Bubba Watson Gets Involved in the Gay Professional Athlete Debate

[iacas]

There are a number of tests I could actually conduct to measure whether there is air in the jar. In fact, without testing it, I can tell you what kind of air (regular air, pure Nitrogen, etc.?) is in the jar. Not the best example. I think we all get your point, but I couldn't let that slide. :)

[jamo]

If I put a clear, sealed jar in front of you, how can you tell me what it contains?  Or doesn't contain?  If you can see air under those conditions than you have the best eyesight in the history of eyes.  I'm not talking about atmosphere, with water vapor and dust and other impurities.  It's either pure, filtered air, or 99.999999999% vacuum.  You can't say if there is something there or not unless you believe what I tell you.  People look at religion in the same way.

A regular glass mason jar would implode if it just contained vacuum. So if those are my only options and the jar is still in one piece, I'd guess it's full of air. :-) Not exactly sure what that says about religion...

[cipher]

The jar/air/vacuum thing is pointless.  Again you have to go back to the first cause, either you take a leap of faith that a certain god(God) always was, or that the cosmos always was.

edit:  Trust me I have a minor in Biblical Studies. haha

[heyal]

Two of my best friends are a gay couple I've known since high school - over 30 years. Yes, they've been a couple for that long. Better than any of my formerly married straight friends. The Bible has always been open for interpetation. But let's run this past everyone who insists on saying the Bible is the word of God. God did not write the Bible. It was written by...man. The only thing ever written by God's hand were the ten commandments. So the Bible is open to every phobia those men who wrote it had. And have you ever noticed that no one ever screams that the Bible does not say woman shall not lay with woman? A man's dream fantasty... So you take it from there. Bubba Watson is my fave golfer and will continue to be. He has a right to say what he wants. I respect his opinion. I hope he's man enough to respect mine. I have a feeling if he pushes this it could end up hurting him. I hope he has said what he needs to and now has the sense to shut up. And on that note, I too shall shut up.

[Rick Martin]

Ian Poulter appears to be fashion-oriented.  Is he married?

I'm not judging.....I'm just sayin'.....

http://www.fairwaystyles.com/Ian-Poulter?gclid=CPPS0YO_9bYCFYyi4AodSRwAjg

[iacas]

I'm not judging.....I'm just sayin'.....

http://www.fairwaystyles.com/Ian-Poulter?gclid=CPPS0YO_9bYCFYyi4AodSRwAjg

Rick, what does this have to do with anything? And if you truly wanted the answer, look it up yourself.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I don't really care if they do anything in the name of a jar of air or in the name of God.  My point was that if you can't see something, then you can neither prove nor disprove its existence from that lack of evidence.  Your apparent belief is fairly simplistic.  You have seen no convincing evidence of God's existence, therefore he can't exist in a logical world.  Others believe that the writings in the Bible were divinely inspired, and as such, that is all the proof they need to believe its teachings.  Those Divine teachings exist, so He must exist.  Their logic is irrefutable too, unless you can show concrete proof that He didn't inspire the authors of the Bible.

You make this flippant statement, smugly confident that you are smarter than those who believe in God, because you believe that your logic is more pure than theirs.  However, your belief is based solely on a lack of evidence, while theirs is based on tangible evidence.  That actually puts them on a firmer footing than you.  They have faith in the Book, while you have put your faith in nothing.  In your case it isn't a jar of air, it is simply an empty jar.

The Bible is a book full of errors, contradictions and prejudism - which is divinely inspired?

My evidence is all around me - the flightless, blind kiwi bird living way down in New Zealand is one piece of evidence. The devil was not present in religious texts until the nomadic monotheists ran into polytheists and stole the idea.

Why would I base my entire existence upon that?

One of the bibles biggest story's - Noahs Ark - is so full of holes its not even funny. How can anyone read this book and take it as truth?

Please also see:

Leviticus 19:20-22

Leviticus 27:3-7

1 Corinthians 11:3-9

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Exodus 21:15, 17

Leviticus 20:9

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Proverbs 22:15

Out of all the thousands of gods in the world, I only believe in one less than you.

[iacas]

A video by Kieran123 - presumably "proving" some of the inconsistencies, etc. in the bible or something - was removed.

I'm not a fan of someone of one religion pushing their religion on someone of no religion or a different religion, and so I'm not a fan of the opposite, either: a non-fan of religion pushing their thoughts on others.

