[Other Sport] Israel Folau - Christian Martyr

[knocky1]

Someone says something on Twitter which defies current social and sexual mores; others protest; corporate sponsors threaten to withdraw support; representatives of sports management make noises about this “not reflecting the values of the sport/business/town, etc.”; and the perpetrator is terminated and consigned to ignominious oblivion.

Twitter is hardly the best medium for discussing controversial topics when the capacity to reason and persuade others is almost non-existent. Deep thought can at best only be transformed into fortune cookie pietism when refracted through the lens of 140 characters. It's fair to ask whether those who drop these controversial soundbites are really trying to persuade others of a better way of thinking or merely attempting to generate heat and draw attention to themselves.

Folau has the right to express his opinions in the public square, using whatever medium is at his disposal. And I would defend his right to do so, as I would defend the right of his critics to respond. It is somewhat puzzling that many of his critics, who may well not believe in hell, should be so upset that Folau believes some people may be going there; but they have their right to believe and express their outrage just as he does to express his beliefs.

The controversy reveals the asinine level and fractious nature of so much political discourse, right and left, when it becomes merely an exchange of antithetical cheap outrage online. For starters, let's see if this thread manages to stay on topic.

Spot on. Opinions should be tolerated; you idiotic ****.

 

[half time scores]

It's probably time for another NSC meet-up.

I'm in

 

[One Love]

I'm happy as he's Australia's best player.

 

[Wozza]

Is he dead?

Only his career.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Not just homophobic comments... "Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators - Hell awaits you."

When's someone going to stand up for us drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators?

The Speaker of the House of Commons?

 

[Knocky's Nose]

Whilst I don't agree with him, I believe he has the right to his own opinions and his own religion - as long as it doesn't encourage violence and/or terrorism.

Difficult, really. Is he not entitled to his opinion because the wider world disagrees. Isn't that just mob rule in that case - and we are the mob?

From an evolutionary standpoint we'd be encouraged that homosexuality is wrong. If 100% of the population was homosexual we'd evaporate as a species! In days of old, when old Jesus was treading the boards, infant mortality was horrendous - so having as many kids as possible was positively the thing to do. However, in the modern world we're more educated, more liberal, and babies live!

So complicated, but I don't see why a man should lose a career as a sportsman for what he believes within his religion.

 

[knocky1]

Whilst I don't agree with him, I believe he has the right to his own opinions and his own religion - as long as it doesn't encourage violence and/or terrorism.

Difficult, really. Is he not entitled to his opinion because the wider world disagrees. Isn't that just mob rule in that case - and we are the mob?

From an evolutionary standpoint we'd be encouraged that homosexuality is wrong. If 100% of the population was homosexual we'd evaporate as a species! In days of old, when old Jesus was treading the boards, infant mortality was horrendous - so having as many kids as possible was positively the thing to do. However, in the modern world we're more educated, more liberal, and babies live!

So complicated, but I don't see why a man should lose a career as a sportsman for what he believes within his religion.

Hmmm. Had a quiet life?

 

[peterward]

I'd like to ask you to widen your thoughts on this though as you seem to be able to offer rational debate.

Most Christians believe they are 'sinners'. I.e transgressors who fall short of standards. So, that given, they themselves (had it not been for Christ's sacrifice) would be heading the same way. They believe that faith saves them and, as is written, would save others too. That is why they are evangelical.

There is, for me, two forms of Christianity, neither of which are compatible. There is the notion of a 'Christian country' which is a false political and sometimes racially charged term- note it is often used by hard right groups. In a sense, because it doesn't have its origins in faith it is a by-product of an inherited set of values both cultural and political. It is meaningless too as cultural norms shift over time. Surely Christianity, if the bible is its blueprint, is an absolute- unalterable in its doctrine and practice.

Secondly, we have apostolic Christianity. This preaches the New Testament as it is and calls for repentance and faith for salvation. It has a set of values similar to today but much eroded over the centuries (whether for good or bad- probably both). But the key message is faith.

A Christian is someone who believes Christ died for their sin. Nothing else. As most people don't believe that we a not a Christian country.

