uchighlander;842119042 said:

---

Where was all this love and support from the Prez and the like when Tebow was catching hell? GO BEARS!!!

---

Tebow got a call from The 700 club.

Jason Collins’ former fiancee, Carolyn Moos, had no idea he was gay

Quote:

---

Carolyn Moos says she had no idea that Jason Collins, her longtime boyfriend and fiancee, was actually gay.

In the Sports Illustrated piece featuring his groundbreaking revelation, the 12-year NBA veteran wrote, "When I was younger I dated women. I even got engaged. I thought I had to live a certain way. I thought I needed to marry a woman and raise kids with her. I kept telling myself the sky was red, but I always knew it was blue."

Moos, however, didn't know. The former WNBA player told TMZ that she only found out about Collins' orientation a couple of days before the world did:

---

Guess the only thing you can fault the guy for is not telling her earlier. Then again he only told his bro last year.

BTW, Moos is a former Furd WBB player and is 6'6". For purely hoops reasoning, would have been cool to see how tall their kids would be.

beelzebear;842119101 said:

---

Jason Collins' former fiancee, Carolyn Moos, had no idea he was gay



Guess the only thing you can fault the guy for is not telling her earlier. Then again he only told his bro last year.

BTW, Moos is a former Furd WBB player and is 6'6". For purely hoops reasoning, would have been cool to see how tall their kids would be.

---

Except it would be highly likely their 7'6" children would play for Furd.

calumnus;842119132 said:

---

Except it would be highly likely their 7'6" children would play for Furd.

---

You're right about that...so him breaking it off was a good thing!

The Duke!;842119063 said:

---

Most sola scriptura protestants make a distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws of the OT. The moral (including sexuality) is forever binding. The Civil has expired with the state of ancient Israel. The Ceremonial was fulfilled by Christ.

Lots of Christians make many caveats and exceptions to this breakdown. But this is just to explain that this is not hypocrisy or picking and choosing. Deut. 25:11 was the civil law that bound ancient Israel, not moral law that Christians believe binds all people at all time.

---

Broussard didn't just call out Collins, he inferred that engaging in premarital sex was also a "rebellion against God". I'm guessing that's one of the forever binding moral laws. I wonder how many of those God rebels he would rally against on BI.

Or better yet I wonder how many dudes watching were like "Yeah! we're with you man! Wait, no premarital sex? Oh never mind".

socaliganbear;842119140 said:

---

Broussard didn't just call out Collins, he inferred that engaging in premarital sex was also a "rebellion against God". I'm guessing that's one of the forever binding moral laws. I wonder how many of those God rebels he would rally against on BI.

Or better yet I wonder how many dudes watching were like "Yeah! we're with you man! Wait, no premarital sex? Oh never mind".

---

Yes, all of those other things Broussard mentioned (premarital sex, extramarital, adultery, etc.) fall under the category of moral law. And you are right -- none of those proscriptions are particularly popular, nor have they ever been. But I don't think Broussard was trying to win converts in a popularity contest.

All I am saying is that he isn't picking and choosing or being a hypocrite. There is a well thought-out logic behind what he was saying. You may disagree with it, but it is not logically problematic.

Personally, I find it very strange that people who have little to no understanding of theology or the Bible attempt to use it against people who know more about it than them. I am not trying to single you out, here. Rather, I am speaking of a much broader trend. I think facebook captions make this much worse.

It would be like me (an academic historian) criticizing Andrew Luck (a professional quarterback) on his throwing motion. Sure, I hate him for who he is (a stanfurd grad). But I don't have the expertise to assert that the technical aspects of his job are wrong. Likewise, I would prefer if people were more honest in their criticism -- "I disagree with the morality of the Bible because I don't like it" instead of "they are picking and choosing."

ducktilldeath;842119254 said:

---

Uh...believing in a 2000 year old work of fiction is absolutely illogical. Remember, there aren't dinosaurs today because Noah didn't scoop them up.

---

I can't see how your comment is much better than the terrible and homophobic things that have been leveled against Collins.

