Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, I don't think God is an integral part of marriage. In the Christian west, a marriage has historically been created by the free consent of both parties; at some point it became customary for clergy to pray for God's blessing on that marriage, but basically, in Christian thought, as long as they both say "I will" (or the cultural equivalent), they're married.

That's why even though Catholics see marriage as a sacrament, they see the couple as the ministers of that sacrament.

Now of course if you're Christian you're going to pray about your marriage and seek to love your spouse and live within that marriage as a Christian, so in that sense God is "part" of the marriage, but it doesn't make atheists any less married.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
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
If I were to tell people in this thread that they were going to hell would that be reviling them?
Not if what you said was true. You would be warning them.

Yes. Their marriage (in a religious sense, not a legal one) is not valid if it is not before God. Though I admit, promiscuous probably isn't the best word to use - better say they are sexually immoral and their sex is a sinful act.
God's commands regarding marriage are given to the whole human race, not just to Christians. If a man and woman who are not committed to someone else choose to marry that is a valid marriage, regardless of whether or not they are Christians.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,136
20,163
US
✟1,440,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is your theological reasoning behind that? Do you not think God is an integral part of marriage? When you say "mainstream Christian" are you just referring to cultural Christians? (The term "Christian" has become very muddled nowadays so it is sometimes difficult to know what it is referring to.

The indications of scripture, such as Paul's instructions on selecting church leaders, indicates that Christians are to consider pagan marriages valid.

It is still adultery, for instance, if a Christian man lusts after a pagan woman married to a pagan man.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Does the church have any purpose in speaking out against minority groups, as we've seen in the OP? Or is it just idle complaining?



Here, for example, you seem to imply that these sorts of messages have a goal of changing people's thoughts and actions.
No one is speaking against groups. Only speaking against actions contrary to the Word of God. That's it.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
His employer cares what the public thinks - Now if Izzy isnt bothered about that then that's fine - He accepts that he is no longer employed. But I now see he is appealing his situation which would mean that he does care what his employer thinks.

And you seem to be confused - Rugby Australia is NOT a church and thus not interested in what you refer to as 'God's standards'. It Modus Operandi is about maintaining a positive and successful rugby community.

You seem to be again confused about what is tolerance - You think to stand on a platform denouncing a large proportion of our community is an exercise of tolerance - Now I understand a good number of Christians support your view, but most Australians are not interested in being told how terrible they are if they [insert list of things Christians dont like] and thus feel alienated by those spruking such messages.

You are right about that, that he understood it had a cost. His employer and apparently some fans of the sport are intolerant of diverse views. Had some Muslim been doing this, not a word would be said. No one said Rugby is a church - straw man again. But one's faith isn't left at the door as he enters the field or surfs the internet.

I would say he is likely appealing because intolerance is wrong.

And you are stating facts not in evidence. He is NOT standing on a platform provided by Rugby. And absolutely NO ONE said that any "people are terrible". Yet another straw man.

He's tweeting Bible verses on his own time and on his own individual account. Don't like it? Don't follow him. There are plenty who spout nonsense I don't care to read.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What scripture says specifically is:

Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.

You're wrong.

Actually, I am not the one who is incorrect here, though you pulled one verse out of context.
Acts 13:24 NIV.

Why not try reading in context?
Here are what the other translations say and here is the context.

NKJV
24 after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.’

26 “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent.

NRSV
24 Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’

26 “Brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation.


----------------------------

 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not the message. If that were the message, that would be exactly what he would have (or should have) said. Exactly that.

Otherwise, he's sending smoke signals with no real intention of being clearly understood.

He was not preaching the gospel, because the gospel is salvation, not condemnation.

Condemnation is what the Adversary speaks.

Conviction is what the Holy Spirit speaks.

Salvation is what the Body of Christ speaks.

Those are each separate messages.

No argument there, regarding the difference between condemnation and conviction. But you are assuming his intentions and you have no way of doing that.

