Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"My own methodology" directly from Romans 10? I guess you know better than scripture.

Paul IS an apostle, by the way.

You did not quote evangelism. You quoted Paul talking to a Christian congregation.

And that assertion about Jesus is false also.

The Sermon on the Mount. Jesus tells them what not to do as well as what to do. Both.

Jesus is not evangelizing in the Sermon on the Mount, He is talking to people who are already in the Old Covenant and teaching them the a New Covenant. But they are already believers in God--they are already part of His congregation. There is a difference between evangelizing and teaching, just as the officers of evangelist and teacher are different offices.

Woman at the well. He tells her what she is doing is wrong FIRST.

16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” 19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

No, you're totally wrong. Your reading is terribly faulty. You seem to have missed some verses:

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”


If you'll notice, all these verses come before the verses you quoted. Jesus offered the woman the good news of His "living water" and she had already accepted before He gave her the "bad news."

Woman caught in adultery.

Jesus tells her that He doesn't condemn her either and to "Go, and sin no more." He does not give her - or the ones who wanted to stone her - a feel good message first before delivering the command.

I'm not sure what you think that proves of your point, but it does support my point. Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save--as He did in this case, saving not condemning. His Body is to be about the same business of saving, not condemning: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing..."

What you are saying is just not true. The Holy Spirit has to pave the way, or the person cannot even understand it, but if he has a heart to believe, the truth will take root.

And that is also my point. When the Holy Spirit has done His work to discomfit a person with his current life, then all the person needs is the Good News:

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say anything about celibacy.

You said:

I do not believe homosexuality is compatible with a Christian life.

My point is that promiscuous homosexuality might not be compatible with a Christian life, but not everyone - straight or not - is promiscuous. A celibate homosexual person is still homosexual, but might also be a faithful Christian.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You said:



My point is that promiscuous homosexuality might not be compatible with a Christian life, but not everyone - straight or not - is promiscuous. A celibate homosexual person is still homosexual, but might also be a faithful Christian.

As implied by my direct comparison with "promiscuous heterosexuality," I was not talking about celibacy in either regard.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,287
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,569.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
I don't understand. Are you arguing that a person who experiences attraction to people of the same sex, but does not act on it, can't be Christian?

Really?

On what basis?
I don't want to interrupt but I'm getting a bit confused.

Like a heterosexual, a homosexual can be in any one of three sexual 'states';
  • Celibate - no sex
  • Married - sex within marriage
  • Promiscuous - sex outside of marriage
In which state is he or she acceptable to your version of Christianity?
Are there any of these states which would not be considered as sinful?
OB
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,287
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,569.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
By my understanding, a celibate state is the only one considered acceptable on CF.
and if I were to ask you about what might be acceptable to … ummm…. a theoretical Anglican church in Melbourne :rolleyes: - what might your answer be?
OB
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Melbourne is a diverse diocese. Its clergy are bound to uphold a standard of faithfulness in marriage and chastity in singleness. The national church is wrestling with whether and how same-sex marriages might be acknowledged, now that they are legal by secular law. I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of that process.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
We've got a lot of people who still drink themselves to death too. One of my siblings, for example.

This doesn't mean God created some of us to drink and we just can't help it. The Church would do a great disservice to others if it told them that, that God created them to be alcoholics. And that's exactly what we are doing in this other context.
Just without any real evidence that the thing you're hoping to change has any actual negative consequences. Attempts like that aren't going to have the intended outcome. Instead of forcing the change you want to see, it just makes the religion backing up that intent look disconnected from reality.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Most people know they have problems but how many of them will acknowledge that their own sinfulness has contributed to these problems?

In regards to the OP - Overwhelmingly in Australia,
a) Same Sex attraction is not regarded adversely
b) Those who choose to imbibe alcohol, with the exception of being drunk and disorderly, are not being adverse
c) Living in an unmarried relationship is not regarded adversely
d) those having sex outside of marriage is not seen adversely - indeed the focus is on safe sex and safe relationships.

True, but how are they to hear if not for someone preaching the truth?

Given the above, Christianity is not in keeping with most of the Australian public and CERTAINLY NOT in keeping with the ethos of Rugby Australia's whos ambition is inclusiveness not ridicule, divisiveness, or finger-pointing that they are in some way bad. And that goes double when its the children of those who Christians are pointing at.

Nobody is suggesting that we pat people with same-sex attraction on the head, tell them they can't change, and bless a promiscuous lifestyle for them.

Many in Australia think that those with a same-sex attraction have no desire to be patted on the head, and nor do they believe that those with Same-Sex Attraction have a need to change and nor do they believe that having single or multiple partners is any crime warranting condemnation.

I do not believe homosexuality is compatible with a Christian life

Rugby Union is not signing up Christians. It's signing up those who want to play or support rugby regardless of who they or their parents are......... and thus is not open to the admonishments of Christians who may choose to throw stones.

But I know that heterosexual promiscuity is also incompatible with a Christian life

Again - who someone chooses to have sex with, or how frequently may well be judged adversely by Christians, but rugby AND the wider Australian public believes its no-one's business who one chooses to have sex with (with the exception of sex that breaks Australian laws e rape or paedophilia)

I have to ask why there is such an obsession about sex within Abrahamic religions. Sex is viewed as one of the most evil things you can do. It's such a weirdly unhealthy view.