So what my elongated run up is leading to is the need to acknowledge that Christians are entitled to their beliefs as long as they don't actively seek to harm or repress those they believe need to repent. Or do we need to stop all support, relief, and encouragement for the church as society is perfectly capable of managing its own transgressions as understood by cultural norms ? I don't think we do.

You write with a great deal of balance.

In the last paragraph i agree but also with an understanding as to why I guess a Christian may feel that way. Using a Christian example, when Nicodemus was asked what is the greatest commandment, by Jesus, he replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your mind, with all your heart and with all your strength" and its written Jesus replied, yes and also "love your neighbor as yourself, this is no less important", therefore humans are meant to love one another, not condemn.

And here's where I think this all gets a bit lost, whenever the word "sin" from which comes the need to "repent", gets mentioned (and thats not exclusively to this debate but anything where men are deciding what is and isnt and whether its right or worng)

The whole idea of a definition of what is sin and/or any need to repent, is not a definition that's set by man, its of God, of course man and society believe they can define it and can choose what is sin and what isn't and can act as a Judge and jury of what is and isn't acceptable.
But what is sin? its defined as any rebellion against God's or his holy ways. Its set by God.

The bible does state that every man falls short of that unatainable Holy standard, so it doesnt give any man the right (as a sinner by biblical definition) to be the judge of another man (fellow sinner by biblical definition). But it does give God that right to decide.

The important thing is that what actually constitutes Sin is defined by God from his perspective and not by man.

So the only question is, is God real or not?

If he's not real, its all irrelevant and meaningless guff and makes no odds anyway, a bit like the tooth fairy, but if he is is real, then it doesn't matter whether you believe in God, nor matter what we may think is right or wrong and what constitutes Sin, if God is real, then only what God says is sin is sin, and what isn't sin, isn't sin.

I have no idea whether any of the things this fella says are Sins or not, and like many I don't care less, or judge how others live there lives............ but if God is actually real, then it wouldn't make one iota of difference what any us mere mortals thinks anyway about this issue, only what God does.
If God is real, then this argument would be like an ant in the kitchen, trying to define by himself the laws of atomic Physics.

 

[Knocky's Nose]

Hmmm. Had a quiet life?

Clearly.

Everyone has a right to an opinion... and they can act upon their own opinions and lead their life according to them as long as it doesn't harm or interfere with anyone - surely?

There are plenty of things I don't agree with, so I don't do them. Doesn't mean I want to harm the people who do these things.

Happy to be educated on this. I'm not saying I'm right.

 

[Eeyore]

The Speaker of the House of Commons?

Order. Ordeeeerrrrrrr...

 

[studio150]

From an evolutionary standpoint we'd be encouraged that homosexuality is wrong. If 100% of the population was homosexual we'd evaporate as a species! .

Or would we evolve into hermaphrodites

 

[Mr H]

From a "Save the Planet" point of view, it would be beneficial if a significantly higher proportion was homosexual.

 

[Shooting Star]

No.

He is entitled to believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. I believe it isn't.

His reference to the hell awaiting homosexuals, among others, on the face of it may seem aggressive and hateful. From the outside it can appear that way. However, his call, from his religious viewpoint, was to repent and be saved. I don't regard this as the same thing. He was not making a hateful discourse in his own eyes, not like, say, an extremist who calls for all such people to be prosecuted or even put to death.

Cultural norms shift over time. Only half a century ago the warped understanding of the acceptance of a number of things was much different to today. And that lack of reason was aggressive and hateful. We have changed. I do not think Israel Folau is a hateful person. I just think he has a wrong and outdated understanding of salvation and relatedness to the creator. My view might be different of others who say similar things because I believe their views are fueled by hatred.

The decision to ban him has its source not in reason but fear of a political backlash. He should be challenged not banned. That is how we develop a productive discourse in society.

Though I don't see eye to eye with you on your comment about Folau's wrong and outdated views of salvation, I think you have the most refreshing and sensible stance on this topic and wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said.

