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

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by UFFL

Change "gay" with "black" and maybe it's more apparent

Not even a close correlation.

[g8trjax]

Well I'm sure he's the ONLY pro football player that has views against openly gay men in the locker rooms. Don't sweat it, he has been sufficiently castigated.

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by Zanso

There are few things in this world that should be taken at face value and I can promise you the bible is not one of them.

I can also promise you, your post would not be included.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by reformedgator

Not even a close correlation.

I think he meant it as an analogy. He meant it as two groups of humans who have been or continue to be discriminated against. I understand what he meant.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

Guy didn't have to say that publicly. BTW, never heard of him anyways.

Agreed.

Lesson on why you don't do interviews with a shock jock...Very poorly handled situation by this player IMO...

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

Hope he pays for those comments. The apology is insincere, probably forced by the 49ers.

The problem with people like you is that you hate when people are honest when they don't think like yourself. Perhaps someday you'll say something somebody disagrees with and they demand you pay for your comment.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The problem with people like you is that you hate when people are honest when they don't think like yourself. Perhaps someday you'll say something somebody disagrees with and they demand you pay for your comment.

I mean, the comment was in pretty poor taste. Even if you are not for gays in your work place, you would probably want to phrase it better. Though it would be hard. I mean, he sounded like an ass despite what side you are on

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by UFreak

I think he meant it as an analogy. He meant it as two groups of humans who have been or continue to be discriminated against. I understand what he meant.

And these two groups of people are analogous how?

One group being compared has no choice in joining the group they are being defined by while the other group chooses to be part of the group being defined.

As I mentioned earlier I think this player handled this situation poorly and if one is going to jump into the topic of homosexuality publicly should do so with humility IMO...

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by UFreak

I mean, the comment was in pretty poor taste. Even if you are not for gays in your work place, you would probably want to phrase it better. Though it would be hard. I mean, he sounded like an ass despite what side you are on

So what do you want to do to him?

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

So what do you want to do to him?

What do I want him to do? I don't really know. I think the court of public opinion in San Fran is going to crucify him. I'm sure the NFL will tell him not to say stupid stuff and embarrass their brand. But as for what do I want him to do? I don't really know.

[mikehev]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Much of the new testament was written a generation or more after Jesus' death, in some cases second hand. And in other cases historical references are now ignored (666 in Greek spells Nero for example, hair risks would argue that book was a cautionary tale). Books that were not following the desired message were cut out in the early centuries as well, such as the book of Judas, books that didn't portray Jesus as the son of God etc. I have zero problem with people having faith as their central tenet, but as a history major, to call the book a history book is a stretch, even if it was written with the best of intentions.

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

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

And these two groups of people are analogous how?

One group being compared has no choice in joining the group they are being defined by while the other group chooses to be part of the group being defined.

As I mentioned earlier I think this player handled this situation poorly and if one is going to jump into the topic of homosexuality publicly should do so with humility IMO...

They are similar in that they are both groups of humans who have been historically discriminated against. Analogies don't have to be exact, they are to be similar.

[scamgtr]

Originally Posted by NoahBeanBizzel

Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was probably more Hebrew than any other language, so the fact that people out there got together and decided to translate the Word into English, changes nothing about the validity and message of the Scriptures. You can't just call a history book-which is basically what the Bible is-a collection of lies, simply because it's been translated for those who don't speak Greek. That would be absurd.

You can't just say thousands of people who saw, wrote down, and translated actual events are giving us manipulated teachings. Now, if you have proof of politicians "of the day" who did in fact distort what actually happened, I'd like to see it.

It's called the Council of Nicea. Look it up on Wikipedia or Google. A Roman emperor excluded several versions of the Gospels because they were too radical or did not comport with his political aims. The Gospels according to Judas, Peter, and Mary Magadalene were all not included in what would become the New Testament. That is one. The Gospel of Mark was written around 60 C.E., roughly 30 years after Jesus died. This is the earliest known Gospel. Therefore, it was based on oral traditions which were passed down orally before it was written down. So there was at least 30 years before anyone took the trouble to transcribe it. Play the game telephone where one person whispers a sentence to another person and let it go around a room of about thirty people. I guarantee that it will not end up the same sentence by the end.

The Bible has great lessons and guidance for life. However, scaring people into believing that if they do not believe they will perish in a lake of fire is silly. The idea scared the crap out of me as a child. I personally think that in the wrong hands that these words are dangerous. Christians cannot even agree on what some of the words mean. If they did you would not have Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, etc. the whole message of Christianity is exclusivity, if you are not like us then you are not getting into heaven. What about all the people that were around before Jesus? They don't go to Heaven because they were born at the right time. There are a lot of cave men, Chinese people, and Native Americans burning in hell. The problem with any discussion about faith is that it does not involve reason. The premise is that you believe without evidence. It allows for supernatural explanations and magic bullets. It is the subtraction of reason that makes the idea so seductive. The world is a hard and crappy place, but if you believe you will be rewarded in Heaven. That is a palatable idea rather than there is nothing after. I understand the why people pursue faith. I applaud them for being able to suspend their natural inclination to question. However, it is not in my nature. Therefore, anyone that points to this text and says that God hates homosexuals is really just using it to mask their homophobia. Just come out of the closet and admit you hate Gays. Let the marketplace of ideas judge you. Besides, isn't judging the fate of others the province of God. The idea of let he who is without sin cast the first stone is that it is not your duty as a Christian to point out or judge the sins of others, it is for you to mind your own business and and let God sort it out. That is the problem with the Word it is twisted by individuals with their own means and ideas.

