Niners CB: "Openly GAY Players Would Not Be Welcomed On The Team"

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Socom1

i presonally do not care what others do behind their walls, but I do not want the issue being pushed on me my kids or at my workplace.

At your work place?

Are you against
1, Closeted gays in the work place?
2, Openly gays in the work place?

Would object of gay employer who only would hire gay people?

[ArtVandelay]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Your experiences and ideas about public gym goings-on and non-private male arousals among alleged heterosexuals (NTTIAWWT) - sans women - are too complicated for me to comment on . . . but they do seem to be counterintuitive.

I don't have experience. I've never done it. But a good attempt by you to avoid the actual point of my post. It seems like a specialty of yours. I'm sure it helps you tons in your field.

The question was "Do you think Culliver feels the way he does about homosexuals because he doesn't want to be showering with some guy that gets aroused?"

Even if that was the truth, which is absurd, there are ways of getting around it (ie. build private showers.)

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by scamgtr

You asked, what more would a rational person expect from a deity? Proof aside from the testimony of a few men from thousands of years ago. Yes, proof often requires more than mere words for some of us.

Have you considered that there may be no proof that you would consider acceptable? That was a conclusion that I came to when I was agnostic. But if you keep looking for proof, I believe proof will come your way, and it may not come in a form that you would have expected.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[magnafides]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Have you considered that there may be no proof that you would consider acceptable? That was a conclusion that I came to when I was agnostic. But if you keep looking for proof, I believe proof will come your way, and it may not come in a form that you would have expected.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

What he said is not at odds with what you are saying at all. He is simply saying that one shouldn't misrepresent their faith as anything more than it actually is during rational discourse.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by magnafides

What he said is not at odds with what you are saying at all. He is simply saying that one shouldn't misrepresent their faith as anything more than it actually is during rational discourse.

Whether or not something is "misrepresented" is (or can be) subjective, though. If I have proof, but I am not capable of sharing that proof with you in a manner that you accept it to the same extent that I do, that doesn't mean that I don't have proof. All it means is that what constitutes "proof" for me doesn't constitute "proof" for you.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Dreamliner]

It's all good. It's still legal to hate fat people ... and white people of any shape and size.

[g8trjax]

^^^ And Christians.

[UFreak]

^^^ and Muslims

[gatorman_07732]

^^^^^Don't forget CEO's and rich people

[UFreak]

^^^^ or the indigent and poor

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by UFreak

^^^^ or the indigent and poor

Who hates the poor? People I know donate an incredible amount of money to help the poor including myself.

[UFreak]

Well, plenty do. But it is good that many don't and are willing to help.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by UFreak

Well, plenty do. But it is good that many don't and are willing to help.

Do that was well, specifically with food for the hungry. Now back to the gay thing.....

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by mikehev

Wrong on many accounts. The New testament is made up of a collection of letters and accounts that were considered "Cannon" as a response to a growing trend of those outside the recognized churches propogating works that were not accepted by the majority of churches (gnoisticism, etc.), and as a response to a few individuals who tried to establish a "cannon" of their own for their own motives.

Christ authenticated certain individuals to initially take his message to the world. Thus, cannon was established based on authorship. The three criteria included that the work 1- be written by an apostle or his associate (hardly secondhand), 2-the work had to be accepted by a wide geography of churches (in other words, if 18 of 20 churches in the north, east, south and west recognized 2 Timothy it was in....if 1 of 20 churches had something like the so called gospel of Jude it was out), and the work could not contradict anything that had been specifically taught by the apostles in person. Matthew was an eye witness, Mark was the interpreter for Peter, Luke was a doctor for Paul, John was an eye witness, Paul wrote most of the epistles, Peter wrote 2, John wrote 3 and revelation, and Jude (James' brother) wrote another.

All of these folks maintained apostle status as individuals Christ authenticated to write what we call the New Testament. So, in the end, its all about Christ.

Now Christ was one of three things...1-a liar, 2-a lunatic, or 3-exactly who He said He was.

