Lovers of Darkness Rather Than Light


Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,
For the Son of Man’s sake.
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!
For indeed your reward is great in heaven.

 

Australian Rugby player Israel Folau has been going through a sustained media campaign* against him for several weeks now, because of his public expressions of faith in Jesus. It started when he

“…was asked a question by somebody about what God’s plan is for gay people. My response to the question is what I believe God’s plan is for all sinners, according to my understanding of my Bible teachings….”

 

Since then he’s been attacked from all quarters in the media and by a media fuelled public.

The situation worsened when he dared to post a video of a David Wilkerson sermon on his twitter account, described in the media as “an anti-gay video”.

 

 

The onslaught continued today:

“It appears the furore surrounding Israel Folau’s religious views is only fuelling him to share more of his controversial thoughts…”

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/door-closing-izzy-tweets-religion-035521779.html

 
Because of his expressions of his faith, there have been calls for Folau’s career to be ended as well as the constant negative media attention.

 

Also in the news today:

 

Poll shows nearly 80% of respondents are against religious schools’ exemptions on LGBTI anti-discrimination law

Four out of five Australians oppose the right of religious schools to hire and fire staff or expel students because of their sexuality, a new poll has found.

The YouGov Galaxy poll, conducted for the LGBTI rights lobby group Just Equal, found that 82% opposed the existing discrimination law exemptions that allowed expulsion of gay and lesbian students and 79% opposed the schools’ ability to fire teachers if they married a person of the same sex.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/14/most-australians-oppose-religious-schools-right-to-fire-staff-based-on-sexuality

 

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

________________________________________

*Examples here: https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/05/12/11/39/israel-folau-met-by-protester-in-new-zealand

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/rugby-star-israel-folau-refuses-to-be-silenced/news-story/63d2028462cf010b950b8b52769639ab

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/super-rugby/karl-stefanovic-lashes-israel-folau-over-his-homophobic-remarks/news-story/bb88bd8c1812a27dc362219ecccf8719?nk=0ef75b84262d5b76f8f187db8d66b93e-1526272807

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/door-closing-izzy-tweets-religion-035521779.html

10 thoughts on “Lovers of Darkness Rather Than Light

  1. Given NZ interest in Rugby Union, this topic has hit news over here as well, with some well known international players expressing their disagreement with Israel’s belief,

    I find it interesting that the main media focus has been his perceived ‘attack’ on the gay community, The media (and others) have completely disregarded the context of scripture which speak of condemnation on ALL who do not believe on the name of Lord Jesus Christ.

    Which to my mind proves the truth of the scripture you posted: For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

    It is easier to criticise anothers belief than admit the truth of what that one is saying, and how it applies to oneself.

  2. Hi Roger, I was interested to find that it seems like Folau’s reference to homosexuals was:

    1) A direct response to a question about God’s plan for “gay people”. In other words he didn’t bring up the topic himself.
    2) His answer related to ALL sinners, that is ALL who transgressed against God – which is ALL of humanity until they respond appropriately to the gospel.

    I wonder why there hasn’t been similar condemnation of Folau and his views coming from fornicators, idolaters, adulterers… all of whom are listed along side homosexuals as those who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

  3. My understanding too, with respect to your 1) and 2)

    Perhaps others haven’t condemned because the focus is on LGBTI ‘rights’ at this time..?

    …or does it come back to a heart issue, where individuals KNOW they are wrong but don’t want their deeds exposed..?

  4. Sadly the idea of LGBTIetc rights have taken over the western world.

    A story I saw a week or so ago highlights how far the “moral” state of western society has fallen with regard to the promotion of LGBTI rights – in which Bruce Jenner, who “transitioned” to become the female Caitlin Jenner, was reportedly planning to marry again to “another” woman.

    All of this makes things more and more difficult to the follower of Jesus, when upholding God’s definition of sin can put a target on our backs – which perhaps isn’t entirely a bad thing, it challenges any complacency that tends to affect us when we’re allowed to get comfortable.

    Of course, homosexuality and related issues aren’t the only issue, but I suspect we HAVE become complacent about a lot of other aspects of sin. Not long ago I mentioned how evangelicals tend to major in their opposition to homosexuality but openly participate when it comes to the things that actually led to Sodom’s destruction.

    Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen

    see here: Christians and Sin

  5. Sadly the idea of LGBTIetc rights have taken over the western world.

    And is being made the major issue in many areas of discussion as people do their best to be with the “in crowd” regarding the “in topic”.