Where in the Bible does it say that regarding dinosaurs? Your claim is fiction. The Bible does not offer any explanation regarding the demise of dinosaurs. It is not a science textbook.

You are free to believe that the Bible is fiction. But without having devoted any substantial energy to first studying serious works of Christian theology, your claim is no more valid than mine regarding Andrew Luck's throwing motion. I think Luck is an immoral person and a terrible quarterback because he went to stanfurd. You think Christians are illogical believers in a fairy tale. Both of our comments are based on prejudices. My prejudice was deeply instilled in me via the culture at the greatest university on earth. I'm not sure where yours comes from, but based on the substance of your comments, it does not appear to come from a place of deep learning.

There are certainly intelligent arguments against Christianity and its moral precepts. But yours is not one of them. In the absence of great thought, I would hope that you would at least understand that there is logic behind the beliefs of others (even if you disagree with it).

The Duke!;842119250 said:

---

Yes, all of those other things Broussard mentioned (premarital sex, extramarital, adultery, etc.) fall under the category of moral law. And you are right -- none of those proscriptions are particularly popular, nor have they ever been. But I don't think Broussard was trying to win converts in a popularity contest.

All I am saying is that he isn't picking and choosing or being a hypocrite. There is a well thought-out logic behind what he was saying. You may disagree with it, but it is not logically problematic.

Personally, I find it very strange that people who have little to no understanding of theology or the Bible attempt to use it against people who know more about it than them. I am not trying to single you out, here. Rather, I am speaking of a much broader trend. I think facebook captions make this much worse.

It would be like me (an academic historian) criticizing Andrew Luck (a professional quarterback) on his throwing motion. Sure, I hate him for who he is (a stanfurd grad). But I don't have the expertise to assert that the technical aspects of his job are wrong. Likewise, I would prefer if people were more honest in their criticism -- "I disagree with the morality of the Bible because I don't like it" instead of "they are picking and choosing."

---

If can forgive the stridency of my earlier posts I'd like to weigh in on this. I was raised in a progressive Presbyterian church (for a few years in the 80s we had a lesbian minister, and not even the politically conservative parishioners cared) and am not a believer myself but have a warm relationship with the Church and an interest in the Bible. I have a pretty intense reaction to people like Broussard who a) think it's their right to define who call themselves Christian and b) think their reading of the Bible should govern the conduct of others.

In answer to your thought in bold above I'd counter that the same thing happens on both sides -- I would guess that most of the people who cite the Bible when explaining their opposition to homosexuality haven't actually read the thing and are just repeating the arguments of others. I just don't see anyone reading the whole Bible and coming away thinking "Wow, I really need to go spread Jesus's word that you shouldn't be gay." People often cite the Leviticus verse about not "lying with a man as you do with a woman," but that's of course bundled among a bunch of other directives nobody follows anymore. You're obviously much more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am -- are these moral (which persist) and civil and ceremonial (which don't) laws split into different chapters of the OT or are they lumped together, leaving some question about which are which?

Hope you're having a great birthday.

The Duke!;842119057 said:

---

My understanding is that Collins introduced he topic of religion. Broussard responded to this with a very traditional view of sexual sin. ... An athlete asserted a theological position and he responded in a cogent manner and in a civil tone.

---

Just as a matter of record, I think the only time Collins introduced the topic of religion was this short passage in his long Sports Illustrated essay:

Quote:

---

I'm from a close-knit family. My parents instilled Christian values in me. They taught Sunday school, and I enjoyed lending a hand. I take the teachings of Jesus seriously, particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding. On family trips, my parents made a point to expose us to new things, religious and cultural. In Utah, we visited the Mormon Salt Lake Temple.

---

I think Broussard brought religion into the discussion of his own volition, as is common when people discuss their opposition to homosexuality.

The Duke!;842119057 said:

---

As far as the 1st amendment goes, Broussard is covered by his job as a correspondent to express his views (freedom of the press).

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st amendment to provide broader protections than simply protecting individuals against congressional legislation (i.e. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District; Healy v. James). The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment not only restricts the ability of the US Congress to restrict liberty, but also that it grants positive liberty to individuals to express themselves (Simon and Schuster v. Crime Victims Board).