1-If He was a liar, there surely would have been an account somewhere of lies that He told....no account exists. Quite the opposite.

2-If He was a lunatic, He could have never performed the miracles that folks like historian Josephus and others recognized as occurring. Even His enemies didn't question whether or not the miracles took place, they just questioned the source.

3- That leaves one option...He is who He said He is. God incarnate.

So, God incarnate authenticates apostles to bring us the New Testamant and there ya go.

As to the individual who scoffed at me taking the Bible at face value because of the King James Version...really? That is a translation of a text that came from the majority text of Greek manuscripts. If you think King James altered something (which is way off if you study that translation process), just grab an ESV, it was translated from a different body of texts called the critical text which is older. BTW, those texts are basically identical apart from scribes copying things like "Christ, Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" differently, or using an article here or there. Nothing changes any theological point made by the originals which was copied over and over again, and the reason why the New Testament manuscripts are more abundant than any other work from the 1st Century.

In Christ forever,
Mike
John 3:16

Nothing I wrote was inaccurate. Luke wrote his information second hand by any rational definition (among others possibly), the first books of the NT werent written until 50 years or more after Jesus's death, and early pieces were tossed aside because they didn't fit the belief system. None of that is in dispute as far as I know historically. One can argue semantics or the how's and why's, but all of those things are true.
And the King James version did have a POV in his translation, he asked that words like congregation be changed to church and Puritan references in previous versions to he downplayed for example to fit with the teachings of his church. They also favored a translation that stressed the word majesty as the preferred translation for many words, which had the effect of bringing the king closer to God. Whether that was from social mores at the time, a tacit request from James, or just a desire to impress the king I don't know. There are other examples, but the point is that while in many ways it was a very faithful translation, to some degree it has to be considered in the framework of when and where it was written.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Do that was well, specifically with food for the hungry. Now back to the gay thing.....

I don't know that there's anything left to say

[busigator96]

My Bracken was my teacher, and I'm gay!

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by magnafides

What he said is not at odds with what you are saying at all. He is simply saying that one shouldn't misrepresent their faith as anything more than it actually is during rational discourse.

Nothing has been misrepresented. People ask for answers, and giving those answers isn't enough. Nevermind that there are 39 or more sources outside of the Bible, written within 150 years of Jesus' life that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. Yet people are claiming that there are no independent sources.

Nevermind that the fulfilled prophesy that transpired is what separates the Bible from any other "religious" book. People can claim that the Bible isn't consistent with its teachings, and that couldn't be further from the truth. The consistency in the Bible is amazing. Or that there were eye-witness, first-hand sources that gave information about the ministry of Christ.

It would simply take too much time to respond to each claim I've seen that doesn't match up with absolute truth. Of course, faith isn't built on fact. Regardless of whether or not the facts point to the deity of Christ, any attempt I'm making would be completely made in vain if somebody refuses to accept any answers at all. If people aren't willing to be open-minded and do their homework, there's essentially nothing anybody can say to help them.

[scamgtr]

Originally Posted by NoahBeanBizzel

I can't go any further than this. Patronizing babble like this does nothing to change who God is, and it does nothing to deny His great name.

There are simply too many flaws in this rant for me to go down the line, addressing each one. Hopefully you'll one day see that there's something bigger out there than...yourself.

The funny thing is, I'm going to take a guess that you've never-like so many others-read even one of the gospels, yet you've probably lived your entire life denying something you've never even looked into. Some isolated propaganda through Wikipedia, the Discovery Channel, and Richard Dawkins are probably the extent of what you've heard about the Bible, and I'm sorry that it's like that for so many people out there.

This brand of thinking is what propagates intolerance of homosexuals and others, even if you are not capable of recognizing it. The thinking that my way of life and set of beliefs is the only correct one to live by and that you are not accountable to others of us as a result of your beliefs. Hate and intolerance are not the "Good News". Additionally, because God said so does not make it right; plenty of people have killed or done many other horrible things in the name of Father as a result of blind faith (faith without introspection); this did not excuse their actions.

