Does It Make Anyone Else Nervous...

[Dallas]

Ever think he may just be giving thanks? After all he has a lot to be thankful for.

DD...you nailed it. He is just giving thanks. People coming along w/ some agenda trying to describe it have some serious life issues happenin.

Good job my friend... :

 

[Dallas]

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion but we are not truly loving life if we separate out the "good from the bad" and only say "thank you" for what we perceive to be good.

So why ramble on about it if you dont want to turn it into a religious discussion? Just curious.

 

[Juke99]

So why ramble on about it if you dont want to turn it into a religious discussion? Just curious.

Because it ain't about religion.

 

[DoomsDayD]

I dont care what he does...i would run out a bottle of holy water for him to guzzle down..just so he makes all the kicks.

 

[KDWilliams85]

*** are you talking about...the 1st amendment has nothing to do with people "praising god" or whatever...it has to do with government restriction on public speech...yeesh.

Shows what you know. The 1st Amendment is also the freedom of religion.

 

[BEASToftheEAST]

Quite. That's why Christians are more like the Anti-Christ. They supercede their own rules and laws to fit the moment. I have the weirdest feeling that a Christian will lead to the ultimate demise of humanity.

Christians are more like the anti-christ because they supercede their own rules and laws to fit the moment? Would it not be fair to say that this is not a Christian trait, but a human trait? If not, can you explain how in your world non-christians are less likely to supercede or change whatever rules they live by to fit the moment? It seems to me you have touched upon the concept of sin, of which we all, Christians included, are often guilty. Your post gives me the impression that you seem to believe that Christians, somehow, because they believe in Christ are free from sin, or of breaking god law? If that is the case then I suggest you read/re-read the bible, because the gospel clearly shows that Jesus would sooner save the prostitute and the thief before the proud "believer" who thinks himself free from sin.

I don't know what to make of your last statement, I'm sorry you have such a feeling. Just remember that to truly be a Christian, is to try (with the full knowledge that you will fail) to be Christ-like. Many have done horrilble acts of violence and worse in the name of Jesus. But what did Jesus say? It seems to me that your issue is not with Jesus, but with people. The sin is ours, not his.

I'm not trying to piss you off KD, just making the point that Christians are just people. No better, no worse than anyone else. Peace.

 

[BEASToftheEAST]

Shows what you know. The 1st Amendment is also the freedom of religion.

Not trying to stir things up any further, but I think it's important include that following whenever the Constitution/God issue comes up:

from :The Declaration of Independance 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Without this declaration, the Constitution and all it's amendments is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Go here, go there, God is everywhere...

 

[CoCo]

Not accusing anyone here of this, but there are apparent phobias on both sides of the fence, on most divisive issues, which often impedes openness and progress. Easy for any of us to slip into.


Not to imply that all division would go away. But perhaps it could lesson the division caused by ignorance.

 

[WoodysGirl]

There are forums for discussing religion and this isn't one of them. If you'd like to continue this conversation elsewhere check out www.politicalzone.org, otherwise let's keep it about football, please.

Thanks.

 

[KDWilliams85]

Not trying to stir things up any further, but I think it's important include that following whenever the Constitution/God issue comes up:

from :The Declaration of Independance 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Without this declaration, the Constitution and all it's amendments is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Go here, go there, God is everywhere...

I'm going to use your own POV against you. "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is a generalization. It's nothing specific. It doesn't say the Christian god or the Buddhist's god... it says Nature's God. In which case, the proceeding paragraph immediately nullifies the preceeding paragraph due to separation of church and state. Not to mention that it is an assumption of those who read it. You'll be surprised just how many vague generalizations there are in the Bible. You'd think that Jesus was an astrologist or a gypsy. In which case, he would seem to appear as a prophet.

"God" may be everywhere but the continued usage of "God" in politics is a grievous supercession of what revolutionists fought and died for.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm going to use your own POV against you. "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is a generalization. It's nothing specific. It doesn't say the Christian god or the Buddhist's god... it says Nature's God. In which case, the proceeding paragraph immediately nullifies the preceeding paragraph due to separation of church and state. Not to mention that it is an assumption of those who read it. You'll be surprised just how many vague generalizations there are in the Bible. You'd think that Jesus was an astrologist or a gypsy. In which case, he would seem to appear as a prophet.

