User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.9325 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Actually I think he's a bigoted jackass whose low IQ makes him susceptible to believe in silly things like Jesus and the GOP.
No. No, you really don't.
Right, but how does it sound?
Go on, please continue to educate us on the need for tolerance of other people's beliefs and preferences and why Todd Jones's lack of said tolerance makes him a jackass.
My erstwhile faith, well-documented on its little tiny web site (vatican.va), doesn't hate gays either, but a whole lot of idiots who profess said faith do.
As for Jones, his FIP is 2.5 runs higher than his ERA. He'll slam to earth soon enough. No need to bait writers trying to fill column inches for peanuts. They have enough on their plates without trying to make rational arguments.
It really is right there in the the bible you know... abomination in the eyes of god and whatnot. Not much to argue with unless you want to just pick the parts of the bible you like and only believe those bits. I'm pretty sure the bible wasn't intended as a choose-your-own-adventure kinda thing though.
No. No, you really don't.
Thou shalt!
Witness the tolerance of the reflexive left.
It's right next to the part in Leviticus that says you can't eat shellfish.
If it makes you feel better I doubt he's too keen on forcing women to wear burkas either.
I swear I hit my "BTF" bookmark, not my "Fark Politics" bookmark. Let me click it again.
If not for the bible, disputes over oxen would go unsolved, and slave owners would have to deal with the moral crisis of how long to hold onto their "servants."
As a Republican and a Methodist, I will employ what I learned in my latter role and turn the other cheek with respect to this remark.
Todd Jones did not merely say homosexuality was silly.
--
It's right next to the part in Leviticus that says you can't eat shellfish."
--
Actually it's much clearer in Romans ch 1.
What, you mean act like every single Christian denomination in the past 2000 years? Of course you pick and choose what you like.
You want historical and religious justification to support your dislike of certain practices, you pick that. You find Jesus as an example of a social radical (liberation theology), you pick that. You want to give over authority to a learned and professional body of theologians to pick and choose for you (Catholicism), you do that.
There is no way it cannot be picking what you like.
Be that as it may be, homophobia is a sin as well. There was never an addendum where the following didn't apply to homosexuals. We leave the judging to God, we weren't told to judge--we were told to love impartially.
"Love your neighbor as yourself."--Matthew 22:39
"Love does no harm to its neighbor."--Romans 13:10
"And the Lord's servant must ... be kind to everyone"--2 Timothy 2:24
"Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people"--Galatians 6:10
Don't forget, the Bible condemns homosexual acts just as it condemns heterosexual acts outside of marriage. God will judge on the basis of how we act (toward God and man) and not who were are or how we were born. I do not know how God will ultimately judge things ("For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."--1 John 3:20), but I do know I am not to hate my fellowman. "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him."--1 John 3:15
Best Regards
John
Off topic a bit. One needs to read the Bible in context and recognize that many Old Testament rules/laws (eating shellfish for instance) were directed only at Jews. And even they were released from this requirement in the book of Acts. Some laws are for everyone for all time. Some are for particular groups for particular times. If you just pick out a verse that says don't eat pigs without knowing anything about the verses and chapters around it you are likely to misinterpret the verse.
Shining the Light,
Marty Winn
And yet...and yet...the early fathers of the Christian church thought those rules "directed only at Jews" were important enough to be deemed the Word of God for Christians. Pick and choose like they did, but never deny that you're arbitrarily picking and choosing.
Edit: but I did appreciate and can get behind your first paragraph as much as is possible for someone like me.
Rom 1.27 is the only statement in the New Testament on "homosexuality" and the only statement in the bible on female homoeroticism. I see little reason why this one verse should trump all the other stuff about humility in our understanding of God's will and judgment, and the clear narrative strands that describe God's care and compassion for the outcast of the world.
Do you believe that every woman who speaks in church is a sinner (1 Cor 14)? Or that women should be veiled in church (1 Cor 11)? Do you believe that every Christian should follow the eucharistic practice of 1 Cor or Luke or Mark? It's my general experience that people who like to claim the purity of their beliefs about homosexuality based on one verse rarely follow the varied restrictions laid down in first Corinthians.
It is absolutely necessary to interpret. There is no "plain meaning" of a massively complicated text composed over centuries - that's bad theology and worse literary theory. The question of the authority of scripture needs to be opened so that we can recognize all the varied ways in which people have drawn meaning and faith and grounds for moral reasoning, so that we can recognize that interpretation is what Christians have been doing since the very beginning.