  6. Why don’t adulterers, etc., argue back like the LGBT… ? For one, because “gay” was specifically mentioned. Secondly, adulterers, etc., are already established in real time. I remember when a congregation I was a part of was being split by people looking to leadership from a man who (along with his family) had until then been sort of on the outskirts of the community. I had seen him, as I had met many people, before our official congregation’s organizer moved to town. A number of years later, after this man had begun to become friends with our leader/organizer but then proceeded to take a number of the money-making families away for himself (while he pretended to be humble), [I was of a money-making family too but not susceptible] our leader wondered out loud one day while walking by the way why the other man’s older children were bitter. They weren’t bad kids, but a little angry. I said I would guess it was because of the divorce. The leader looked at me, stunned, “So-n-so and so-n-so aren’t divorced.” Now I knew the other folks had begun to hide the facts. Surprise; sadly, the other ostensible leader had abandoned his two older sons’ mother. I guess the kids were supposed to get over it and be good little preacher’s kids. But anyway, griping about LGBT… is a shorthand way to establish “cred” and ego (whatever else one is doing). Nevertheless, I don’t think I would respond to Folau (and he may’ve been a little hapless^).

    I personally have no compunction to be part of an “in” crowd. And it’s easy enough to see that being in is the least path of resistance with evangelicals. They’re in alright. After I saw* that no one really cares about anything, it dawned on me there is no point in picking on gay people — and that’s what it is, because no one goes around making sure to exclude remarried people or even knowing if they are remarried or divorced and not dateable. How many married people have had abortions? No one cares. Almost no one asks questions about just really what happened in that previous marriage either. And it’s common enough to lie (or be dense as hell) and get away with it. No prying into life choices (or the past) like peeking into people’s pants. I do think people don’t want their deeds exposed. It’s worse, after all, to have an affair when you’re heterosexual and have a family counting on you than to be homosexual (unless the homosexuality is a form of adultery indulged in by a married person). Fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers already have their places in society. They know they don’t need to “defend” themselves, but they also often know the harm done (and there is in reality guilt, whether felt or admitted or not). What about people who have done what they’re supposed to in a marriage? Again, no one cares. Oh, the lion’s share care… enough to tell you to shut up because they prefer to superimpose pretty pictures.

    Disclaimer: I don’t believe I have enough information about this particular Australian situation to comment as if I know all details are obvious.

    ^ He likely meant no harm [and, like he said, he was answering a question] — yet wasn’t quick enough to formulate a fuller answer from the get go.

    * I saw this far earlier in life, and up until the aforementioned point had found this group to be an exception with greater values. (Admitted hyperbole: no one.)

    + Another reason for fornicators and adulterers not speaking up:
    NDAs (nondisclosure agreements) and threats.

    Something that hasn’t been addressed is paedophilia. I don’t know about there, but where I live homosexuals and liberals have been blamed historically for this sin that pretty much everyone agrees is deplorable sin or offense to humanity. It was ill-founded blame.

  7. For one, because “gay” was specifically mentioned.

    Yes “gay” was specifically mentioned by the person who posed the question that started the ensuing uproar.

    “Gay” was specifically mentioned in the question – but it seems to me that the answer placed homosexual acts within the context of sin in general.

    It seems that the questioner was more intent on causing controversy than the answerer was.

  8. http://theweek.com/speedreads/617343/donald-trump-turned-back-closest-friend-when-heard-aids
    Donald Trump was close friend and protege of Cohn even though he was “gay” until AIDS diagnosis.

    http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html
    This is the man who our President Trump pines for (“Where is my Roy Cohn?”).

    http://www.dcdave.com/article4/roy%20cohn.htmLawyer/
    mobster extraordinaire
    Roy is the kinda guy who makes you want to hide your eyes and hang your head, and mumble “Ohmigawd, say it isn’t so. He can’t have been gay.” Well, kiddies, he was. … Roy became a big time Republican and persecutor of gay men even as he surrounded himself with [selections of them from all over the world] in private. Roy did not just have gay tendencies… [yada-yada].

    He began his career by being instrumental in putting Ethel and Julius Rosenberg to death. It was downhill from there.

    ….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3246349/I-watch-supermodels-getting-sc-ed-bench-Donald-Trump-prowled-posh-NYC-clubs-racist-gay-hating-super-lawyer-Roy-Cohn-asked-conquests-like-Carla-Bruni-AIDS-test.html

    As we know, Trump has called this his “personal Vietnam.”

  9. Quote of me by Tim: For one, because “gay” was specifically mentioned.

    Me now quoting Tim: Yes “gay” was specifically mentioned by the person who posed the question that started the ensuing uproar.

    “Gay” was specifically mentioned in the question – but it seems to me that the answer placed homosexual acts within the context of sin in general.

    I thought I acknowledged that, but in more words.
    I think it would be helpful for us to be ready to more fully answer.

  10. This is an actual man (with a womb) who had hormones forced on him most of his life.
    https://anunnakiray.com/2015/10/10/i-am-a-seahorse-dad/
    He’s a bit eccentric (like a lot of people even if not LGBT…) but sensible.
    It is possible to argue about whether he is a man or something else, but his DNA is male. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand; read more than one or two pages. Additional information: someone shared a rabbinical article a few months ago showing that Judaism has (based on observable physical traits) recognized more than two genders (I think six) for centuries. The bible (even Jesus) shows us that there is at least a third possibility (such as eunuch from birth).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s