mentioned come about as a result of poor decisions made at a strategic level. The AFL got itself into trouble with its recreational or non-performance enhancing drug policy a few years ago. 

      Modern sporting administrators have moved into a holistic approach and trying to do too much. They extend their scope of responsibility away from their core and further into social policy. This is dangerous territory as they are implementing a partial  set of rules that run parallel to societies laws. They are moving away from core purpose and business of running a sport, to trying to run a legal and social justice system.

      If RA had of just said we run a sport. Our focus is to develop the sport and if the legal system finds that one of our players have broken the law well then we have confidence in the judicial system and we will abide by their ruling. 

      Sponsors may complain or leave which will give short term pain but staying focused and strong will serve the organization better in the long term .

  • There's only one problem with Alan Jones' freedom of speech "slippery slope".

    Imagine you're an employer. And an employee has been telling all your clients and corporate sponsors: "I was abducted by aliens, working with the Illuminati, and my mother was a whore until her 60s. Serious mate. No joke." 

    That's also freedom of speech.

    So I imagine some of you attacking Rugby Australia would be okay with that as employers? 

    I think the real problem for Folau is in Australia civil rights groups and lefties, support minority groups and GLs movements. Like mainly English speaking countries, shown in green. And a majority of corporations in developed worlds would not tolerate anti-gay "going to hell" sentiments.


    If Folau was playing for Nigerian Rugby, Folau would not have been discriminated against by his employer. He probably would have made the CEO and receive a national sainthood.



    There, in Nigeria, for same sex couples, who don't have the luxury of freedom of speech and can't speak without breaking the law, they don't have the luxury of freedom of speech like in Green countries.

    And there the afterlife of hell has been fast-forwarded. 

    I wonder how far right-winged fundamental Chritainity and Islam, or the KKK, or neo-Nazi's "feel about gays experiencing hell on earth? Or is it something that should happen only in the afterlife?

    On the plus side, a majority of the world's "non-green" population, and many in green countries, wouldn't have had a problem with what Folau said. And would support what Alan Jones and the others have come out and said; with open arms and a hug.

    If Folau was a Mexican rugby player or boxer he could say even worse and not get sacked.


     Life isn't always fair.

    Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with Rugby Australia and would rather be branded a green and leftie going to hell. As an employer I would tell Folau: "It's not personal. I like you. And I'm not morally judging your views, even if I disagree, but we're not here for that mate and you're scaring our clients. I won't have a business soon enough. Apologies brother, and I wish you well." And at least I would be able to listen to Queen in the after-life.

    • This is a very sad situation you’ve posted here HOE...but it opens up another question. Does this mean those that espouse and feel strongly about safe Australia not letting persecuted refugees into our country for their  religious or sexual orientation and/or other beliefs, will ease up? Coz basically otherwise they are inadvertently condoning this inhuman treatment of these humans looking for a better life isnt it a moral dilemma for those on the gay and Christian Right to practise track but anti immigration of refugees from these same countries :)  ...can’t have it both ways!

      this is why I despise the narrow minded brand name calling (leftie or righty) of people with a passion  as though everyone’s views fit all so called criteria for placing them into a single basket. It’s never really like that imo.

      Saying all that, Israel made his comment which included many groups.

      Why aren’t they all equally offended??

      he is just a bloody footballer making his own comments and I still think the whole thing is a massive blow up  about nothing...if he was some dick headed super power political leader different situation :)

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read