Take 1 Cor 10 - Paul interprets the story of Israel in the desert, in which they received water from a rock. The story is retold in Exodus and Numbers, and in one case they get the rock early in the journey, and at one point later. Paul says that the rock was following them, and that the rock was Christ. This is clearly not the plain meaning of the scripture on either case - certainly the text never says anything about Christ - but it's one way in which Paul made sense of and interpreted his tradition.
If we're going to take the word of Paul as absolutely authoritative for its "plain meaning", we should note that Paul rejected the plain meaning of scripture - he criticizes those who read "literally" instead of "spiritually" in 2 Cor 3 - and had a peculiar interpretive practice of his own based on allegorical and midrashic readings of the scripture.
If you do say so yourself.
I believe that all the word of God should be the word of God, not just the parts that apply to me or this generation. I'm left with the responsibility of interpreting it though to understand if it applies to me. I'm not arbitrarily picking and choosing. I'm choosing based on a good faith effort to understand the word of God. It's possible/likely that I am wrong in parts. But it is my hope/desire that I am not blinded by some sin to interpret the Bible in a way that is easier for me instead of alligned with the intent of God. When the decision on cannonizing certain scriptures were made I believe that they were guided by God in the selection. God had a high enough stake in the formation of the Bible that I believe He would superintend the process.
Don't say that. You'll make him uncomfortable. Especially in the locker room.
"I believe everything in the bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff."
However, there is no one religion that is any more or less ridiculous than the next. It is wrong to single out christianity, it's just the most powerful and well-known and therefore easiest target. They are all equally deserving of derision.
Speaking of which...
And then...
http://www.crossville-chronicle.com/homepage/local_story_106193650.html?keyword=leadpicturestory
All of your friends are sinners, so are you, so am I. What you object to is being told that you are a sinner who needs to humble himself before God. No one is condemned just for having sex. According to Isaiah all your good deeds are filthy rags. Even your best efforts fall short. When you give money to charity so people will think you are nice/good that is enough reason to send you to hell. You can reject it because you think it is bigotted if you like but all men are condemned. Sounds pretty universal, not bigotted to me.
God need only say something once to make it true. God's care/compassion/mercy is not in overlooking sin but in forgiving sin. He does not stop calling sin sin, but rather he has provided a way to be forgiven. A way that is humbling, the road is narrow, the way is strait and few there be who find it.
I agree that it is impossible to understand the Bible without the Spirit of God's guiding. And the Spirit/regeneration only comes by God's pre-ordination. The Bible claims authority for itself (1 Tim 3:16-17). One is left with the decision to reject or accept it. I'm not particularly interested in how how people have drawn meaning/faith/moral reasoning from scripture apart from the truth of the scripture. The Bible has been used to make many people feel good. This has temporal benefit. This benefit is lost in eternity if the truth of scripture is missed in your particular varied way of reasoning. If you care what God has to say pray for the Spirit to show you the truth. He will in no wise cast you out.
Paul had a benefit that we do not have. He had the Holy Spirit speaking directly through him to reveal truth/scripture/word of God. A worse story Paul told was the whole Galatians two mountains analogy. There was no way for a man to understand this imagery. Except if God uniquely appointed you to receive His revelation which he did for only a select few prophets and apostles. Many have tried to analagize scripture like Paul did but without the benefit of receive divine revelation. This is doomed to failure. We are left to diligently study the word and interpret and apply it with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Shining the Light,
Marty Winn
I can endorse a god who loses a drinking contest only because he was tricking into trying to consume the ocean.
I seriously have no idea what the #### this claptrap means.
Of course you do. You're just too polite to say it in public.
Cliff's Notes Version:
You can't understand the Bible with certainty unless God reveals it's meaning to you. The Bible is (mis)used by many people who do not understand it to justify themselves. If you want to understand the Bible pray to God that He would help you understand.
I'll also chime in with my support for the Norse Pantheon. When facing difficult times, I sometimes ask myself, "What Would Thor Do?" Granted I haven't yet found how going forth and slaying a thousand Fire Giants with an enchanted hammer, getting drunk on mead, and then coming home to grope Sif really applies to my problems. But I'm optimistic.
That's because you can't understand it without Odin revealing it's meaning to you. If you want to understand, pray to Odin that He would help you understand.