"God" may be everywhere but the continued usage of "God" in politics is a grievous supercession of what revolutionists fought and died for.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Your argument about the First Amendment hinges on this statement which you uttered yourself.

As much as I'd hate to say it... the people who advocate for God are kinda in breach of the 1st Amendment. I'll quickly explain.

When you say something like "Glory be to God" or "God Bless You," you no longer provide the choice that the 1st Amendment requires of you.

You're stating: Believe in the god I do or face the consequences.

When the 1st Amendment requires you to say: I believe in God. You do not have to believe in God or in any kind of deity.

Not to mention the sheer idiocy and illogic in your post. You never referenced any particular diety but singled out the mention of "God."

The Declaration of Independence ALSO mentions a general God, and not just a general God but a monotheistic concept of God embraced by Judiasm, Islam and Christianity.

I'll leave this topic alone since this is a football discussion and not a religious one.

But you have absolutely NO understanding of the First Amendment or the Constitution if you tried to contort a prayer uttered by a football player, or, better yet, a glance to the heavens by a football player as a violation of the First Amendment.

You sound like a fifth grader who just heard about the Establishment Clause without properly understanding the full context or the basic ideals behind constitutional amendments and have twisted them to fit your own warped definition.

Sad what a little knowledge in the wrong hands will do for you.

 

[tyke1doe]

As for CaptainAmerica's initial comment, I thought it was funny and didn't interpret it as disrespectful to Cortez's religious beliefs at all.

Some of you guys/gals need to grow a funny bone.

 

[KDWilliams85]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Your argument about the First Amendment hinges on this statement which you uttered yourself.




Not to mention the sheer idiocy and illogic in your post. You never referenced any particular diety but singled out the mention of "God."

The Declaration of Independence ALSO mentions a general God, and not just a general God but a monotheistic concept of God embraced by Judiasm, Islam and Christianity.

I'll leave this topic alone since this is a football discussion and not a religious one.

But you have absolute NO understanding of the First Amendment or the Constitution if you tried to contort a prayer uttered by a football player, or, better yet, a glance to the heavens by a football player as a violation of the First Amendment.

You sound like a fifth grader who just heard about the Establishment Clause without properly understanding the full context or the basic ideals behind constitutional amendments and have twisted them to fit your own warped definition.

Sad what a little knowledge in the wrong hands will do for you.

Before I committed a moronic error and accidentally closed the page, I had made a reference about how the DoI uses a generalized concept of a deity instead of someone specific. Even through your own ignorance you exclude the concept of polytheism. Tsk tsk... and you call me an idiot?

Excuse me, but "God" is a reference to the Christian god for it is a PROPER NOUN. God, in all theological reference, is only limited to a Christian standpoint. Perhaps even to the Jews... If it made a reference to Buddhism or Islam, it would have made a reference as the "Islamic god" or the "Buddhist god." Islamic and Buddhist are adjectives that describe their point of view on who God is.

Actions are not in violation of the 1st Amendment, organizational evangelism is. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean **** if one person can't be excluded from such an event due to idealogical differences. I can guarantee that at least one person out of the entire organization isn't a Christian. But since the very idea of a team prayer is so menial to begin with, it doesn't cause much of a rift unless it's exposed as a distraction.

It's amazing how you label me as oblivious when you're guilty of the same thing. You left out the idea of polytheism when you dogged me. You believe in freedom of religion as long as there's one deity, right? It's that what you're trying to say? Your guilty of being as narrow minded as I am; however, I am not limited to monotheism. I acknowledge atheism, polytheism, agnotism, monotheism, or any other kind of theological standpoint.

I guess the old addage is true... at least for you. Ignorance really is bliss.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I thought moving the thread would be enough, but it's obvious this thread is gonna go where it should not, so I think it's time to die a slow, but unheralded death.