Israel Folau has revealed how he resisted the “temptation” of a peace offering from Rugby Australia that would have allowed him to resurrect his playing career.
The troubled Wallabies star described his fallout with the governing body as “challenging” and spoke of being tempted by the “opportunity” to rekindle his career with the NSW Waratahs and Wallabies during a Sydney church address.
The fundamentalist Christian faces being sacked by RA after being found to have committed a high-level code of conduct breach for an Instagram post that said hell awaited “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers” and others.
An independent three-member panel is expected to announce Folau’s sanction this week after deciding the controversial posts left him open to having his four-year, $4 million contract torn up.
But, in a video of him speaking at a church service on Sunday afternoon, Folau insisted the process was not finished and the “outcome is yet to be known”.
“Potentially I could get terminated, which means that there’s no more playing contract and therefore no more finances or money coming in,” he said from the lectern.
“It would be the first time it has happened to me in my life.
“All the materialistic things I have been able to have over the last number of years are slowly being taken away from me.
“It’s been really challenging but also it’s been encouraging to myself to see what my God is actually doing.”
It’s understood Super Rugby’s all-time leading try-scorer would have been allowed to resume playing again had he agreed to take down his latest controversial post.
“There have been many opportunities to potentially make the situation a little bit easier. I could go back and play the game, get everything back to the way it used to be,” Folau said.
“The way Satan works is he offers you stuff that could look good to the eye and makes you feel comfortable, and if you follow that path all the worries and troubles will go away.
“(But) it is always the will of God that comes first.”
The panel deciding Folau’s fate is considering written submissions from both the player’s legal team and Rugby Australia before handing down their verdict.
Both parties then have a right of appeal, meaning the most divisive matter in Australia could drag on for weeks and months yet.
Uriah Heep
Roar Rookie
There was at least one - it's in the Vatican archives.
Eagle
Roar Rookie
I know St Jerome translated & put everything together & didn't actually write anything, but up until he did all the hard work there was not a Bible as we know it !
Uriah Heep
Roar Rookie
Which beast ? there are 4 of them mentioned. There are similarities to the beasts mentioned in the Hebrew prophetic books of Daniel and Ezekiel. If you're referring to the beast which the number refers to ? Possibly an allusion to Nero. Almost all the book of Revelation has to be read in context of 1st century persecution of the nascent church - I doubt that St John (the attributed author) has made such a transparent reference to "the prince of darkness".
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
The beast referred to is clearly Satan.
Uriah Heep
Roar Rookie
There is no mention of "the number of the devil" in the book of Revelations (a.k.a. Apocalypse). There is the "number of the mark of the beast”. This is most commonly known as 666 - deduced from the Greek letter transliteration. But has also been interpreted as 616. And Revelation alludes to Domitian who reigned between A.D 81 and A.D 96. so it probably makes the date of writing the 10th decade or late 9th at the earliest.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
The 666 being the number of the devil is from the book of revelation. The book of revelation was probably written between 60-86AD. It is New Testament, but doesn’t purport to be about the story of Jesus.
Uriah Heep
Roar Rookie
Possibly the "number of the mark of the beast" (mainly interpreted as 666) was an allusion to Nero. The Nicene council "heavily edited what we have now" ? If you're referring to the Greek texts that make up (and made up) the Christian Scriptures then they were already available - they weren't edited let alone heavily. There was some discussion over whether some texts should be included in the Canon but the overwhelming majority we're universally agreed on. There are plenty of partistic writers earlier than Nicaea that quote scripture in a consistent manner to the Greek texts still used today - showing they had access to them. The oldest full Codex of the Christian scriptures is dated as early 4th Century and is in the Vatican archives. In all probability that pre-dates Nicaea (A.D 325) but even if didn't it seems hardly probable that it was sufficiently long after the council for anything but the most superficial edits to have been done (editing and re-scripting being a long and detailed process) and still be dated early 4th century.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
The article suggests that Castle stuffed the management of Folau's stuff ups. It doesn't appear to exonerate Folau in any way, simply suggest that his repeated breaches should have been handled better.
bandwagoner
Roar Rookie
I was one of many who wanted Folau sacked when I read he made homophobic statements. Then in the last week, more balanced articles came out. Dawn Grace-Cohen, a long time gay activitist, a lesbian, clinical psychologist wrote that silencing Folau betrays the same sex marriage victory, and I'm inclined to agree. In my opinion, it drive the people with moderate views to choose a side, and it has been framed as homphobia versus freedom of speech/religion, and I think the topic is more nuanced. Today, a work colleague facebooked Folau's post, stating if anyone wants to lose their job, "like this". There were quite a few "likes", but I'm guessing they are "liking" his post rather than Folau's. It was the first time I have actually read Folau's post, and I struggle to understand why it has been perceived as "homophobic" or at least why it has attracted such initial condemnation. Seems to me to be proselyting. I find the presentation and colours of the meme more offensive than the message itself. I "liked" it - let's see if I have a job tomorrow.
bandwagoner
Roar Rookie
Which version of Christianity do you prefer?
bandwagoner
Roar Rookie
The interviewees in the article denied taking conversion therapy. It does not seem to be directly relevant to the question of whether sexuality is a choice or not.
bandwagoner
Roar Rookie
"Influenced" does not equate to "caused by". So the both of you are "cherry-picking".
bandwagoner
Roar Rookie
Hypocrites on both sides of the debate and it is very unfortunate this has split society into two camps. I'm a scientist, and the short "answer" is no one really knows. Theories abound, usually about hormones, genes, social and environmental factors.
bandwagoner
Roar Rookie
Sexuality is a complex topic. Several studies reported that women, regardless of their orientation, respond to erotic images of both sexes – unlike men, who respond according to their orientation. This suggest greater fluidity among women, which then raises the question does women “chose” lesbianism?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Wow what a great insight into Animal Farm almost exactly word for word like https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/george-orwells-animal-farm-what-does-sheeps-chant-564418 Funny but a little bit of googling and it looks like aussierad has ripped off some high school "cheat notes" web sites and is presenting it as original wisdom.
Ex force fan
Guest
I might have agreed with you 5 years ago until I was confronted by a close family member that would do anything she could not to be gay. We walk a long path together until she understood that her family would not love her less if she is gay a neither would God. It is not a fashionable choice nor trying to act a little special to be gay as I thought a couple of years ago - in fact it is not a choice at all. Maybe you have to go through this yourself with a loved one to understand how hard it was for her to accept her as she is. To make it simple, neither her not me every made a choice to be attracted to women - we just are. That is how we were made.
Neil
Guest
So you're saying something can't happen at all, without any evidence to back it up? How very scientific of you.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey Ralph, Um sometimes because their obvious. Here's one - Santa isn't real. I don't think I'd be able to prove that but I still think it's true.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
All I was trying to ask is whether homosexual people have no choice at all Well surely they would have the same choice you have. So how does it work - how do you make the hetro choice ?
Garry
Guest
God only singles out those important ones....."there's such a ... desperate sense of entitlement. Surely this is all for me. Me, Mmme, ..I, I ...I'm so f@$&ing important, ..right? - Rust Cohle (True Detective, Season 1)