Ah, so THAT'S why I think it sounds like an ancient Bill Brasky story - God just hasn't revealed its meaning to me!
If "The Bible claims authority for itself" then that's good enough for me - as long as people espousing that doctrine are willing to admit that arbitrarily asserting correctness by fiat isn't a valid way to construct an argument.
Still claptrap, but at least has the benefit of being shorter than the first version. B-.
Where do you get an enchanted hammer these days? I haven't seen them at Home Depot. Do I have to go to Lowe's?
Dude, if you actually get to go forth and slay a thousand Fire Giants with an enchanted hammer, get drunk on mead and go home to grope Sif, I'd think any problems you might have would become trivial in light of your blessings.
Can I be a Norse theologian now?
maybe you are not familiar with what a prick todd jones really is:
"I wouldn't want a gay guy being around me," Jones told the paper. "It's got nothing to do with me being scared. That's the problem: All these people say he's got all these rights. Yeah, he's got rights or whatever, but he shouldn't walk around proud. It's like he's rubbing it in our face. 'See me, Hear me roar.' We're not trying to be close-minded, but then again, why be confrontational when you don't really have to be?"
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2003/04/29/rockies_jones_ap/
yeah. love they neighbor stupid #######
And I think your low IQ makes you susceptible to believe you understand all the mysteries of the world.
You have to take the hammer to the customer service counter at Menard's, and ask for understanding. The Menards CSR will reveal the secrets of the hammer's enchantedness to you. Until then, it is merely a hammer to you, being swung about without end or meaning.
You have culpability though because God will reveal it to you if you ask him. Understand that I am not claiming that people are saying that the Bible is true and therefore you should believe it. I'm saying God says the Bible is true and is His word and His revelation to us, the method that He uses to bring forgiveness and salvation to many. Read the Bible, pray that God would reveal himself to you and I believe it will become self-evident to anyone. Don't believe it if you choose, reject God, reject His word, mock if you like. You will not be able to stand before God at the judgment and say, "If only you had sent someone to warn me..." This is your warning. One offered in love for your sake. Mock it and reject it at your own peril.
Rodder, It would certainly be my preference to not be seen as a lone fool espousing ridiculous views that no thinking person could affirm. But the truth is not determined by majority vote. I welcome another voice. I'm not always here.
I'm sorry, sir -- all we have left is this floor model.
This is your just desserts for purchasing the Claymore blindly, without guidance or protection. You ignore the salvation of the extended service plan at your peril.
And you should not place your faith in false prophets such as the non-union labor at Wal-Mart.
Such complete and utter joylessness. Part of the reason I was gone from the catholic church at about age 8. Probably earlier.
That's because you can't understand it without Odin revealing it's meaning to you. If you want to understand, pray to Odin that He would help you understand.
Odin would probably entwine you alive in the middle of a tree trunk and set snakes eating your face for fifteen or so thousand years.
Thanks for posting this. I'm not here to defend Todd Jones or his views. I don't know whether these quotes are accurate or currently Todd's beliefs. I pray they are not. I don't like anyone bragging about their sins, be it adultry, cruelty, theft, or whatever sex sin. Further I don't like bragging about good things (Ali-I'm the greatest, Gates-look at all this money I'm giving, etc.). I believe that all glory belongs to the Lord alone not His creation. I don't know Todd Jones' heart but I would tell him that as a Christian he should be compassionate to the lost/sinners as he is one himself and desires mercy rather than judgment. He has a responsibility to share the gospel; show them how he receive forgiveness.
I'm not even sure what to say to something like that. I can only guess that he watched about 30 seconds of a San Francisco Pride parade on a sensationalized TV news report and decided that *that* is what all gay men everywhere are like 24/7. Oh, yeah, and he sounds scared too.
Seriously, "See me, hear me roar?"
You have to be convinced you are lost before you can be saved.
sounds to me like he witnessed an incident of Uncle Ernie fiddlin' about
Wal-Mart? That was a replica, probably made in China. You gotta wait for the Ren Faire to come to town.
ARTHUR: Consult the Book of Armaments!
MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One.
BROTHER: "And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large --"
MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.
BROTHER: "And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"
MAYNARD: Amen.
If you want to follow me...you've got to play pinball.
"three sir!"
"three!"