Your response is typical of every deeply religious person that I have asked these questions. You counter reason and basic questions about your "facts" with emotional outrage and condescending remarks that belie little faith in your ability to answer the questions presented. You insult and then run away haughtily in huff saying that there are "too many flaws in my rant". Much like everyone else of faith that I have encountered, you fail to address simple questions without canned responses that come from your religious mouthpiece connected to whatever Bible study group you attend.

Funny thing is, I have read every book in the Bible, the numerous Gospels, the Apocrypha and some of the Lost Gospels many times. I was a religion minor at UF, where I studied more than just Christianity (e.g., Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism). I do not read Richard Dawkins. It is a waste of my time, I do not need someone else to reinforce my beliefs, as apparently you do. I do not need someone to show me flaws in the framework of your belief system. I do not need another person to tell me how to think about the Bible or any other matter of faith. The difference between you and I is that I fail to cover them up, make excuses for them, minimize them, make outrageous explanations for them or act like they don't exist as you do. I have also gone to church and found some sermons useful from a practical living stand point. However, there are lots of things that do not make sense about the Bible.

However, unlike you, I do not think that anyone that holds an opinion different than myself may not be threatening me or my belief system, it is my sincere hope that they may persuade me to look at something from a different point of view and that may allow me to reassess my beliefs. That is why I ask questions. I gave you an opportunity. I apologize that my questions caused to lash out. My intent was not to insult, it was to try to learn from you. I try to educate myself because I want to understand and explore faith; therefore allowing me to make my own personal conclusions. My atheism came to me on my own when I was in middle school as a result of many of the questions I asked, receiving no worthy reply. I am sad to say that you continued that long tradition. As a result I have not subscribed to faith because my questions regarding God and his motives cannot be adequately answered.

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I am self-absorbed and only concerned with myself. I know full well that there is a world beyond me. Your faith does not mean you are any more connected to humanity or reality than me. My lack of faith does not mean I have a disconnect with reality or humanity. In fact, the belief that my life and soul are not eternal makes me want to live life in a manner that I don't need someone to forgive me. It means I have to be accountable to myself and the world around me everyday without the golden parachute of "Jesus will forgive me".

My beliefs are mine and I am not asking you to subscribe to them, I am merely asking you to answer some questions in a thoughtful way without animosity or hyperbole. I want you to persuade me to believe or help me to understand YOUR faith. YOU were not capable of doing so. You failed to convince me of anything; moreover, you didn't even try. You failed to carry His message or to employ any of His principles. The only thing you managed to muster with all the strength of your faith was an inelegant insult heaped upon a pile of steaming assumptions.

You, like so many deeply religious people (I am not saying all), are not capable of answering questions or discussing such issues without injecting your venomous emotion into it. Thus, you resort to ad hominem attacks and make assumptions about my beliefs and my religious education. Perhaps you should take your own advice and educate yourself before you start spouting off insults; you know - Golden Rule and all.

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Nothing I wrote was inaccurate. Luke wrote his information second hand by any rational definition (among others possibly), the first books of the NT werent written until 50 years or more after Jesus's death, and early pieces were tossed aside because they didn't fit the belief system. None of that is in dispute as far as I know historically. One can argue semantics or the how's and why's, but all of those things are true.
And the King James version did have a POV in his translation, he asked that words like congregation be changed to church and Puritan references in previous versions to he downplayed for example to fit with the teachings of his church. They also favored a translation that stressed the word majesty as the preferred translation for many words, which had the effect of bringing the king closer to God. Whether that was from social mores at the time, a tacit request from James, or just a desire to impress the king I don't know. There are other examples, but the point is that while in many ways it was a very faithful translation, to some degree it has to be considered in the framework of when and where it was written.

I'm just curious about this, and feel free to give nothing more than a simple answer. Have you actually read the New Testament? Also, have you spent more time listening to individuals (with their own presuppositions, manipulation of God's word, and often political agenda involved with their own "formed" opinions) interpret the facts than you've spent actually reading the Bible?

[NoahBeanBizzel]

Originally Posted by scamgtr

This brand of thinking is what propagates intolerance of homosexuals and others, even if you are not capable of recognizing it. The thinking that my way of life and set of beliefs is the only correct one to live by and that you are not accountable to others of us as a result of your beliefs. Hate and intolerance are not the "Good News". Additionally, because God said so does not make it right; plenty of people have killed or done many other horrible things in the name of Father as a result of blind faith (faith without introspection); this did not excuse their actions.

Your response is typical of every deeply religious person that I have asked these questions. You counter reason and basic questions about your "facts" with emotional outrage and condescending remarks that belie little faith in your ability to answer the questions presented. You insult and then run away haughtily in huff saying that there are "too many flaws in my rant". Much like everyone else of faith that I have encountered, you fail to address simple questions without canned responses that come from your religious mouthpiece connected to whatever Bible study group you attend.

Funny thing is, I have read every book in the Bible, the numerous Gospels, the Apocrypha and some of the Lost Gospels many times. I was a religion minor at UF, where I studied more than just Christianity (e.g., Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism). I do not read Richard Dawkins. It is a waste of my time, I do not need someone else to reinforce my beliefs, as apparently you do. I do not need someone to show me flaws in the framework of your belief system. I do not need another person to tell me how to think about the Bible or any other matter of faith. The difference between you and I is that I fail to cover them up, make excuses for them, minimize them, make outrageous explanations for them or act like they don't exist as you do. I have also gone to church and found some sermons useful from a practical living stand point. However, there are lots of things that do not make sense about the Bible.

However, unlike you, I do not think that anyone that holds an opinion different than myself may not be threatening me or my belief system, it is my sincere hope that they may persuade me to look at something from a different point of view and that may allow me to reassess my beliefs. That is why I ask questions. I gave you an opportunity. I apologize that my questions caused to lash out. My intent was not to insult, it was to try to learn from you. I try to educate myself because I want to understand and explore faith; therefore allowing me to make my own personal conclusions. My atheism came to me on my own when I was in middle school as a result of many of the questions I asked, receiving no worthy reply. I am sad to say that you continued that long tradition. As a result I have not subscribed to faith because my questions regarding God and his motives cannot be adequately answered.

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I am self-absorbed and only concerned with myself. I know full well that there is a world beyond me. Your faith does not mean you are any more connected to humanity or reality than me. My lack of faith does not mean I have a disconnect with reality or humanity. In fact, the belief that my life and soul are not eternal makes me want to live life in a manner that I don't need someone to forgive me. It means I have to be accountable to myself and the world around me everyday without the golden parachute of "Jesus will forgive me".

My beliefs are mine and I am not asking you to subscribe to them, I am merely asking you to answer some questions in a thoughtful way without animosity or hyperbole. I want you to persuade me to believe or help me to understand YOUR faith. YOU were not capable of doing so. You failed to convince me of anything; moreover, you didn't even try. You failed to carry His message or to employ any of His principles. The only thing you managed to muster with all the strength of your faith was an inelegant insult heaped upon a pile of steaming assumptions.

You, like so many deeply religious people (I am not saying all), are not capable of answering questions or discussing such issues without injecting your venomous emotion into it. Thus, you resort to ad hominem attacks and make assumptions about my beliefs and my religious education. Perhaps you should take your own advice and educate yourself before you start spouting off insults; you know - Golden Rule and all.

Hey, I'm not even going to read this. If you have any desire to discuss this in a civil manner, feel free to PM me. We can discuss it over the phone. There's too much time involved to sit here and compose twenty-minute messages, and then attempting to maintain focus to sit here and read through 7 or 8 of your long-winded paragraphs.

I'm eager to have an intelligent, rational discussion with you; just not through constant messages delivered by a keyboard.