---

Broussard's status as a member of the press is irrelevant -- if ESPN fires him he'll still have the exact same protections regarding his views on Collins. Your examples make my point -- the 1st Amendment in each case is a rule by which the Supreme Court evaluates whether a law (Tinker, Simon and Schuster) or a state agency (Central Connecticut State College in Healy) restricts speech. People are arguing about the content of his ESPN appearance, not his right to say things, and even if they were they'd have no powers over which the 1st Amendment would apply (unless someone here is a police officer fixing to arrest Broussard for speaking out).

ducktilldeath;842119254 said:

---

Uh...believing in a 2000 year old work of fiction is absolutely illogical. Remember, there aren't dinosaurs today because Noah didn't scoop them up.

---

hahahahaha u do know that theres probably billions of people that follow christianity. are they all illogical?

my take on christianity is that there are many many lessons about life that one can learn from the bible and can help people to live better fuller happier lives. it doesnt mean that you need to follow it word for word. it doesnt make the people that believe in it, always right. but i think that the lessons overall have many more positives than negatives. it doesnt mean that its for everybody, but i respect its viewpoints and i think it does have its place

ducktilldeath;842119254 said:

---

Uh...believing in a 2000 year old work of fiction is absolutely illogical. Remember, there aren't dinosaurs today because Noah didn't scoop them up.

---

You do realize that your courageous hero, Collins, claims to be a Christian, right?

gobears725;842119288 said:

---

hahahahaha u do know that theres probably billions of people that follow christianity. are they all illogical?

---

Yes. The decision to believe in God or any other deity is fundamentally done without empirical proof, and is therefore illogical. That's not the same as saying it's bad or that people of faith are illogical about everything, but faith in God is indeed an inherently illogical thing.

The Duke!;842119250 said:

---

Yes, all of those other things Broussard mentioned (premarital sex, extramarital, adultery, etc.) fall under the category of moral law. And you are right -- none of those proscriptions are particularly popular, nor have they ever been. But I don't think Broussard was trying to win converts in a popularity contest.

All I am saying is that he isn't picking and choosing or being a hypocrite. There is a well thought-out logic behind what he was saying. You may disagree with it, but it is not logically problematic.

Personally, I find it very strange that people who have little to no understanding of theology or the Bible attempt to use it against people who know more about it than them. I am not trying to single you out, here. Rather, I am speaking of a much broader trend. I think facebook captions make this much worse.

It would be like me (an academic historian) criticizing Andrew Luck (a professional quarterback) on his throwing motion. Sure, I hate him for who he is (a stanfurd grad). But I don't have the expertise to assert that the technical aspects of his job are wrong. Likewise, I would prefer if people were more honest in their criticism -- "I disagree with the morality of the Bible because I don't like it" instead of "they are picking and choosing."

---

Problem is, the bible isn't about logic. It's based on faith.

Also I never called him a hypocrite, he may well have abstained from breaking all of those "moral laws" for all I know. And if that is the case,good for him, sure doesn't affect me.

In general, how is it not picking and choosing when you follow some moral laws but not others? Do we just ignore the fact because a lot of people do it? One can easily say "I disagree with the morality of the Bible because I don't like it" AND "they are picking and choosing." They are not mutually exclusive.


Of course the popular response would be something along the lines of "we are all sinners". As if to imply that breaking some "moral laws" is more ok than breaking others. Picking and choosing. There may be a well thought out response as to why this is ok, but considering its all based on personal faith, it has much less to do with logic. Even if the actual response as so constructed makes sense.

ducktilldeath;842119254 said:

---

Uh...believing in a 2000 year old work of fiction is absolutely illogical. Remember, there aren't dinosaurs today because Noah didn't scoop them up.

---

+1

YuSeeBerkeley;842119303 said:

---

You do realize that your courageous hero, Collins, claims to be a Christian, right?