Did any of these people ever meet Jesus in the flesh? Have they done miracles to confirm they are from God? Do their words contradict other parts of the word of God? Do their actions show them to be holy and submissive to God? Did they make their claims after Revelation 22 was written saying, "18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."
These are a few of the tests I use. Which would you use?
I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, since I find angry atheists very off-putting, but just wanted to say you're doing a good job, and not alone in your faith.
I can vouch for the truth of this, I saw these in The Return of the King.
I was asked how I know that God is not using others (contemporaries, on this page) to reveal his word/will to me. I took it to mean how do I know God is not revealing His inerrent word/revelation to me through these people. Those are the tests I would use to see if something is essentially scripture. In short there is no more scripture coming. The next step is Christ's return and then the judgment.
If the question was more generic then I answered poorly/incompletely. How do I know that God is not using these people to show me the actual truth of the Bible? If that's the flavor of the question then God can and does use others to show me the truth but their counsel should be judged based on whether it agrees with scripture or not. Secondarily their own holiness/humility/submission to God can be used as a judge of character to get an idea how closely to listen to/trust someone. I hope this answers your question.
Agreed. Though these threads sometimes produce some very thoughtful, intelligent points and questions from intelligent believers and non-believers alike, they tend to devolve into some very childish behavior. Since I don't possess Marty's ability to stay above it all, I generally opt not to participate. I honestly wish this site focused on baseball, or moved the tangentially baseball related topics to pages separate from the newsblog. There are plenty of other websites out there to discuss religion, politics etc.
Is this before or after Garfield boots him from the table?
Best Regards
John
I have asked him, and he has chosen not to answer me. If God exists, he knows why I doubt him, and he knows how to speak with me in a way that is convincing and fulfilling. After all, he built me and my mind, and my doubt is the product of his creation.
Either he chooses not to do that, or he doesn't exist. I don't suppose it matters very much either way in terms of how I live my life. If there isn't a god, it doesn't matter, and if there is a god, I must be serving his will as a non-believer in some way that I can't comprehend.
The only way I'm in trouble is if god has deliberately created me to be incapable of finding him, and then punished me for being a flawed creation. Even if that's the case, there's nothing I can do about it anyway.
I've not seen them, but I'm sure that such should not be a necessary condition for my belief. God's word should be enough for the faithful without our requiring him to work miracles through his instruments. Or at least, that's what I believe.
I would say that they correct others' misunderstandings of the word of god through spiritual, rather than literal, interpretation. They often contradict my earlier understandings of the word of God, but that does not mean my earlier understandings were correct, of course.
I'm not sure what this passage means to you. I understand it to mean that no one shall add words to Revelations. These people are not intending to do so. You may well interpret the passage differently than I do.
Frankly, I'd see if there is sense in what they say, making the assumption that good sense comes from God. If this good sense contradicts my earlier understandings of God, then I assume the fault lies within my earlier understandings, neither with his earlier nor current messengers. I let my faith guide my ability to discern my ability to sense that which is good and thus comes from God.
I'm, at best, an agnostically-inclined believer in some sort of universal organizing principal, as contradictory as that may be. I've also been hanging out at this site for longer than I care to admit.
Off-topic conversations are one of the reasons I stick around. Yeah, we are all interested in baseball, that's the unifying element. But one of the great things about the site is when a fairly predictable conversation goes off the rails, and those learned in various topics start bringing their knowledge and wit into the conversation. I infinitely prefer that to yet another predictable conversation.
There are opposing views, and thus the Lounge was created to handle off-topic discussion. Then the Lounge was moved. Then, I think, a whole lot of the good aspects of this site's personality went away and was replaced by a lot of mean spiritedness.
While I don't share the beliefs, I like the discussion. I learn things I might not otherwise know. So thanks to those of you who bring it to the table, and share. I appreciate it.
Can you point me to the verses about plane lust? I'd seriously have to rethink my entire position on the bible as prophecy if you did.
s/
Same here.
I can't handle the Lounge. It just switches topics too abruptly. The interface is a real obstacle for me as well; I wish there was a way to make 100 posts per page appear without all those boxes and wasted space.
I believe the generally accepted interpretation is that the Bible is referring to the carpentry tool. Remember that Jesus was raised by a carpenter, and so, saw first hand the dangers of lusting after the tools of that trade. It is highly likely that he expressed his feelings on these matters to his followers.
