Jump to content

Congrats to Micheal Sam


mat

Recommended Posts

So is Tiger Woods a Pioneer for his numerous mistresses...I don't remember him being praised in the media for his sinful behavior. Dont judge others because they sin differently than you do. We all subfamily and fall short of the glory ofb the Lord.

You yourself said it was hypocritical for Christians treating homosexuality any worse than adultery and I agree...shouldn't the media be held to the same standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You missed my point...I was talking about you pointing out that it is hypocritical of Christians to single out homosexuality as a far worse sin than others but you seem to have no problem with the media holding up Sam as some sort of hero simply because he's gay...at the same time admitting that you yourself see it as sinful behavior.

 
I didn't miss your point. I'm just telling you that Christians may hold themselves up to whatever standards they want, but they can't hold other groups to those standards, and if they decide to, it's foolish to be upset or surprised when those other groups fall short of what Christians would have them do. you asked me "Should the media be held to the same standard", and i'm telling you NO, they should not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And he's the wrong color.

 
I'd suggest you go click the link that westend provided a little ways back in this thread. It debunks the ENTIRE "Obama didn't acknowledge Tebow" argument as far as i'm concerned, and it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Obama somehow has more respect for being gay than he did for Tebow being Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
I didn't miss your point. I'm just telling you that Christians may hold themselves up to whatever standards they want, but they can't hold other groups to those standards, and if they decide to, it's foolish to be upset or surprised when those other groups fall short of what Christians would have them do. you asked me "Should the media be held to the same standard", and i'm telling you NO, they should not.

 

Yes, you did miss it but I'll elaborate later.   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Obama and Tebow (and Palin) attended the same prayer event doesn't exactly counter the personal phone call to Sam or the NBA player a while back. To downplay the "agenda" is either naïve or denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Obama and Tebow (and Palin) attended the same prayer event doesn't exactly counter the personal phone call to Sam or the NBA player a while back. To downplay the "agenda" is either naïve or denial.


Come on mat. You are better than that. Tebow was invited to a prayer breakfast with the president. Sam got a call. Who got preferential treatment?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reread your post for the third time. If I missed it, you didn't make it. ;)


As you have pointed out, it is hypocritical for Christians to condemn homosexuality but sort of wink at something like adultery...not all but some do.

I also think it's hypocritical that the media can rip Tiger for his infidelity but hold Sam up to such high esteem for his behavior.

Both are picking and choosing and both are hypocritical viewpoints.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
I didn't miss your point. I'm just telling you that Christians may hold themselves up to whatever standards they want, but they can't hold other groups to those standards, and if they decide to, it's foolish to be upset or surprised when those other groups fall short of what Christians would have them do. you asked me "Should the media be held to the same standard", and i'm telling you NO, they should not.

So you are cool with the media having a low standard ,in a free country, on telling the news?  Is it right for a Christian to biased? Is it right for the news to be biased?  Is it right for a Muslim to lie? Is it right for the news media to lie? Is it right for a secular non-for profit to cook the books? Is it right for the media to cook the books? 
So we should expect all peoples to have a high standard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you have pointed out, it is hypocritical for Christians to condemn homosexuality but sort of wink at something like adultery...not all but some do.

I also think it's hypocritical that the media can rip Tiger for his infidelity but hold Sam up to such high esteem for his behavior.

Both are picking and choosing and both are hypocritical viewpoints.


The problem is you're attributing Christian beliefs to the media. In Christianity, it's taught both acts are wrong, but as you've stated, many wink at adultery and sex out of wedlock. In mainstream media, homosexuality and adultery are not lumped together. So it's not hypocritical when an act that is seen as wrong (adultery), is not treated the same as an act that many no longer have a problem with (homosexuality). You can't hold the media to YOUR religious standards. Well I guess you can, but don't act surprised when they don't live up to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am understanding you correctly, then you only tolerate those that agree with you?  If someone has grown up under religious beliefs that include not endorsing homosexuality, you consider that bigotry?   I am just wondering if the left is not quite as objective and broad minded as it so proudly claims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am understanding you correctly, then you only tolerate those that agree with you? If someone has grown up under religious beliefs that include not endorsing homosexuality, you consider that bigotry? I am just wondering if the left is not quite as objective and broad minded as it so proudly claims?


I don't have a problem with those who don't "endorse" homosexuality. I have a problem with those who discriminate against homosexuals or believe that they deserve less rights than heterosexuals. And as westend said, I don't tolerate bigots. I don't have a problem with people who's beliefs differ from mine, but I'll certainly argue with them as much as the next guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...