At the end of the day, everyone here should be respectful of everyone else, and I'm drawing that line here, with a video that seems clearly aimed at pointing out how someone else was "duped" or "wronged" or something.

Furthermore, this thread is not about whether religion is "right" or "wrong" or anything like that. It should stick more closely to the original topic.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by jamo

A regular glass mason jar would implode if it just contained vacuum. So if those are my only options and the jar is still in one piece, I'd guess it's full of air.

Not exactly sure what that says about religion...

You must have some wimpy Mason jars out there Jamo.  I guess they make better ones inside the 495 belt.

[iacas]

You can google "mason jars imploding vacuum" and you get quite a few results. Back on topic though, eh? :)

[Jasonbolt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasonbolt

Out of curiosity, what is ignored?

http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm
A few examples:

Quote:

7) Here is perhaps the mother of verses ignored: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) and “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37).

Despite the way this passage is quoted by many of those who are not Christians (*cough* who seem to have memorized it faithfully), and even by many Christians, Jesus is not calling to a universal acceptance of any lifestyle or teaching.  The Christian is called to unconditional love , but he is not called to unconditional approval .  As a Christian, I can love people who do things I do not approve of.

Quote:

8) Believers are supposed to hate their parents when they follow Jesus ( “If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

That is in the language a comparative.  This verse is talking about how your love for Jesus Christ must be supreme. It must be greater than your love for your family, your home or yourself.  You have to remember that the Bible wasn't written in English, and going back to the original language to interpret is crucial.  Going back 2,000 + years, following Christ did cost some of them their families, their family relationships. For they were ostracized by their families when they made their commitment to Jesus Christ.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by minitour

Well if you're saying "non Christians" are judging Christians, that's okay. The "non Christians" don't have a bible (that they parade around with and hide behind) telling them to love each other and not judge (that's for someone else to do) people.

Says me (a Christian).

it can't be ok if you say someone else is wrong for doing the same thing,  lol.  either you're both wrong or you both have the right to say "I don't agree with that behavior".

Furthermore, judgement is not the act of saying something is wrong to do, or unholy, or not Christian or however else you want to say it.  Telling someone they are sinning is not judging them.  Judgement is condemning someone to hell.  I'm not saying there aren't Christians who do just that to other people, but the term "judging" gets used too often out of context in religious discussions.  Christians have a responsibility to rebuke their brothers and sisters when he or she is sinning.

For the record.  I do believe in Jesus Christ but its a personal thing to me.  I don't condone or condemn anyone elses lives and I would hope that they look at me the same way.  I will "love" whoever I come across in my life.

[Jasonbolt]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

http://bible.cc/exodus/35-2.htm

Working on the Sabbath and the punishment that the bible suggests for a start.

As I mentioned in the above post, you have to look at what was happening in the time that this was written to interpret it accurately.

This was a strict call to obedience. Before they did the work of building the tabernacle, God first called Israel to the work of simple obedience. Basic obedience is a pre-requisite for doing work for the Lord.  You can take it and enjoy it if you want. If you don't take it, it is not going to damn you or condemn you.

[Jasonbolt]

K, that's all.  I'm done :)

[minitour]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

Well if you're saying "non Christians" are judging Christians, that's okay. The "non Christians" don't have a bible (that they parade around with and hide behind) telling them to love each other and not judge (that's for someone else to do) people.

Says me (a Christian).

You may have been born into a Christian family but don't you date sit there and try to claim you are a practicing Christian while bashing it.

There is nothing wrong with leaning on faith a little. Faith is a good thing when done right.

I don't "claim" anything, I am what I am.  If you have a problem with that, it is your problem, not mine.  And what are you saying that I'm basing?  Christianity or those that "claim" (your words) to be Christian while spitting in the face of everything that is Christianity (Westboro Baptist Church, for example)?  I am definitely bashing the latter.

Originally Posted by Paradox

Quote:

Originally Posted by minitour

Well if you're saying "non Christians" are judging Christians, that's okay. The "non Christians" don't have a bible (that they parade around with and hide behind) telling them to love each other and not judge (that's for someone else to do) people.

Says me (a Christian).

it can't be ok if you say someone else is wrong for doing the same thing,  lol.

Why can't it be okay?  Non-Christians aren't bound by the Bible.  Maybe their "book" says that gay marriage IS okay!  So now who's wrong?