Maybe he is just young and indiscreet. Maybe he will become more diplomatic. Interesting that you are not willing to show him the slightest grace.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Except the tweet being discussed here was specifically and clearly giving a message of condemnation to hell. The rest wasn't there.



No, I'm not. As a general rule, though, I would say that sin is best dealt with contextually; within a relationship where the minister and penitent are known to one another and there is trust and care.



I'm having difficulty imagining the situation in which I would. I see alcoholism as a medical issue as much as a moral one; and while I would want to see repentance, I'd probably also be referring an alcoholic to a doctor for appropriate medical support.

Was the rest there when you look through his messages as a whole? I don't know. I don't follow the guy.

Sure, it is always best to deal in person in context with relationship but that is the very place that people become unwilling to do so because they want to protect feelings instead of speak truth. The confuse love with grace. But....some get saved while watching a late night TV show where some preacher calls out his sin and says that God wants to save him and he doesn't have to live this way. Some get saved through many means and pretty much all hear the message many times before it penetrates.

It's not my method, but I don't have the same sphere of influence as this person.

And boy, I'm glad I didn't have you advising me to see some doctor, where I'd still be on the merry-go-round. I've been totally free for 26 years. God did that. Free. When I got serious about wanting to change. What God has done endures forever.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,136
20,163
US
✟1,440,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No argument there, regarding the difference between condemnation and conviction. But you are assuming his intentions and you have no way of doing that.

Maybe he is just young and indiscreet. Maybe he will become more diplomatic. Interesting that you are not willing to show him the slightest grace.

No, I'm not. Scripture plainly shows that people who portend to evangelism must be:

1. Fully trained in the gospel
2. Called to that office by the Holy Spirit
3. Commissioned to an evangelistic mission by the congregation
4. Held accountable for the accomplishment of that mission by the congregation
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No one is speaking against groups. Only speaking against actions contrary to the Word of God. That's it.
Well, I guess technically they're also opposed to straight people who have gay relationships, but it seem like practically speaking that's not a very large group. So I really don't see the distinction between complaining about gay people and the actions that kinda define the membership in that group.

But getting back to your point, are they speaking without hoping to change anything? Because earlier you seemed to object to the idea that their attacks against gay people were hoping to coerce change in their behavior.
 
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

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
There are no such things as a "close marriage" and "good people" without Jesus.

Seriously - thats quite obnoxious that you would indicate that all those billions of married couples that are not Christian DONT have a close marriage according to you - and they are not good people - that seems terribly adversarial

He is NOT standing on a platform provided by Rugby.

Yes he is

O ONE said that any "people are terrible".
Yes he did
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, I guess technically they're also opposed to straight people who have gay relationships, but it seem like practically speaking that's not a very large group. So I really don't see the distinction between complaining about gay people and the actions that kinda define the membership in that group.

But getting back to your point, are they speaking without hoping to change anything? Because earlier you seemed to object to the idea that their attacks against gay people were hoping to coerce change in their behavior.
All sexual immorality is forbidden by God. Not just this single action. You've got that right anyway.

And quoting Bible verses is not an "attack" nor is making an assertion. If I say, "Watching one's parents turn on each other and then divorce hurts kids", I am not "attacking" divorced people.

I'm stating an actual truth, that this action does hurt the children. It does.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm not. Scripture plainly shows that people who portend to evangelism must be:

1. Fully trained in the gospel
2. Called to that office by the Holy Spirit
3. Commissioned to an evangelistic mission by the congregation
4. Held accountable for the accomplishment of that mission by the congregation
Scripture verse for that?

Because this is entirely false. BELIEVERS are to preach the word, in season and out of season. Sure, they have to know the Word of God to do it, but that is bare minimum expectation for a believer in Jesus. The Holy Spirit fell on all the believers there at Pentecost, not just the 12, and they would ALL be His witnesses (evangelize) "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

The command in Matthew to go into all the world and preach the gospel including “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” certainly includes the command to make disciples.

