Can someone please read the Bible to Duncan Garner and Israel Folau?

By   /   April 17, 2018  /   36 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

To be honest, I don’t think Israel understands the Bible he’s standing up for any more than Duncan does.

Duncan Garner says Israel Folau just quoting Bible

The AM Show host Duncan Garner says while he doesn’t share Mr Folau’s views, he supports his right to post them.

“That’s a lesson, a reading, a teaching in the bible – so he just merely quoted the bible,” Garner said on Tuesday.

“What’s wrong with that? I support his right to be a church-man and to reply like that.”

Cough.

What?

Which bible quote is Israel Folau quoting?

Leviticus 18:22?

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Or Leviticus 20:13?

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The problem with using Leviticus as a basis for law is that it lists a whole bunch of things that were against the law at the time, so if you accept that homosexuals should be put to death, then you will also be wanting to follow the rest of the Leviticus laws that put people to death for eating pork, eating shellfish, charging interest on loans, mating different types of animals, wearing clothing made of two different kinds of material and of course the old planting your fields with two different kinds of seed.

I don’t hear Israel Folau firing up much about credit cards or nylon.

The problem with holding on to Leviticus for any sense of ethical direction is that all of these old laws were ruled out by the New Testament in the 6th book, Romans 10:4…

Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

…so Christ actually rewrites and annuls any of the old law from Leviticus. I’m not sure if Israel or Duncan have read beyond the Old Testament.

To be honest, I don’t think Israel understands the Bible he’s standing up for any more than Duncan does.

Misreading scripture to arrive at meanings that are completely at odds with the message is tedious, but the rainbow backlash to Folau’s ill thought out Instagram comment is in danger of martyring him now and building more resentment not less.

Instead of yelling homophobe, point out that his own bible doesn’t in fact back up his conclusion that homosexuals are going to hell.

 

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

36 Comments

  1. Sam Sam says:

    Get back to training Izzy. Waratahs are teetz io.

  2. John Trezise says:

    You are being dishonest, Martyn Bradbury. I took the trouble to watch the AM clip, which Newshub published. It was pointed out that Israel Folau had been asked a question, to which he gave his honest answer, that homosexuals would go to hell. It was further pointed out that Folau was misquoting 1 Corinthians 6:9-12, which says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (which may or may not amount to the same thing, depending on one’s theology). To put it in context, the full quote (RSV) is “neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That covers most of us, and doesn’t focus on homosexuals. Whereas you, Martyn Bradbury, transfer the discussion to the Leviticus quote of your choice: that if a man lie with a man as with a woman they are both to be put to death. As far as I know Israel Folau has not advocated that. If he did, it would be hate speech and deserving of punishment. Many people believe that other people will go to hell for all manner of misbehaviours. To say so does no harm unless it leads to actions that cause harm; but it is the actions that should be punished, not expressions of belief.

    • The Daily Blog Martyn says:

      Thank you John.

      Even if we are to take the Corinthians 6:9-10 as the biblical position being used to justify discrimination to homosexuals…

      Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

      …there is huge debate over what the original meaning of ‘catamite’, the original word used instead of homosexual, actually means in this passage. A catamite was the ancient Greek word for a young pubescent boy used sexually by older men, that is a million miles away from adult homosexuals who love each other. So again, even if you are trying to use that scripture to justify Israel’s position, it still doesn’t stand up

      • John Trezise says:

        I didn’t make my point clearly. As long as Israel Folau confines himself to the eschatological and says he believes homosexuals are destined for hell, he is merely a fool who believes in hell and a homophobic god, and harms only other fools who believe in hells and homophobic gods. That’s free thought and free speech. It’s when someone’s words are intended to cause, or incite others to cause, mental, social, economic, or physical harm (the realm of Leviticus) that free speech becomes hate speech and we move from opinion to criminality. And I can’t help thinking that at the moment it is those who are mugging Folau through the media, rather than Folau, who are guilty of hate speech.

        • Sam Sam says:

          Utter rubbish. Can you even read the bible? That’s not what the book of Leviticus says at all. You’ve got to remember Leviticus takes place after the exodus of Israel when gods people rebelled, and as Israelis representative Moses was denied entry into gods tent because of the sins of the Israelis. And to understand Leviticus you have to first understand gods holy grace. As the author of life itself God is set apart from everything else as holy. So if God is holy then the space around God is holy. So if Israelis want to be in gods presence they need to repent there sends, this the book of Leviticus.