Maybe this basketball player (and I have no idea who he even is...I HATE basketball), believes a different religion and according to them, gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. IS okay.  Who are Christians to tell them that they're wrong?  That right belongs to the big guy....not us on Earth.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The atheist sees the Bible as a book written by a bunch of superstitious ancients who lacked the education to properly understand and interpret what they were seeing -

Which was then rewritten and retranslated so that the powers that be could cow and subjugate their flock into behaving how they wanted. Use of the bible to keep the serfs under control in the middle ages was particularly useful as it was only the aristocracy and religious class that could read the original text.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by divot dave

With a fuller context in mind, I can't possibly interpret Bubba's tweet as anything other than commending a member of his faith for speaking boldly on a controversial topic.

Let's be real for a second: you don't show general support for an action while at the same time condemning the merit of the action unless you make that clear.  And the same goes for a message.  If you say "well-done speaking your thoughts" there is an implied support for the message.  If not, there should be a clarification or qualifying statement supplementing it.  I have no doubt that Bubba concurs with Broussard's statements.  If he doesn't, he will say so.

Likewise, Broussard's context was clear: Collins is a sinner who may not call himself Christian, because he is not Christian by a standard that Broussard defined.  It can very well be assumed that since Broussard has never condemned other athletes for their adultery, that the primary goal of this message was to let people know that gay people are not Christians, and vice versa....which he has every right to believe as long as his religious doctrine corroborates that.

Originally Posted by divot dave

Last thought... there's been far more contempt demonstrated toward those embracing the christian faith, in this thread alone, than what can be detected from Broussard's words or Bubba's tweet.

That's a pretty common tactic attempted by evangelicals which is pure bull nine times out of ten.  First off, if they can't handle people pecking at the merits of their beliefs they need to grow thicker skin or simply ignore it.  That is not contempt.  And the contempt that IS shown is for those that would use their religious beliefs in attempts to alter public policy in hypocritical or discriminatory ways, which deserves as much contempt as possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasonbolt

Out of curiosity, what is ignored?

One of the biggest ones I find ignored is that passage which reads "love your neighbor as yourself" as well as a common phrase associated with Jesus known as "turn the other cheek."

I think the science on that is inconclusive at best. People might be born with a bit of a tendency but the latest info seems to be that a person's sexual orientation is set fairly early, but not pre-birth or genetically.

Agree.  One thing that IMO really hurts the whole LGBT agenda is pretending that there is anything conclusive about some genetic predetermination on sexual orientation.  Really, it doesn't friggin matter, so I wish that aspect of it would at least be discussed from a speculative perspective rather than from one of scientific fact.  It undermines the issue.

Originally Posted by saevel25

There isn't much you can go wrong if you do this. If you base your dislike of christianity on the people of the church who decide to live outside this statement, then that is very wrong.

Here is the problem, though.  Whether it's a minority or majority segment, there are very vocal and high profile Christians who regularly live outside of those statements.  They preach war, hatred, exclusion, judgement, and violence towards people they simply don't agree with, while at the same time pretending to be followers of a person who preached the opposite...even for his enemies.  Even if we assume they are the minority of Christians (which I would contend they are not), they are sometimes high-ranking members of the faith or at least are high profile and hold a platform with which they influence others.

The reality is that bad people will cling to a religion in order to justify some of their beliefs and personality traits, and religious doctrine is so inconsistent and vague at times that it lends itself well to people like that.

Originally Posted by NM Golf

This always brings me back to the quote often attributed to Gandhi, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

Word.

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

How about bestiality?  (although I guess you could say that harms the animal??)

Common argument that is misused by evangelicals.  Animals would fall into the same "lack of consent" category that young kids would.

Originally Posted by Paradox

it can't be ok if you say someone else is wrong for doing the same thing,  lol.

It's not about it being okay for both people, it's about whether or not it's okay for the person who claims to subscribe to a belief system where it's not okay.  This is about hypocrisy for the individual, not universal morality.  People obviously subscribe to different belief systems.  What we're talking about here is people that have no problem getting on a high horse to condemn things they don't like in the name of religion, while at the same time not following that religion according to their own publicly available religious doctrine.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox

it can't be ok if you say someone else is wrong for doing the same thing,  lol.

It's not about it being okay for both people, it's about whether or not it's okay for the person who claims to subscribe to a belief system where it's not okay.  This is about hypocrisy for the individual, not universal morality.  People obviously subscribe to different belief systems.  What we're talking about here is people that have no problem getting on a high horse to condemn things they don't like in the name of religion, while at the same time not following that religion according to their own publicly available religious doctrine.

Thank you.  Well said.