When persecution arose against the Church in Acts, the regular believers scattered everywhere and they preached the Word of God:
"3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

4Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word."

In Ephesians 4, Paul states: 11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ. Those offices equip ALL BELIEVERS to do the work of the ministry, of which evangelism is a primary part. The 5 fold ministry is to prepare the BODY to do the work. They don't do all the work themselves.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,087
1,642
Passing Through
✟449,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, I don't think God is an integral part of marriage. In the Christian west, a marriage has historically been created by the free consent of both parties; at some point it became customary for clergy to pray for God's blessing on that marriage, but basically, in Christian thought, as long as they both say "I will" (or the cultural equivalent), they're married.

That's why even though Catholics see marriage as a sacrament, they see the couple as the ministers of that sacrament.

Now of course if you're Christian you're going to pray about your marriage and seek to love your spouse and live within that marriage as a Christian, so in that sense God is "part" of the marriage, but it doesn't make atheists any less married.
Wow, seriously?

Otherwise without God, it is merely a contractual obligation like all others. Some may consider their marriages on that level, I guess. Those who believe scripture understand that it is a covenant between the man, woman, and the Lord.
 
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

Jon Osterman

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
716
473
Glasgow
✟59,048.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Seriously - thats quite obnoxious that you would indicate that all those billions of married couples that are not Christian DONT have a close marriage according to you - and they are not good people - that seems terribly adversarial

It is not adversarial - it is just a statement of my views. When I talk of "marriage" I am refering to the union of a man and a women before God, so if God is missing, by this definition they are not married. I will admit that this is not in line with the legal definition of marriage, with requires no belief at all, but that is not what I am talking about.

Similarly, the definition of "Good" is, in my view, "pleasing to God". If you are not a Christian, you are not pleasing to God and you are not good. Very simple.

I do of course recognise the "marriage" of non-Christians, in so much as I recognise that they are together and have made a commitment to one another, but I don't think of it as a Christian marriage. And I would of course give equal respect to a couple who were living together without the legal union.

And again similarly, I am quite happy for you to have an alternate definition of "good", but to be frank, I don't know what that is. You just declared that I was "adversarial", so you would presumably not regard me as "good". I don't care, because it is clear to me that people outside the Christian faith will have very different definitions of good, so I will not try and have you fired from your job for expressing that view.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Wow, seriously?

Otherwise without God, it is merely a contractual obligation like all others. Some may consider their marriages on that level, I guess. Those who believe scripture understand that it is a covenant between the man, woman, and the Lord.

Yes, seriously. And it's not just my view; as I pointed out, it's pretty much been a consistently agreed Western Christian view for centuries, which is what has shaped American laws as they are.

And I'd like to see the Scripture which supports your last sentence.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Now before you jump onboard and say 'Of course its ethical' consider the current case that has dominated Australian media and Australian sport in particular.

Israel Folau is one of Australia's (if not the world's) greatest Rugby Union players. He is a match winner. He is talented beyond belief and has won an array of national and international sporting awards. He is currently in the Australian Rugby Union team called 'The Wallabies'.

Despite Israel's strong physical appearance, he is a highly personable, gentle and kind individual. He is extremely likeable. Israel is a Christian of the evangelistic ilk.

Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters. International players have particular responsibilities as so many people, particularly juniors, see them as role models. This added responsibility to acknowledge that whats said publicly must accord with the code of conduct, whether its said on the field or off it, is reinforced in player contracts.

Israel, despite being a very nice person has repeatedly made the following types of statements:
That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell.

Now Israel, of course, is making biblical references inline with his christian beliefs. He's not saying terrible things per se....HOWEVER - it has clearly been a breach of his contract and despite just recently signing a four year contract and despite being Australia's shining star - he has been sacked.

Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments

Australian rugby's position is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive. It is not concerned with who you choose to love, or that your mother is a single mother, or your father is in some sort of defacto relationship. It does not want those representing the sporting code to alter that perception with statements indicating that those following the sport are lesser individuals and are in some way bad for their sexual choices or marital status.