---

What is this "claims to be"? If you say you're a Christian, you're a Christian.

socaliganbear;842119310 said:

---

Problem is, the bible isn't about logic. It's based on faith.

---

that's true but you'll find plenty of people who will argue that it's the word of God and therefore a foundation for logical conclusions.

Yeah, I know.

ducktilldeath;842119254 said:

---

Uh...believing in a 2000 year old work of fiction is absolutely illogical. Remember, there aren't dinosaurs today because Noah didn't scoop them up.

---

What if I were to say that two dudes with d*cks trying to mate is absolutely illogical? Your attitude of Christianity is equally offensive.

YuSeeBerkeley;842119374 said:

---

What if I were to say that two dudes with d*cks trying to mate is absolutely illogical? Your attitude of Christianity is equally offensive.

---

That's not illogical it's just an inaccurate description of what they're trying to accomplish.

YuSeeBerkeley;842119374 said:

---

What if I were to say that two dudes with d*cks trying to mate is absolutely illogical? Your attitude of Christianity is equally offensive.

---

Nothing like religion to make humans love each other and never start wars.

Boot;842119388 said:

---

Nothing like religion to make humans love each other and never start wars.

---

+1000

:beer:

ducktilldeath;842119254 said:

---

Remember, there aren't dinosaurs today because Noah didn't scoop them up.

---

eugene, the btown of the north. v. funny















:cheer:Monty

well, i dont know about the whole believing in god stuff and all that stuff but like i said there are a lot of philosophical and moral lessons that can be learned from christianity or any religion for that matter. Its not just the sterotypical slam that you mention.

anything that preaches things such as perserverence, hard work, caring for others, forgiveness, and love is not a bad thing. im not saying i believe in everything that hard core christians believe in, i wouldnt even categorize myself as a christian, but it doesnt mean i cant learn a few things from them.

ducktilldeath;842119410 said:

---

It happens in nature, in the animal kingdom. Didn't god make those animals, or are you saying they CHOOSE to do it? Shooting you idiots down is just too easy. If you would just keep your faith to yourself instead of telling everybody else how they should be living their lives, then I'd have no problem. But Christians the world over see the need to push their values on those around them, and condemn and oppress those who do not conform. What would Jesus do? Certainly not what modern Christians do.

---

Who's condemning? Who's oppressing? If anything, you're the one making baseless and wild attacks on Christians. Your narrow minded arguments are exactly the kind that's used by the very narrow minded Christians you assume all professing Christians to be. "If gays would just stay in their closet, I'd have no problem with them." Name calling and straw man arguments only reflect your own ignorance and intolerance. My earlier post merely pointed out the offensive nature of your attack on the Christian faith. It wasn't an indictment against homosexuals.

haha duck i agree with you on a lot of your last post. but again im just not going to say that christianity is all bad. it teaches a lot of good things, but yea, i think it feeds you a lot BS too. i personally didnt grow up on it, but i went to my share of services chasing a girl and picked up a few things. its not all that bad, but i just wouldnt want to live my life fully in the fashion that they preach.

i mean for example, there was one sermon that i remember where they were going into how to better be able to solve problems in a relationship, how to communicate better and how to be more understanding of each other. i mean it was good stuff, learned a couple things, but then all praise to god hahaha, and thats the part where i kind of smh

well, no, they dont need to. but its theyre way of life. its what they believe in.i personally believe in a more scientific, logical approach to life because it allows me i feel to be more creative, especially when i fail at an endeavor. I think that a major flaw is that christianity brings is that they pray for healing and endurance through hard times and just hamstrings them from actually doing something and thinking creatively to solve whatever problem that they are facing.

ducktilldeath;842119407 said:

---

Such a bullshit cop out, and so damn predictable. It's the typical Christian reply: "You're just ignorant". Bible thumpers claim it is "the truth" based on "faith". In other words, a truth that can't ever be proven. I claim a monkey dressed in a clown suit visited me in my dreams and told me I was the messiah last night. You can't prove it didn't happen!

