It might be quibbling but saying someone won't enter kingdom of God is not same as saying they'll reside in hell. Hell is a very nebulous concept and means different things in different parts of Bible. Ie, "hell" is a translation for several distinct words.
If he'd said they won't enter heaven it'd probably be more legit paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
Define "rich" yourself, it is what ever you judge it to be.
As for the people of the Rift Valley in Kenya, NO they won't be going to hell unless they have sold their soul to the devil for money in the same way Folau has got himself into a bind having two masters.
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Matthew 19:23-26
Looks like Izzy is heading to hell with all the other drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornication, theives, athiest's and idolators.
Well, define rich. Where's the line?
The parable may be more nuanced than face value.
My wife, who was born in the Rift Valley in Kenya, considers the tribes people of the area far more rich than us... And it's nuttin' to do with money.
Ate they going to hell?
I think if you are a christian, Rugby Australia's actions in sacking Folau is considered the Devil's work.RA Is the devil?
That was my idea of how it might play out. Depending on who leans on the judges.Well it appears a precedent may have been set, in Britain.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/fol...reedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html
As we said, it will be a long and costly excercise.
From the article:
There are other notable implications from this British decision for the Folau case. Ngole’s case took four long years before he finally obtained his vindication. Many have criticised Folau for raising such a big war chest of legal fees. His fundraising efforts may be both prescient and proportionate given that he might face a similar long, hard and expensive legal battle.
The appeal court also took a distinctively different approach compared with the original judge. While the lower court judge gave a “full and meticulous” judgment that navigated a maze of dense common law principles and cases, the justices on appeal went to the heart of the matter.
This was about a failure of common sense. At the outset of the matter in 2014, the university had overreached and overreacted. It effectively purported to restrict Ngole from expressing his religious views in any public forum. The implication was that a professional should only express controversial religious views in absolute privacy.
The court rightly pointed out that, if correct, no Christian would be secure in any profession, let alone Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Further, Ngole’s expulsion was disproportionate, given that the posts were expressions of religious and moral views that were based on the Bible.
My bolds
Yes, it was a dumb play by R.A, as we said they can discipline but to sack someone is a whole new level.That was my idea of how it might play out. Depending on who leans on the judges.
As I said, it will be a long and costly excercise.Always check the fine print before making assumptions.
Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol
John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.
Unless he lied about the judgment, then this case gives a guideline.Always check the fine print before making assumptions.
Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol
John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.
I gather a new contract with a SM clause was drafted *after he signed his current contract, but he did not sign it, as he already had a contract.Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.
If the contract is unlawful then it hardly matters. You cannot dismiss workplace laws with a contract.Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.
Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.
Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
As for the sponsors not being able to have their say, that is bull-****, they have every right if they in turn believe that there ROI on sponsorship was negative due to his outdated views of the world.
The only thing that can save him is if Jesus gets off his arse and returns but after 2000 years, don't think it is going to happen anytime soon
Yeah, nah....Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.
Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
As for the sponsors not being able to have their say, that is bull-****, they have every right if they in turn believe that there ROI on sponsorship was negative due to his outdated views of the world.
The only thing that can save him is if Jesus gets off his arse and returns but after 2000 years, don't think it is going to happen anytime soon
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?