Regardless - Israel Folau had an opportunity to role model and confirm positive inspiring messages yet he chose to betray so many of us that support him by telling us all how terrible we all are and will go to hell - Well its Rugby Australia that has told Israel Folau to go to hell.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Occams Barber
Upvote 0

samwise gamgee

Active Member
Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
127
62
83
Kansas
Visit site
✟55,190.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Like a heterosexual, a homosexual can be in any one of three sexual 'states';
  • Celibate - no sex
  • Married - sex within marriage
  • Promiscuous - sex outside of marriage
In which state is he or she acceptable to your version of Christianity?
The only states acceptable to God are celibacy and marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

I have to ask why there is such an obsession about sex within Abrahamic religions. Sex is viewed as one of the most evil things you can do. It's such a weirdly unhealthy view.
Sex is not evil; it is holy. It was created as a way a man and woman who are married can express their love for each other. This holy union that God created is defiled when people use in other ways than God intended. Christians must speak out against this defilement.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Sex is not evil; it is holy. It was created as a way a man and woman who are married can express their love for each other. This holy union that God created is defiled when people use in other ways than God intended. Christians must speak out against this defilement.
I respect your view as I am fully aware that sex outside of marriage, is regarded as a 'defilement' within Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism.

But it is not in keeping with the views of the majority of my countrymen and certainly not International Rugby Union which this thread is concerned with.

For those who are NOT from an Abrahamic religion, we see the finger pointing of Christianity concerning sex, as Christians telling us we are all bad deserving of a pit of fire. Such a concept is received poorly.... my female friends for example, are beautiful, intelligent, kind and positive. Your views of them for having sex, is an insult to them and me. Rugby Australia thinks similarly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand. Are you arguing that a person who experiences attraction to people of the same sex, but does not act on it, can't be Christian?

Really?

On what basis?

I'm not talking about celibate people in either case.

I'm talking about sexually promiscuous people in both cases. Nobody's sexual promiscuity is compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm not talking about celibate people in either case.

I'm talking about sexually promiscuous people in both cases. Nobody's sexual promiscuity is compatible with a Christian lifestyle.

I agree. But you "homosexuality," not homosexual promiscuity, so your point is not entirely clear.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sixty-five years ago, if an employee appeared in a public Communist Party rally, almost any employer in America would have fired him. That's what the "Hollywood Blacklist" was all about. Employers today might still do so, depending on who their intended customers are.

It's nothing new.

Injustice is nothing new. I agree. And yet many old things have been abandoned in recent years because they have been considered to be injustices that need to be stopped. Why keep this kind of injustice going then ? Telling me it is not new is not a reasonable rationale for allowing a company to do something to a free citizen that the government is forbidden from doing based upon the inherent rights individual's possess. Let me be absolutely clear that I am speaking of the individual's right to engage freely in political speech and not defamation of the employer so that strawman that has appeared elsewhere( not by you ) is not totted out again. A private company has no more business infringing on those rights than the government does. We still retain our inherent right to free speech and in the case you cited freedom of association when we sell our labor. We are selling our labor not our soul. Would anyone contend that an employer was within its right to tell its employees that they may not worship with a particular denomination? or that they must not travel on vacation but remain local? Yet there are people telling me that the employer has the right to insist that an employee not engage in political speech that the employer disagrees with in their own time. How does the employer acquire such control over a free citizen's ability to speak? By the lame excuse that political speech that the employer disagrees with will hurt business. Somehow, political speech that the employer approves of is immune form hurting business and somehow, people that have no idea that there has been political speech by an employee of a company that they n most likely do not recognize as a part of that company will stop patronizing that company because that employee said something political (while not being engaged in the work he/she is being paid for) that the upper management of the company did not agree with.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Injustice is nothing new. I agree. And yet many old things have been abandoned in recent years because they have been considered to be injustices that need to be stopped. Why keep this kind of injustice going then ? Telling me it is not new is not a reasonable rationale for allowing a company to do something to a free citizen that the government is forbidden from doing based upon the inherent rights individual's possess. Let me be absolutely clear that I am speaking of the individual's right to engage freely in political speech and not defamation of the employer so that strawman that has appeared elsewhere( not by you ) is not totted out again. A private company has no more business infringing on those rights than the government does. We still retain our inherent right to free speech and in the case you cited freedom of association when we sell our labor. We are selling our labor not our soul. Would anyone contend that an employer was within its right to tell its employees that they may not worship with a particular denomination? or that they must not travel on vacation but remain local? Yet there are people telling me that the employer has the right to insist that an employee not engage in political speech that the employer disagrees with in their own time. How does the employer acquire such control over a free citizen's ability to speak? By the lame excuse that political speech that the employer disagrees with will hurt business. Somehow, political speech that the employer approves of is immune form hurting business and somehow, people that have no idea that there has been political speech by an employee of a company that they n most likely do not recognize as a part of that company will stop patronizing that company because that employee said something political (while not being engaged in the work he/she is being paid for) that the upper management of the company did not agree with.

A private company does not infringe on anyone's rights. People continue to have the right to be whatever public jackasses they want to be.

But the owner of the company also has rights. The owner of the company has the right to determine what character of persons he employs.

He especially has the right to employ people who do not publicly demonstrate themselves to be bigoted against his customers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In regards to the OP - Overwhelmingly in Australia,
a) Same Sex attraction is not regarded adversely
b) Those who choose to imbibe alcohol, with the exception of being drunk and disorderly, as being adverse
c) Living in an unmarried relationship is not regarded adversely
d) those having sex outside of marriage is not seen adversely - indeed the focus is on safe sex and safe relationships.



Given the above, Christianity is not in keeping with most of the Australian public and CERTAINLY NOT in keeping with the ethos of Rugby Australia's whos ambition is inclusiveness not ridicule, divisiveness, or finger-pointing that they are in some way bad. And that goes double when its the children of those who Christians are pointing at.

So what? Who cares what the public finds acceptable? God's standards have never been those of the world, and this player is entitled to say so.

Tolerance runs BOTH directions (unless one espouses intolerance, in which case all opposing views are to be shut down by whatever means possible).
 
Upvote 0