And you really need the Noah/Dinosaur thing explained to you? Talk about being intellectually lazy! But go ahead, keep brainwashing your children into believing made up stories, and I'll keep promoting rational, logical, fact based critical thinking. I'm sure glad Noah put penicillin mold on the arc.

---

What gives you the impression that I am Christian, much less a "typical" one? I don't know too many Christians who believe that the US should get rid of the legal category of heterosexual marriage.

In fact I do need you to explain where in the Bible you get your Noah/Dinosaur claim. I have read the Noahic account several times, and have assigned it at the university level when teaching late medieval and early modern views of history. This is the first I have heard that the Bible speaks of Noah leaving dinosaurs behind. But go on, professor, enlighten me. Please show me where in the Bible this is mentioned.

Like I said, there are intelligent arguments against Christianity and its moral precepts. But yours are not intelligent. They are just as bigoted and ignorant as those homophobes who hate Collins simply because he is gay.

ducktilldeath;842119428 said:

---

If being intolerant of intolerance makes me intolerant, then I accept the label proudly. If every parent waited until their child were a legal adult before attempting to brainwash them into an organized religion, there wouldn't be 10% of the theists there are today. Religion is obsolete and dangerous. Religion divides people and retards the development of rationality. If you want to teach that the world is 6000 years old and that the Garden of Eden was real, you shouldn't be allowed to have a vote that can affect the lives of other people, because you believe in nonsense. You'd call me crazy if I told you I believed in a giant lion who died for my sins(and oh man, do we want to go down the path of the religious guilt brainwashing method?). First you teach a kid that a cute little story of adam and eve is the reality of life. Once they swallow that, you're well on your way to indoctrinating them into whatever political ideology you want. It is despicable, using children to further the goals a backwards faith which promotes intolerance and ignorance.

---

Please tell us how you really feel.

ducktilldeath;842119415 said:

---

So to teach those things you need to brainwash little children into believing fairy tales are "the gospel"? You can't teach the values of do unto others as you would have done unto you without also teaching insane right wing ideology? This is the problem with Christianity, the hypocrisy and the arrogance. Their way is the only way, never mind how badly it contradicts itself. Gays are bad, sinners, in open revolution against god! But judge not lest ye be judged! What? Volunteers, charities, hospitals, AWESOME CHRISTIAN STUFF. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! Brainwashing children into believing that a man lives in the sky and decides if they go to heaven or burn in hell(like if they're gay) IS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE HUMAN RACE. lol. The world is not flat. The solar system is heliocentric. Physics = truth. Science = the pursuit of truth. Teaching the bible as the literal word of "god" = dangerous and myopic. Just look at what happened to the middle eastern countries with the rise of their own brand of abrahamism. They went from the(non chinese) scientific and medical center of the world to a 1000 year dark age. You know where the most advanced scientists, astronomers, mathematicians, doctors were 1000 years ago? Freaking BAGHDAD.

---

I agree with you. Islam is a terrible religion.

The Duke!;842119436 said:

---

What gives you the impression that I am Christian, much less a "typical" one? I don't know too many Christians who believe that the US should get rid of the legal category of heterosexual marriage.

Indeed I do need you to explain where in the Bible you get your Noah/Dinosaur claim. I have read the Noahic account several times, and have assigned it at the university level when teaching late medieval and early modern views of history. This is the first I have heard that the Bible speaks of Noah leaving dinosaurs behind. But go on, professor, illuminate me. Please show me where in the Bible this is mentioned.

Like I said, there are intelligent arguments against Christianity and its moral precepts. But yours are not intelligent. They are just as bigoted and ignorant as those homophobes who hate Collins simply because he is gay.

---

Honest question. Have you ever had a conversation with Professor Sperlich. He teaches a religion and politics course (or at least he did when I was there). He basically spends each and every class explaining how religion has led to every single bad thing that has happened since the dawn of man.

I would think the two of you would have an interesting conversation.

What this thread really needs is some good old fashion crusades and jihad action, topped off by anarchist-atheists in jack boot taking on both. If by chance anarchist-atheists can't be found, the LSJUMB will do. If that doesn't do it, add in dildos and crisco.

Proceed.