Anyway, to respond to several points: That's not what Paul says in 2 Cor 3 and elsewhere, though. He criticizes all those who read literally and not spiritually, they have a veil over their eyes when they read scripture. He's not saying that he is special for having the spirit and no one else does - he makes spiritual reading the norm and the ideal. Your argument seems to me to rest on the rejection of Paul's understanding of biblical hermeneutics.
Me, I'm ok with challenging Paul's authority - I think that constructive and critical engagement with the biblical text is an essential part of theology, but I'm not sure how you justify this move.Sure, but we have good evidence that Christians were adding to and subtracting from texts from the very beginning - see the way that Ephesians alters and updates Colossians, see the new endings added after Mk 16.8, see the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels - Luke and Matthew were quite clearly created through adding and taking away from the Gospel of Mark.
I've been working harder on not being a jackass about my non-belief. It's very difficult to have quality discussions on religious issues because the atheists and the theists tend to be arguing with different sets of assumptions. It's like arguing over whether Mike Cameron or David Ortiz is a better baseball player: one side may be converting offense and defense and baserunning into some sort of compatible numbers and concluding that the sum is higher for Ortiz, and the other side may be saying that "better player" means the guy who is above-average at offense and defense and baserunning.
Of course this calls into theosophic question my close relationship with my awl.
What a racket. So, we tell you, beginning with you infancy, that you're a sinner, likely doomed to hell, but that we have the cure! Priceless. Instead of frightening small children with your nonsense, why not just jump out of the closet, yell "Boo!", and be done with it?
OK, I lied, I'm going to participate.
I agree with this. I'm not an eveangelical, I'm a fairly traditional Catholic. I don't agree with a lot the evangelicals say, however, it is very hard to debate Catholic Doctrine and Tradition on a surface level. I imagine it would be even harder for the Orthodox, because they are less legalistic and more mystical than Catholics, even though we share most of the same beliefs.
I think the reasons evangelicals will engage with Atheists is because both see things as very black and white; physical reality only for the atheist, literal scripture for the evangelicals.
Other traditional Christians share most of the same moral beliefs of the evangelicals (though very different theological beliefs) but arrive at them very differently.
For example, for evangelicals, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible (Leviticus and Romans) and that is enough.
For Catholics, the condemnation in Romans matters, not Leviticus really, b/c Christ superceded the Old Testament Laws, but homosexuality is bound up in the whole theology of marriage, the exclusivity of sex to marriage, and the need for sex to be both uniative and procreative. The inclination is not condemned, just the acts.
Long story short, most meaningful issues are very complex. I debate them a lot on the forums at Catholic Answers, catholic.com
Anyone wanting to take a thoughtful look at some of these issues from a Catholic/Christian point of view should check it out. There are plenty of non-Catholic, and even Atheist posters, but the Catholic view obviously predominates, and others are not allowed to simply snark and bash Christianity.
Cheers.
I know that Matt (MHS), of all the people in the world, is not the one that wrote this.
I'd just like to say that the odds of atheists being in a majority here are pretty damned low. You may percieve an atheistic majority but that is almost certanily not the case. The numbers just don't exist to support such a thing.
There is the third option--that God has answered you, but that for whatever reason you do not consciously recognize that has happened or is happening.
And for all the talk about Romans 1 that pops up when Todd Jones is mentioned around here, it seems a good dose of Romans 2 would also be in order, for regardless of which branch of theistic belief, agnosticism, or atheistic belief one subscribes to, all of us have been given light to reflect to each other.
And regarding your #86, CrosbyBird, you're doing just fine by me.
You stay classy, Arky.
Probably just the vocal minority or that more non-atheists don't want to jump into the stinkhole that usually comes from anything involving religion here.
MHS is the first to admit he doesn't understand much of anything now-a-days.
That's one odd remark, mjs, given that I'm calling out the shills and hucksters on charges of fraud. What are you objecting to, exactly?
Not everyone is man enough to handle The Lounge, but few are man enough to admit that they aren't men. Kudos to you, Crosbybird.
By shills and hucksters, who do you mean?
If I misread you as to referring to the Catholic Church as effectively a giant scam, I apologize. If I read you correctly in that, I just think it's classy to trash organized religion.
As a lapsed Catholic (I think that's the right term; I used to be a practicing member but decided it's not my thing), I understand that it's not for everyone. I don't see the need for pissing on a religion though.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main