So the debate - religious freedom of speech versus the right of a sporting to code to insist its code of conduct is followed.

This has cost Israel Millions of dollars. He has lost sponsorship worth millions and his International rugby career is ended unless he can change his public statements.

With this statement: "That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell."

Yes. He deserves to be fired.

This isn't just expressing religious beliefs, but it is expressing it in an offensive way in where you are targeting the lives of many people who may or maynot associate with your beliefs.

Imagine if an extreme muslim goes off and says those that believe God has a son, worship Jesus, read the "corrupt" nt are sinful and are all going to hell or deserve to be decapitated. You yourself would find this guy vile, crazy, and overall offensive. He is expressing his religious beliefs nonetheless, it's just beliefs involving you being killed.
 
Upvote 0

Jon Osterman

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
716
473
Glasgow
✟59,048.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Imagine if an extreme muslim goes off and says those that believe God has a son, worship Jesus, read the "corrupt" nt are sinful and are all going to hell or deserve to be decapitated. You yourself would find this guy vile, crazy, and overall offensive. He is expressing his religious beliefs nonetheless, it's just beliefs involving you being killed.

If he was advocating for people to be decapitated, then he would be inciting a crime. But if you leave the decapitation aside, then I would defend his right to say these things about me. In fact, I would welcome it and wear his words a s badge of pride, because it is good if the followers of a false religion are troubled by my righteousness.

For that matter, I am pretty sure that all devout muslims would think I was going to hell (or whatever their equivalent is). Why would they not? At least this guy would be being honest.
 
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

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
It is not adversarial - it is just a statement of my views. When I talk of "marriage" I am refering to the union of a man and a women before God, so if God is missing, by this definition they are not married. I will admit that this is not in line with the legal definition of marriage, with requires no belief at all, but that is not what I am talking about.

Similarly, the definition of "Good" is, in my view, "pleasing to God". If you are not a Christian, you are not pleasing to God and you are not good. Very simple.

I do of course recognise the "marriage" of non-Christians, in so much as I recognise that they are together and have made a commitment to one another, but I don't think of it as a Christian marriage. And I would of course give equal respect to a couple who were living together without the legal union.

And again similarly, I am quite happy for you to have an alternate definition of "good", but to be frank, I don't know what that is. You just declared that I was "adversarial", so you would presumably not regard me as "good". I don't care, because it is clear to me that people outside the Christian faith will have very different definitions of good, so I will not try and have you fired from your job for expressing that view.

Jon - words mean a lot - people cannot see your heart - they cannot see your body language or know the true person you are. So when a person writes, the choice of words take on their own meaning. The words need to be clear, for fear of misinterpretation. I would ask you and your fellow Christians to think on that when they refer to other people as 'Not Good' or and that their marriage is not not close - I would, for example, say that Ghandi was good and his marriage was especially close.

Most people, when they hear a phrase 'your not good' interpret it to mean that their conduct is morally poor..... most people when they hear that their marriage is 'not close' interpret that to mean that their marriage is conflictual and unloving. When you counsel other Christians, I would ask that you bear this in mind - lest, as I did, your comments be perceived as quite adversarial and lacking any basis in fact.

Another thing to consider, is that despite what each religion espouses in terms of securing their soul, the truth is that religious conviction is largely about where you live in the world. If you live in the UAE then you will be Moslem. If you live in India then you will be predominantly Hindu. If you live in the USA then you are likely to be christian..... nothing upsets people more, when people of one country look across the waters to another country that engages in a different religion, and tells them that their marriage is ungodly and immoral. It does nothing to enhance you're own faith and only serves to alienate.

so I will not try and have you fired from your job for expressing that view.

Hahaha - Jon I have to give you this - that was witty - albeit I am a student and don't have a job - that said, a famous Australian criminal-come-writer once said 'never let facts get in the way of a good story.'
 
Upvote 0