:bluecarrot: :newnana:

ducktilldeath;842119407 said:

---

Such a bullshit cop out, and so damn predictable. It's the typical Christian reply: "You're just ignorant". Bible thumpers claim it is "the truth" based on "faith". In other words, a truth that can't ever be proven. I claim a monkey dressed in a clown suit visited me in my dreams and told me I was the messiah last night. You can't prove it didn't happen!

---

Similarly, you can't prove there is no God. You might want to take it down a notch. I only care about someone else's religion insofar as they think it should govern my own behavior. Their own faith is their own business.

beelzebear;842119449 said:

---

What this thread really needs is some good old fashion crusades and jihad action, topped off by anarchist-atheists in jack boot taking on both. If by chance anarchist-atheists can't be found, the LSJUMB will do. If that doesn't do it, add in dildos and crisco.

Proceed.

:bluecarrot: :newnana:

---

Nah!

ducky23;842119447 said:

---

Honest question. Have you ever had a conversation with Professor Sperlich. He teaches a religion and politics course (or at least he did when I was there). He basically spends each and every class explaining how religion has led to every single bad thing that has happened since the dawn of man.

I would think the two of you would have an interesting conversation.

---

My research addresses religious war, politics, and identity in Europe and the Americas in the 16th century. I do not share Professor Sperlich's view (as you have related it), and I find your description of his approach to be a perfect example of the professorial prosyletizing that I despite. I would commend to him William Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence.

I research and teach the history of Christianity in the late medieval and Reformation eras. I always promise my students to buy them a coffee or a smoothie at the end of the semester if they can correctly guess which broad religious tradition (or lack thereof) that I belong to (i.e. Muslim, Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Atheist, Quaker, etc.) based on the way I teach each religious system.

What is more, I'll treat any student and a friend to lunch at a nice restaurant if they can correctly guess the more specific denominational community I belong to (i.e. Baptist -- Southern Baptist, Double-predestinarian; Atheist -- Marxist; Jewish -- liberal, reconstructionist, etc.).

I have only ever had to buy one smoothie, and no lunches. But I have had many students guess wrongly.

For the most part, if you are respectful and really try to understand others on their own terms, it is hard for people to tell what you believe. It takes a great deal of intellectual discipline and curiosity to understand people on their own terms. In contrast, I believe that it is bigoted, intellectually lazy, and ignorant to simply dismiss and condemn people for believing in the Bible, for being gay, Catholic, republican, Muslim, libertarian, socialist, etc.

CalBear68;842119458 said:

---

Nah!

---

Okay then, bring out the leeches! Let the blood letting begin!

The Duke!;842119467 said:

---

My research addresses religious war, politics, and identity in Europe and the Americas in the 16th century. I do not share Professor Sperlich's view (as you have related it), and I find your description of his approach to be a perfect example of the professorial prosyletizing that I despite. I would commend to him William Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence.

I research and teach the history of Christianity in the late medieval and Reformation eras. I always promise my students to buy them a coffee or a smoothie at the end of the semester if they can correctly guess which broad religious tradition (or lack thereof) that I belong to (i.e. Muslim, Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Atheist, Quaker, etc.) based on the way I teach each religious system.

What is more, I'll treat any student and a friend to lunch at a nice restaurant if they can correctly guess the more specific denominational community I belong to (i.e. Baptist -- Southern Baptist, Double-predestinarian; Atheist -- Marxist; Jewish -- liberal, reconstructionist, etc.).

I have only ever had to buy one smoothie, and no lunches. But I have had many students guess wrongly.

For the most part, if you are respectful and really try to understand others on their own terms, it is hard for people to tell what you believe. It takes a great deal of intellectual discipline and curiosity to understand people on their own terms. In contrast, I believe that it is bigoted, intellectually lazy, and ignorant to simply dismiss and condemn people for believing in the Bible, for being gay, Catholic, republican, Muslim, libertarian, socialist, etc.

---

OK, I'm gonna guess Reform Rosicrucian.

You can hold the mustard on my Pastrami on Rye. Thank you.

Now, try to guess what I am: