GoldenBearofCalifornia;842256792 said:

---

It is interesting that it bugs you when athletes start claiming that God was the one that gave them the victory. Some people believe that God controls everything. That is their belief. Why does the fact that some people believe something different than you bug you?

---

its not about whether or not people believe in god, but i can tell you that any priest will tell you, god has no interest in who wins the football game. those that praise god for winning a game shows a certain amount of ignorance toward the religion that they supposedly follow.

touchdownbears43;842256808 said:

---

Too bad Cal hasn't had a QB with the balls to say or do such a thing. The guy is a freakin stud....this is a dumb thread.

---

+1

Rushinbear - Must have been watching a different interview

GB54;842256673 said:

---

Do we really have to parse the words of a 21 year old jock as being indicative of anything but his own rarefied place in the world?

The kid can ball.

---

Only 3 people have won a Heisman, gone undefeated and won the National Championship in the same year (per ESPN radio).

This kid can run his mouth about how he won a game all he wants if his teammates are ok with it. If not, they can talk to him.

If this kid were at Cal he would probably flunk out and transfer.

NYCGOBEARS;842256813 said:

---

Because God hates Cal.

---

IIRC the Sunday morning following "the Play", the newspapers proclaimed: "God is a Golden Bear."

hanky1;842256841 said:

---

If this kid were at Cal he would probably flunk out and transfer.

---

Probably to.... Oregon.

yeah and we have a a kid who looks straight scared out there with little charisma. (1 year age difference so dont start with that) the old boys club here just cant stand to see a person like jameis do well.

sycasey;842256811 said:

---

It just seems stupid to me. Not the idea of believing in God, but the idea that if there is a God he is out there deciding who wins football games. If that's the case, why even play the game? Why even take the interview? Obviously you had nothing to do with it. What about the other team? Did God just put them there in order to crush their dreams? (Well, in the case of Cal football that last one might actually be true.)

That's not to say I dislike any and all invocations of God in post-game conversation. Players from both teams getting together for a quick post-game prayer? No problem with that. Players thanking God for giving them the physical gifts to succeed in their sport? No problem with that either.

Players claiming God wanted them to win the game? Yeah, I've got a problem with that. I think Winston's comments are more along those lines, but I will grant that he just might have phrased things awkwardly in the heat of the moment.

---

You raise an interesting Theological issue of "Pre-determination" (also known as "Pre-destination".

FYI, Many Christians do not believe in Pre-determination for the reasons you mention. It takes away all Free Will. How can God condemn a person to Hell or allow a person into Heaven for what he/she has done, if that person had no Free Will to choose to do good or evil.

Which leads to my pet peeve by ostensibly religious persons asking after some horrific event: "How could God allow such a tragedy to occur".
God must allow it, so that we can express our Free Will.

Bringing this back to Cal: Imagine Sandy hiring Sonny Dykes and micro-managing his choice of recruits, his selection of the starting line up, his substitutions, play selection, and even the use of time-outs and challenges to calls by the referees. Then firing Sonny after a terrible season.

Why Sandy would be just like, like ....... Al Davis.

freshfunk;842256737 said:

---

No, he isn't an elite educated student but neither are most of college athletes (or most of society).

---

Agreed. After all, he did get into Stanford (Shaw even called to congratulate him) but was smart enough to turn them down.

freshfunk;842256737 said:

---

Hatters gon hat. The kid played like a warrior and led his team to victory in a hard fought battle. No, he isn't an elite educated student but neither are most of college athletes (or most of society).

And why hat on his faith? If he believes it, then that's his right.

---

It may be people's "right" to believe whatever they want, but don't you think that there are beliefs out there that are just plain wrong, either factually or morally?

"I believe the earth is flat."

"I believe __________s (fill in the blank) are inferior people."

"I believe a Stanford player would never fake an injury to slow down a hurry-up offense."

They can believe something, but someone else can "hat" on their beliefs, right? That's my belief, anyway...

sycasey;842256811 said:

---

It just seems stupid to me. Not the idea of believing in God, but the idea that if there is a God he is out there deciding who wins football games. If that's the case, why even play the game? Why even take the interview? Obviously you had nothing to do with it. What about the other team? Did God just put them there in order to crush their dreams? (Well, in the case of Cal football that last one might actually be true.)

That's not to say I dislike any and all invocations of God in post-game conversation. Players from both teams getting together for a quick post-game prayer? No problem with that. Players thanking God for giving them the physical gifts to succeed in their sport? No problem with that either.

Players claiming God wanted them to win the game? Yeah, I've got a problem with that. I think Winston's comments are more along those lines, but I will grant that he just might have phrased things awkwardly in the heat of the moment.

---

So, believing in a god is not stupid but believing that a god has control over something does?

That is strange.

sycasey;842256811 said:

---

It just seems stupid to me. Not the idea of believing in God, but the idea that if there is a God he is out there deciding who wins football games. If that's the case, why even play the game? Why even take the interview? Obviously you had nothing to do with it. What about the other team? Did God just put them there in order to crush their dreams? (Well, in the case of Cal football that last one might actually be true.)

That's not to say I dislike any and all invocations of God in post-game conversation. Players from both teams getting together for a quick post-game prayer? No problem with that. Players thanking God for giving them the physical gifts to succeed in their sport? No problem with that either.

Players claiming God wanted them to win the game? Yeah, I've got a problem with that. I think Winston's comments are more along those lines, but I will grant that he just might have phrased things awkwardly in the heat of the moment.

---

Having been brought up a Lutheran, a pretty relaxed one at that, I know just enough about religion to be dangerous. But when I read what you have written above, it does not resonate with what I think religious people believe. I do not sense that they really believe "God wanted them to win the game" so much as their belief system is such that they feel thankful to God for enriching in them any good that comes from them.

I do not like all the invocations of God in the manner you suggest, but I am not sure that is what a lot of players are really meaning. The residence of God within them is what put them over the top to make that great play, or whatever, is more of what I hear. In that I find it personal to that player, I am more OK with it, unless carried to "gagging" extremes (which I think you are suggesting). If someone wants to cross himself and point to the sky, so be it, but we don't need endless pontification. Faith and religion is a personal thing. For the most part, bask all you want in it, but keep a low posture in diverse (believers and non believers) company.

OdontoBear66;842256856 said:

---

Having been brought up a Lutheran, a pretty relaxed one at that, I know just enough about religion to be dangerous. But when I read what you have written above, it does not resonate with what I think religious people believe. I do not sense that they really believe "God wanted them to win the game" so much as their belief system is such that they feel thankful to God for enriching in them any good that comes from them.

I do not like all the invocations of God in the manner you suggest, but I am not sure that is what a lot of players are really meaning. The residence of God within them is what put them over the top to make that great play, or whatever, is more of what I hear. In that I find it personal to that player, I am more OK with it, unless carried to "gagging" extremes (which I think you are suggesting). If someone wants to cross himself and point to the sky, so be it, but we don't need endless pontification. Faith and religion is a personal thing. For the most part, bask all you want in it, but keep a low posture in diverse (believers and non believers) company.

---

this last part im pretty sure is in the bible.

Rushinbear;842256656 said:

---

The arrogance is getting worse and worse. Winston, after the game, "I put my team on my back and carried them to victory." Or, something very close to that. And, this kid is still just a FR? I feel sorry for Jimbo. He might as well hand over the reigns now and save himself the struggle. Just collect his pay until the roof caves in and then move on.

Are we any closer to a true minor leagues in pro football? Between the arrogance and the ignorance, I'm getting close to having seen enough. I guess the money will rule until something cataclysmic happens and it would have to be widespread bad, not just cheating by a few schools each year.

---

Th arrogance of being happy and claiming he led the team after a come from behind victory against a defense that hit him all night...

After the defense gave up a TD to retake the lead...

The nerve of that fucker! Glad we dont have any players on our team who would make plays to win a game.

We used to. Glad those jerks are gone.

NFL Scouts Impressed By College Quarterback's Ability To Elude Criminal Justice System

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nfl-scouts-impressed-by-college-quarterbacks-abili,34883/

:beer:

Yes, but not all beliefs can be known to be entirely true or untrue, right or wrong. Some clearly can be so classified, others cannot.

I am not speaking specifically to you when I say this, but I find it a bit odd and hypocritical how some feel free to "hat" on others' beliefs/opinions yet will get defensive and somehow feel their rights have been trampled on when their beliefs/opinions are the subject of "hat" emanating from others. Intolerance works both ways.

Anybody is free to "hat" on another's beliefs, and others are free to comment on such "hatting."

Quote:

---

Zack Follett ‏@ZakarianFollett 19h
"There's only one person, The Good God Almighty" - safe to say Winston is my new favorite player after these interviews

---

Quote:

---

Avery Sebastian ‏@Cali_Showtime4 19h
Do u hear this Jameis speech? Putting God and family first! That's what I'm talking about.

---

Damnit, does this mean we have to hat on Avery and Follett too?

berk18;842256725 said:

---

Yes and no. Here are the facts: Language is always changing. This is true of educated English (i.e. its development from Shakespeare to a Cal classroom), and it's true of every other variety of every language that's ever existed. Different speech varieties exist precisely because language is always changing. When speakers of the same language spread out either socially or geographically, the language changes in different ways in those dispersed groups. Key point: Language isn't getting "worse." English (rather, it's ancestor) has been changing since humans learned to speak, and it has never degraded or become incomprehensible despite the fact that organized education has only recently come into existence. It just produced different varieties, all equally good as tools for communication within a specific group.

Standard English has no objective priority over any other variety of English. It started as the version of English that happened to be spoken in London when people decided that there should be a standard, but there have been dialects of English for as long as English has been written down. Some features associated with African American Vernacular English, for example, are just very old regionalisms FROM ENGLAND. So, the variants "ask" and "aks" have existed as long as English has. Many linguistic features came to America not through "mistakes" made by black people, but from English speakers from different parts of England. African Americans learned the language from someone, after all.

Here's where racism comes in: No one speaks standard English. Every spoken variety is "wrong" in a lot of ways. When someone says "That's the man who I see," 95% of the population doesn't bat an eye, because this is a "mistake" made by a specific group of people, so it's OK. We write that off as "Yeah, but EVERYONE says that," when we really mean "Yeah, but MY social group says that." We aren't so forgiving when other groups do things that are different but no worse. Furthermore, we are willing to accept some varieties (i.e. Irish English) as being quaint, and "just the way they speak," but we aren't willing to grant that license to people from the inner city. There's no objective reason for making this distinction. Linguistic prejudice just maps onto and illuminates social prejudice. That's not to say that people who dislike the features of AAVE are racist. Rather, society has been racist for a long, long time, and the rules of what is and is not acceptable linguistically were shaped by that process. Linguistic purists might not be racist, but their linguistic attitudes are shaped by a racist past. These attitudes are still clearly used to justify prejudice against specific groups of people, even if we can mitigate it by saying "I'd hate it just as much if white people talked that way!"

---

+10000000000000
What I try to explain to people who say things like "why don't they just speak/learn/know english?"

pingpong2;842256876 said:

---

Damnit, does this mean we have to hat on Avery and Follett too?

---

Good job, pingpong.

No, it means we have to give equal time to a wiccan priest-ess

NJbear;842256879 said:

---

+10000000000000
What I try to explain to people who say things like "why don't they just speak/learn/know english?"

---

My dad once told me, "Son, more peepoes in world is speaking engrish da way i speaking it den da way white peepoes speak. Who talk funny now?"

68great;842256848 said:

---

Bringing this back to Cal: Imagine Sandy hiring Sonny Dykes and micro-managing his choice of recruits, his selection of the starting line up, his substitutions, play selection, and even the use of time-outs and challenges to calls by the referees.

---

Might have been a better season.
I propose a Ouija board on the 2014 Cal sideline.

pingpong2;842256882 said:

---

My dad once told me, "Son, more peepoes in world is speaking engrish da way i speaking it den da way white peepoes speak. Who talk funny now?"

---

That is hilarious.

CaliforniaGoldenBear;842256883 said:

---

Might have been a better season.
I propose a Ouija board on the 2014 Cal sideline.

---

id take the Ouija board over Tony Franklin's playcalling

berk18;842256725 said:

---

Yes and no. Here are the facts: Language is always changing. This is true of educated English (i.e. its development from Shakespeare to a Cal classroom), and it's true of every other variety of every language that's ever existed. Different speech varieties exist precisely because language is always changing. When speakers of the same language spread out either socially or geographically, the language changes in different ways in those dispersed groups. Key point: Language isn't getting "worse." English (rather, it's ancestor) has been changing since humans learned to speak, and it has never degraded or become incomprehensible despite the fact that organized education has only recently come into existence. It just produced different varieties, all equally good as tools for communication within a specific group.

Standard English has no objective priority over any other variety of English. It started as the version of English that happened to be spoken in London when people decided that there should be a standard, but there have been dialects of English for as long as English has been written down. Some features associated with African American Vernacular English, for example, are just very old regionalisms FROM ENGLAND. So, the variants "ask" and "aks" have existed as long as English has. Many linguistic features came to America not through "mistakes" made by black people, but from English speakers from different parts of England. African Americans learned the language from someone, after all.

Here's where racism comes in: No one speaks standard English. Every spoken variety is "wrong" in a lot of ways. When someone says "That's the man who I see," 95% of the population doesn't bat an eye, because this is a "mistake" made by a specific group of people, so it's OK. We write that off as "Yeah, but EVERYONE says that," when we really mean "Yeah, but MY social group says that." We aren't so forgiving when other groups do things that are different but no worse. Furthermore, we are willing to accept some varieties (i.e. Irish English) as being quaint, and "just the way they speak," but we aren't willing to grant that license to people from the inner city. There's no objective reason for making this distinction. Linguistic prejudice just maps onto and illuminates social prejudice. That's not to say that people who dislike the features of AAVE are racist. Rather, society has been racist for a long, long time, and the rules of what is and is not acceptable linguistically were shaped by that process. Linguistic purists might not be racist, but their linguistic attitudes are shaped by a racist past. These attitudes are still clearly used to justify prejudice against specific groups of people, even if we can mitigate it by saying "I'd hate it just as much if white people talked that way!"

---

Well said! :bravo

sycasey;842256672 said:

---

The thing that always bugs me is when athletes start claiming that "God" was the one who gave them the victory . . . because obviously God really cares about the outcome of a football game.

I know a lot of them do it, not just Winston, but he pressed the point pretty hard in his interview, and I was like, "Enough already!"

---

Yes, right there with you on that. "God this", "God that". I'm a believer, but - enough!!

gobears725;842256889 said:

---

id take the Ouija board over Tony Franklin's playcalling

---

That is the Devils' toy.

berk18;842256725 said:

---

Yes and no. Here are the facts: Language is always changing. This is true of educated English (i.e. its development from Shakespeare to a Cal classroom), and it's true of every other variety of every language that's ever existed. Different speech varieties exist precisely because language is always changing. When speakers of the same language spread out either socially or geographically, the language changes in different ways in those dispersed groups. Key point: Language isn't getting "worse." English (rather, it's ancestor) has been changing since humans learned to speak, and it has never degraded or become incomprehensible despite the fact that organized education has only recently come into existence. It just produced different varieties, all equally good as tools for communication within a specific group.