As an aside, as a Christian I always find it interesting and somewhat absurd that people find comments about heaven/hell so offensive when they think they're make-believe places anyway. Would I be offended at an old-school Viking saying I wouldn't be going to Valhalla, or a Muslim saying I won't reach paradise and would burn in the Quran's version of hell? Not at all, because I don't believe they're true places.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Religion?

FFS

There is no god. Who cares what some fool thinks 'god' has told him?

This isn't even about 'theology' (the philosophical analysis of ghosts). This nobber has chosen a position because it suits his homophobia.

 

[Beach Hut]

Beast of a rugby player, Aussies will miss him if he is banned from the World Cup

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Beast of a rugby player, Aussies will miss him if he is banned from the World Cup

As in 666, the number of the beast?

Probably yes

 

[colinz]

It's basically an employment matter. It's in his contract that he cannot publicly say these type of things, it's now the 2nd time he's said theses things.
When you play for the National team you represent all Australians.
It's similar to when Glenn Hoddle had a go at people with disabilities.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Religion?

FFS

There is no god. Who cares what some fool thinks 'god' has told him?

This isn't even about 'theology' (the philosophical analysis of ghosts). This nobber has chosen a position because it suits his homophobia.

This is the contradiction. You are allowed to tell me I'm not going to heaven and no-one thinks anything of it. Folau tells me that, and he's banned.

Remember he was not condemning homosexuals alone. He was also condemning people who get drunk; people who have sexual intercourse outside marriage; people who lie; single people who have sex with other single people; people who steal; people who don't believe in God; and people who worship false gods. All of those things, apart from stealing, are legal. Why do homosexuals get special protection that fornicators do not get? There are a lot more fornicators, after all.

There is a problem with the most vocal elements of the LGBT lobby, in that they are intolerant. I mean to say, Martina Navratilova got chucked out of the club for having the wrong views on LGBTness! It's a very narrow church. (So to speak.) Tolerance means allowing other people to have different views; it does not have to mean agreeing that those views are right. Tolerance means allowing the unmarried couple to live together, the menage a trois to continue, the homosexuals to live together, the married man to have an affair with his neighbour, without starting witch hunts or burning them in effigy; tolerance means you accept that they can live that way but it doesn't mean you have to approve.

Plenty of people don't like Christians and say so in pretty strong terms. It doesn't mean they are intolerant.

 

[dsr-burnley]

It's similar to when Glenn Hoddle had a go at people with disabilities.

Glenn Hoddle didn't "have a go at people with disabilities". He expressed a pretty mainstream Buddhist view, that what you do in a previous life affects where you are now. Humans have been wonderful in previous lives, fruit flies rather less wonderful.

He said it at least twice, publicly. It didn't get much publicity the first time because England were playing well. The second time, England were doing badly so the professional troublemakers in the press decided to stir the pot.

Could a Buddhist ever have a responsible job in the UK?

 

[peterward]

This is the contradiction. You are allowed to tell me I'm not going to heaven and no-one thinks anything of it. Folau tells me that, and he's banned.

Remember he was not condemning homosexuals alone. He was also condemning people who get drunk; people who have sexual intercourse outside marriage; people who lie; single people who have sex with other single people; people who steal; people who don't believe in God; and people who worship false gods. All of those things, apart from stealing, are legal. Why do homosexuals get special protection that fornicators do not get? There are a lot more fornicators, after all.

There is a problem with the most vocal elements of the LGBT lobby, in that they are intolerant. I mean to say, Martina Navratilova got chucked out of the club for having the wrong views on LGBTness! It's a very narrow church. (So to speak.) Tolerance means allowing other people to have different views; it does not have to mean agreeing that those views are right. Tolerance means allowing the unmarried couple to live together, the menage a trois to continue, the homosexuals to live together, the married man to have an affair with his neighbour, without starting witch hunts or burning them in effigy; tolerance means you accept that they can live that way but it doesn't mean you have to approve.

Plenty of people don't like Christians and say so in pretty strong terms. It doesn't mean they are intolerant.

Wow,

I thought the only subject you'd be able to write that much about would be "the art of long ball"!