          Leviticus 11-15 covers ritual purity which associates contaminated sexual body fluid and mould with death and ties together the whole book of Leviticus 1 through 17. And death is the opposite of gods holiness because death is the opposite of life. So impurity was a temporary state that lasted a week because these contaminants was a apart of every day life. What is wrong or sinful is to waltz into the presence of God carry symbols of sin and death. This is where you’ll find the last sin. By eating impure animals and braking cultural taboo the book just isn’t clear about any of it. But the book is clear that it sets out an elaborate ritual that makes it clear gods holiness was to effect all areas of there lives. So in Leviticus 18-20 this sets out the Israel was to have a higher moral purity. To care for the poor and have sexual purity and promote justice through out the land in order to differentiate the Israelites from the Canaanites.

          In the last part of the book of Leviticus 26-27 Moses calls on his followers to be faithful and obedient to gods words and peace and prosperity will flow through the lands. And unfaithfulness will lead to disaster and exile from the holy land.

          Now I’v never been a religious person but Israel has been a dick to the Palestinians and deserves a thorough hiding before been thrown out of the Middle East.

          So in my honest opinion homosexuals are not destined for hell.

        • e-clectic says:

          If Folau believes that his imaginary friend has written a set of rules and he lives (perhaps inconsistently) by those rules then he is perfectly entitled to do that. It’s called religious freedom.
          Is he free to share his beliefs? As far as I know, he is.

          That may sit uncomfortably with some people – but in an open and free society that’s what happens.

        • e-clectic says:

          Indeed, one of the features of an open and free society is that we allow freedom of expression.
          Some of it will make us extremely uncomfortable, but don’t we want the right to be able to express things that may make others uncomfortable?

        • Mjolnir says:

          “And I can’t help thinking that at the moment it is those who are mugging Folau through the media, rather than Folau, who are guilty of hate speec”

          Really?

          So does free speech cut only one way, you’re saying? That Folau is allowed to spout his homophobic gargbage, but we’re not allowed to counter it? Thats not free speech, John.

          Anyway, as theBible says, “judge not and you will not be judged”. A point that seems to have been lost on Folau.

    • Sam Sam says:

      Asking sports stars with zero background in society or philosophy what they think about society or philosophy and people believing there fav sports star because they said something about there false ideology is what Joseph Geobbles used to do before he had to commit sideways for bullshitting so hard.

      • Jonathan Roe says:

        Why wouldn’t Falau’s comments cause harm? He’s advocating for people involved in legal and natural way of life that differs from his own be sent to hell. What’s that if it’s not hate speech?

        But it’s also illogical speech. It’s a kin to saying that anyone who drives a red Toyota is a half-wit and deserves any ill fortune that comes their way.

        Some commentators says Corinthians does not promote the idea of homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom; but committers of sexual crimes being the ones punished. This lies in mistranslated Greek word.

        Aside from this, it’s amazing how wishy-washing the Australian rugby authorities have been in slapping Falau over the wrist, compared to the definitive, vociferous and contrary view of the New Zealand players’ union and some players. This says more about the state of free speech vis-a-vis the hobbling by authorities, compared to its unchecked use in the form of some mad rantings of an uneducated Aussie rugby player.

      • Jonathan Roe says:

        Spot on Sam. If Falau’s comments had been left untouched in the Players Voice, then it would probably have gone no further than a bit of Friday night pub banter. But the dub-dub-dub and its devil spawn – the anti-social media – have a habit of amplifying garbage and giving it kudos by giving it time of day.

    • Jonathan Roe says:

      Why wouldn’t Falau’s comments cause harm? He’s advocating for people involved in legal and natural way of life that differs from his own be sent to hell. What’s that if it’s not hate speech?

      But it’s also illogical speech. It’s a kin to saying that anyone who drives a red Toyota is a half-wit and deserves any ill fortune that comes their way.

      Some commentators says Corinthians does not promote the idea of homosexuals not inheriting the kingdom; but committers of sexual crimes being the ones punished. This lies in mistranslated Greek word.

      Aside from this, it’s amazing how wishy-washing the Australian rugby authorities have been in slapping Falau over the wrist, compared to the definitive, vociferous and contrary view of the New Zealand players’ union and some players. This says more about the state of free speech vis-a-vis the hobbling by authorities, compared to its unchecked use in the form of some mad rantings of an uneducated Aussie rugby player.

  3. simonm says:

    Yep. Many righteous Christians also seem to forget the second half of the fable of Lot (Genesis 11-19) where after God turns his wife into a pillar of salt, Lot retreats to cave, gets drunk and sex with his teenage daughters – charming!

    On the subject of Israel Folau and his bigotry, I came across the excellent column by Tuiloma Lina Samu who is the New Zealand Human Rights Commission’s recently appointed Pasifika Human Rights Advisor. After reading it, I thought she might be an excellent candidate for top job at the HRC once Judy Collins appointee Susan Devoid’s 5-year term ends later on this year.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/10-04-2018/dear-israel-falou-your-unchristian-comments-hurt-young-vulnerable-pasifika/

  4. Tom Bradshaw says:

    The bible also states in Leviticus it is a sin to cut mark or tattoo your flesh….so see you in Hell Israel Falou

    • CLEANGREEN says:

      wow he’s heavy; – he’s my brother”””

      Humans are so very frail.

      I don’t think man/woman can judge God, or the scriptures.

      When considered with all his/her’s frailty.

      I am a child of a christian church going family, and I have seen so many church going people who are hypocrites, that I understand now at 73 what my elders meant, and even what my mother said when I was young, “Son their are better christians outside the church than inside them”.

      Yes I always question the bible and God sometimes but remain humble at his might, and am hopeful the evil we all face is banished by his hand.

      Humans cannot help themselves it seems now.

  5. Michelle says:

    Duncan garmer is a f….n idiot he was quick to put the boot into Bishop Brian Tamaki for saying the same thing yet he is sticking up for fool- lau bloody hypocrite!

    • Observer Tokoroa says:

      Hi Michelle

      It surprises me that Israel Falou has his mind on other males penis. I thought he was a footy player not a dick chaser.

      I think he should look after his own penis and testicals and keep his mind off other blokes. He is disgusting.

  6. Nitrium Nitrium says:

    This entire debate is nonsense. You can’t be sent somewhere that doesn’t exist by a being that only exists in a book of obvious fairy tales. IMO, religion isn’t far from a form of mental illness given it can surely only be taken seriously by an unquestioning irrational mind. There, I said it.

    • Absolutely correct.
      Religion, and God believing is nothing but trouble.

      Lets be done with it.

      • e-clectic says:

        Bring in the thought police?

        • Sam Sam says:

          I don’t believe religion will survive. If humanities technological advances allow us to survive climate change and 200 years of no nukes then we will have become creators ourselves and there won’t be any need for a Devine intervention to save us and send those that are a bit different to hell. Either way religion is doomed with out us.

    • Mjolnir says:

      Unfortunately, Nitrium, its not as simple as that. Too many religious fanatics use the word of their god to justify hate speech, hate actions, repressive laws, and any other repressive tool available to bigots.

      While I utterly agree with you on delusional religious beliefs, there are some nutters out there who will act on religious bigotry, sometimes with lethal results.

      Folau may have used words to condemn homosexuality, someone else may decide to deny a service to a LBGTI person. Next thing you know, they daub a swastika and “juden!” on their doors. Thats afar step, i know, but thats where it led to, last century.

      Maybe Folau was exercisung his free speech to express his mindless bigotry inspired by a 3000 year old collection of quasi-myths and twisted half truths, but responding to him with a “piss off with your bs bigotry” is just as valid.

      I’m waiting for Folau to justify slavery usibg the Bible.

      • Ken Clark says:

        According to the Bible you are allowed slaves, Leviticus 25:44:”Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves.”

  7. Grant Insley says:

    Is it any wonder society suffers from a lack of values and mores to guide its behaviour? The world needs systems of beliefs to support everyday living, systems of expected behaviour that guide individuals to function within society. To me it’s not important what the system is, nor what it teaches (save that it not be subject to different interpretations and cause disharmony!). That’s how society functions!

  8. ababy says:

    This is category 2 fake news. It’s real but it’s fake to say it should actually BE news. Watch out for cat 2

  9. ababy says:

    Category 2, it’s fake that this should be news

    • Andrea says:

      What if it’s not news at all? Merely assorted people stating their views publicly?

      This kind of issue always seems to escalate into frothy passion before the Righteous storm forth with their shutdown squeaks.

      Please don’t enquire into the prejudices of those who love to fling the tar and feathers about. Those people often have very dark internal shadows.