Standard English has no objective priority over any other variety of English. It started as the version of English that happened to be spoken in London when people decided that there should be a standard, but there have been dialects of English for as long as English has been written down. Some features associated with African American Vernacular English, for example, are just very old regionalisms FROM ENGLAND. So, the variants "ask" and "aks" have existed as long as English has. Many linguistic features came to America not through "mistakes" made by black people, but from English speakers from different parts of England. African Americans learned the language from someone, after all.

Here's where racism comes in: No one speaks standard English. Every spoken variety is "wrong" in a lot of ways. When someone says "That's the man who I see," 95% of the population doesn't bat an eye, because this is a "mistake" made by a specific group of people, so it's OK. We write that off as "Yeah, but EVERYONE says that," when we really mean "Yeah, but MY social group says that." We aren't so forgiving when other groups do things that are different but no worse. Furthermore, we are willing to accept some varieties (i.e. Irish English) as being quaint, and "just the way they speak," but we aren't willing to grant that license to people from the inner city. There's no objective reason for making this distinction. Linguistic prejudice just maps onto and illuminates social prejudice. That's not to say that people who dislike the features of AAVE are racist. Rather, society has been racist for a long, long time, and the rules of what is and is not acceptable linguistically were shaped by that process. Linguistic purists might not be racist, but their linguistic attitudes are shaped by a racist past. These attitudes are still clearly used to justify prejudice against specific groups of people, even if we can mitigate it by saying "I'd hate it just as much if white people talked that way!"

---

Is actually a good way to continue the black underclass. Do you really think anyone would hire someone who speaks like that for a job, other than football. So I think your attitude is much more harmful than that of the linguistic purists, and in many ways, more racist.

After almost 40 years of being a Cal fan, it is pretty evident that God isn't watching out for the Bears.......

:headbang

RealDrew2;842256909 said:

---

Is actually a good way to continue the black underclass. Do you really think anyone would hire someone who speaks like that for a job, other than football. So I think your attitude is much more harmful than that of the linguistic purists, and in many ways, more racist.

---

You're going to have to explain how his post was racist. You know what racism is right?

grrrah76;842256914 said:

---

After almost 40 years of being a Cal fan, it is pretty evident that God isn't watching out for the Bears.......

:headbang

---

Or maybe Cal is the college football equivalent of Job? If so, we've got plenty to cheer about in the future! :cheer

Unfortunately, I fear Cal might end up more (Stanfurd) Jonah than Job.

gobears725;842256825 said:

---

its not about whether or not people believe in god, but i can tell you that any priest will tell you, god has no interest in who wins the football game. those that praise god for winning a game shows a certain amount of ignorance toward the religion that they supposedly follow.

---

The guy is expressing his joy of winning a game and talking about how his faith strengthened him. He's not standing there debating religious doctrine.

RealDrew2;842256909 said:

---

Is actually a good way to continue the black underclass. Do you really think anyone would hire someone who speaks like that for a job, other than football. So I think your attitude is much more harmful than that of the linguistic purists, and in many ways, more racist.

---

I don't know. If Winston fails in the NFL, I say some guy with a giant FSU tattoo underneath his business attire would find him a job.

pingpong2;842256876 said:

---

Damnit, does this mean we have to hat on Avery and Follett too?

---

lol. Probably not but - now that you mention it - why would you put God first? In my code, I put family first. The thing that is tangible.

I just think the "shout out" to God by athletes is a bit over the top. I'm a soccer fan and the one guy that takes it to extremes is Javier "Chicharito" Hernandez. Manchester Utd. striker. He is in the middle of the pitch, practically speaking in tongues, arms outstretched, eyes closed. Seriously?

Again my own opinion but I think that the midfield prayer after games is unnecessary and performed only for spectacle. I read somewhere that evangelicals specifically target athletes and pro and college teams to do these displays which I find particularly distasteful.

But full disclosure: I'm a believer. I just think its a private matter. If I was in Jameis' shoes - I'm thanking my teammates and the coaches.