If a person chooses or is born gay it is irrelevant. It is not for you to deride or judge their decision. God does not care what you think. It amazes me how little Christians understand the Great Book and its lessons.

[mikehev]

Originally Posted by scamgtr

It's called the Council of Nicea. Look it up on Wikipedia or Google. A Roman emperor excluded several versions of the Gospels because they were too radical or did not comport with his political aims. The Gospels according to Judas, Peter, and Mary Magadalene were all not included in what would become the New Testament. That is one. The Gospel of Mark was written around 60 C.E., roughly 30 years after Jesus died. This is the earliest known Gospel. Therefore, it was based on oral traditions which were passed down orally before it was written down. So there was at least 30 years before anyone took the trouble to transcribe it. Play the game telephone where one person whispers a sentence to another person and let it go around a room of about thirty people. I guarantee that it will not end up the same sentence by the end.

The Bible has great lessons and guidance for life. However, scaring people into believing that if they do not believe they will perish in a lake of fire is silly. The idea scared the crap out of me as a child. I personally think that in the wrong hands that these words are dangerous. Christians cannot even agree on what some of the words mean. If they did you would not have Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, etc. the whole message of Christianity is exclusivity, if you are not like us then you are not getting into heaven. What about all the people that were around before Jesus? They don't go to Heaven because they were born at the right time. There are a lot of cave men, Chinese people, and Native Americans burning in hell. The problem with any discussion about faith is that it does not involve reason. The premise is that you believe without evidence. It allows for supernatural explanations and magic bullets. It is the subtraction of reason that makes the idea so seductive. The world is a hard and crappy place, but if you believe you will be rewarded in Heaven. That is a palatable idea rather than there is nothing after. I understand the why people pursue faith. I applaud them for being able to suspend their natural inclination to question. However, it is not in my nature. Therefore, anyone that points to this text and says that God hates homosexuals is really just using it to mask their homophobia. Just come out of the closet and admit you hate Gays. Let the marketplace of ideas judge you. Besides, isn't judging the fate of others the province of God. The idea of let he who is without sin cast the first stone is that it is not your duty as a Christian to point out or judge the sins of others, it is for you to mind your own business and and let God sort it out. That is the problem with the Word it is twisted by individuals with their own means and ideas.

If a person chooses or is born gay it is irrelevant. It is not for you to deride or judge their decision. God does not care what you think. It amazes me how little Christians understand the Great Book and its lessons.

See my post above on Cannon. The emporer had nothing to do with selection of books. Cannon was a response to the items I mention above.

2 issues:

1-Validity of the Bible: it is valid.

2-homosexuals in the work force: I have no problem with them in the work-force, at all. That said, their lifestyle is a sin according to God. I have friends who are homosexual. Me not condoning homosexuality does not mean I am going to hate them. Quite the opposite, God commands me to love everyone.

BTW, I am a sinner, and there is a lot that I do and have done that God considers sin as well. Thankful for Christ and the cross.

In Him,
Mike
John 3:16

[JohnC1908]

I'm sure 49er fans will boycott games and refuse to watch a possible Super Bowl winning team because a defensive back doesn't like gays. Fans will tolerate rapists, deadbeat dads, and violent crime offenders. By intolerance is where they draw the line?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by UFreak

What do I want him to do? I don't really know. I think the court of public opinion in San Fran is going to crucify him. I'm sure the NFL will tell him not to say stupid stuff and embarrass their brand. But as for what do I want him to do? I don't really know.

This is sad, we are getting away from a free society. When a certain group of people are offended when someone is asked a question a gives their opinion then the person must be nailed to a cross. If the "public opinion" of San Fran is going to be that vindictive then he could bring his talents elsewhere.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by JohnC1908

I'm sure 49er fans will boycott games and refuse to watch a possible Super Bowl winning team because a defensive back doesn't like gays. Fans will tolerate rapists, deadbeat dads, and violent crime offenders. By intolerance is where they draw the line?

Yeah,it's just SO shocking to hear this comment come from such a socially enlightened group as pro football players.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

This is sad, we are getting away from a free society. When a certain group of people are offended when someone is asked a question a gives their opinion then the person must be nailed to a cross. If the "public opinion" of San Fran is going to be that vindictive then he could bring his talents elsewhere.

Did you read the quote? If so, it would be difficult not to be offended if you are gay or support gay rights. It was offensive. And he should have the freedom to say what he wants (as long as it is not putting others in danger), just like those who disagree with him should have the freedom to respond. I mean how dumb is this guy? He works in San Francisco!!! Freedom doesn't mean you should do stupid stuff. It means you're allowed to do stupid stuff. And when you do it, you pay. Just like in any other facet of life.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by mikehev

See my post above on Cannon. The emporer had nothing to do with selection of books. Cannon was a response to the items I mention above.

2 issues:

1-Validity of the Bible: it is valid.

2-homosexuals in the work force: I have no problem with them in the work-force, at all. That said, their lifestyle is a sin according to God. I have friends who are homosexual. Me not condoning homosexuality does not mean I am going to hate them. Quite the opposite, God commands me to love everyone.

BTW, I am a sinner, and there is a lot that I do and have done that God considers sin as well. Thankful for Christ and the cross.

In Him,
Mike
John 3:16

Much respect mikhev. We do not share similar religious beliefs. But much respect.

[108]

Originally Posted by ufgator4ever

In locker rooms, there actually is a difference. It may be politically incorrect to point out, but there is.

yes, just like in the military right