      That’s life.

  10. WILD KATIPO says:

    Nah , wrong , Mr Bradbury-

    Jesus said ‘do not think I have come to change( annul ) the law ( if fact he says the law doesnt change one jot elsewhere ).

    What we are talking about is the old covenant ( Old Testament ) and the new covenant under Christs sacrifice ( New Testament ). So , effectively no – we do not stone people to death under the new covenant , and yes we are told to in fact ‘love our enemy’s’.

    Also Corinthians was quoted , not Leviticus.

    In other words , – the new covenant.

    But that does not discredit/ devalue the penalty for what the Bible calls ‘sin’.

    In other words – breaking Gods word / laws.

    People break them all the time. Look around. This very blog highlights wrongdoing in high places all the time. Sin , or selfishness , … whereby in the New Testament it says ‘ the wages of sin are death’.

    And that’s not talking about death in this earthly sense, – its talking about the second death ie: judgement. After a persons earthly death.

    The good thing is , the Bible says ‘all have sinned and fallen short before God’. And thats why Jesus died on the cross. Because we all have broken the ‘ law’ in some way shape or form. It was a blood sacrifice and atonement for OUR sin. The Bible is packed full of texts foretelling in the Old Testament of a coming Messiah who will die as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

    • The Daily Blog Martyn says:

      Comrade

      Christ rewrote the rules with his sacrifice – that’s why Christians can eat shellfish, pork and take interest on loans because the old laws of Leviticus were annulled by his death.

      You are right, it was Corinthians in the new Testament, the specific verse is a list of people who will go to hell and ‘homosexuals’ were in that list.

      The problem with that is the original text didn’t have ‘homosexuals’, the original text had ‘catamite’ which was an old Greek word which meant pubescent boy sex slave. That’s clearly not homosexuality, that’s child abuse, so the correct reading is child molesters won’t go to heaven.

  11. ababy says:

    Bible is also, fake news

  12. Chris says:

    Thank you for this Martyn, it is very good.

    Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, in his excellent 3 volume work on Leviticus in the very reputable Anchor Bible Commentary series points out the passages in Leviticus only apply to male Jews living in Israel in a particular historical context.

    Jesus himself said nothing against homosexuals although he did have a great deal to say about love, tolerance, treating others decently, and not judging others.

    The other passages in the New Testament often quoted against homosexual acts are very unclear and probably refer to the sexual abuse of male slaves by their male owners (which was common in the ancient Rome).

    The word “hell” is not actually in the New Testament. The 3 Greek words used, usually mistranslated as hell, are sheol or hades, the place the ancients believed ALL the dead went, both good or bad. Or Gehenna, a burning rubbish tip outside Jerusalem. Or, in 1 place, the place the demons were sent.

    The “Kingdom of God” Israel Folau quotes is not heaven, but the reign of God on earth, that spiritual kingdom where there is justice and goodness and kindness and love. It is not a reference to life after death.

    Martyn Bradbury’s response that the best answer is to clarify what the bible actually says, and what it means in context, is absolutely spot on.

  13. Peter says:

    Any observation of the validity or right to what Folau has said is effectively irrelevant. I couldn’t give a flying f*ck about his beliefs. Picture a young rugby playing guy who is utterly confused and in a state of despair, because he’s disovered watching his fellow team mates naked excites him sexually. This discovery can be very traumatic, and the last thing he needs is for someone to tell him what he’s feeling is a sin and means he’ll go to hell, unless he repents.

    Repent “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin”.

    Folau needs to learn some empathy and keep his offensive mouth shut.

    Some people wouldn’t have nice things to say about him … and may wish for unfortunate things to happen to him. I’m pretty sure Folau would rather they kept their beliefs to themselves.

    And anyone defending Folau should have a long hard look at themselves in the mirror, and question if they are a decent caring considerate human being or not.

    • e-clectic says:

      How about the idea that in Folau’s mind he was being kind and compassionate to the person who asked him about homosexuality because he didn’t want him to spend eternity in hell?

  14. esoteric pineapples says:

    Most Christian fundamentalists aren’t actually Christians but actually non-Jewish Jewish fundamentalists. In other words, they are followers of the Jewish Old Testament

  15. esoteric pineapples says:

    There’s a pretty good argument that the Roman soldier and his servant whom Jesus healed, were gay – http://qspirit.net/gay-centurion/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *