Friday, June 14, 2013
Troy Tulowitzki breaks rib, to miss 4-6 weeks
(espn.go.com)
Well this just about flushes the season for my “Lupe Velez Nauseous Nine” fantasy team.
Read More...An MRI on Thursday night revealed that Colorado Rockies shortstop Troy Tulowitzki has a broken rib, the Denver Post reported.
Tulowitzki, hitting .347 with 16 home runs this season, is headed to the disabled list and is expected to miss four to six weeks, according to MLB.com.
Tulowitzki hurt his ribs trying to make a play in the eighth inning of Thursday’s 5-4 loss to Washington. Manager Walt Weiss said ...
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.
Page 3 of 4 pages
< 1 2 3 4 >Tebow is basically Kordell Stewart with a more successful college career and with his "slash" position being RB. As with Stewart, Tebow could play in front of a decent team and succeed for a while, but he'll have to stay ahead of defenses adjusting to him. Stewart was up and down as defenses continued to adjust to the changes he was making (and the changes the Steelers' OC were making to best utilize Stewart's skill set).
In the end, KS's bad decision making did him in... if Tebow can learn how to recognize defenses and make smart decisions to avoid turning the ball over, he'll probably have a decent career.
Well, for better or worse, I think we can all agree that is true.
Snapper, are you aware that a lot of Catholic clergy are practicing homosexuals?
Which of course was absolutely, horribly wrong.
I don't believe either the current or the last Pope tolerated anything directly, but you're correct that bishops and Cardinals did.
Those men should be kicked out of the priesthood, and turned over to civil authorities where crimes were committed.
Any priest who engages in any sort of sex is committing a terrible sin, and needs to be removed from active priesthood, at least temporarily.
Imagine an athlete who didn't believe in God, and during interviews, photoshoots, endzone celebrations, he went out of his way to show everyone that he's an atheist. "I guess I just gotta give all the credit to myself again," he'd say, "We all know God doesn't exist, so I guess today was just another testament to how f***ing great I am." Imagine how completely insufferable that would be. And then to have people say we can't talk about that athlete's atheism?
Re: Tebow. Personally I have a problem with anyone who lends their support to "Focus on the Family" because I think they make the lives of homosexuals and women more difficult. However, it sure seems like Tebow is a nice guy who is liked by just about anyone who encounters him. And so are many people.
I think it is a fair bet that Tebow doesn't even think snapper is a real Christian. Think about that.
That's not the word I would use.
Further proof that when it comes to Tebow, neither side of the extremism divide has a stranglehold on stupid.
Yeah, people haven't been able to talk about Tim Tebow's religion. That's been a real taboo subject no one dares touch.
Yup, a lot of Evangelicals (hell some mainstream Protestants) feel that way about my faith. I've thought about it, and find that I don't really give a crap. I'm especially perplexed why atheists would pretend to.
How can you identify and admit unknown unknowns? Doesn't make any sense...
Somebody sure is grumpy.
It would make sense if you were the leader that Paterno is.
The guy who finds "The It's OK to Hate..." article asinine and is unable to get into a lather about the differences between Bob Tebow's church and his own is the grumpy one? That's a neat twist.
If ever there was a phrase that would benefit from some clarification through concrete examples that would be it. Though admitedly that's not really possible during war-time.
I'm guessing it's somehow a distinction between things that are knowable with the proper research that just hasn't been undertaken yet, and things that we will just never know.
Willful blindness on your part, snapper.
The current pope certainly did. More willful blindness on your part, snapper. Here:
Memo to Pope Described Transfer of Pedophile Priest
Even heterosexual sex with a willing partner, snapper?
How is that "a sin"?
Of course.
Snapper, in #51:
From the apparently broad consensus on the topics in #39, I would tend to conclude that America IS "informed by a common morality". It just doesn't happen to be a common morality that lines up at all with what Snapper sees as "'classic' Christian ideals".
I found the article amusing, and found the discrepancy odd (and also, again, amusing, since snapper is BBTF's token outspoken Christian). Not sure how you took either of my posts as an incitement to lathering. Sorry.
Heh, awesome.
Not understanding you, SOSH.
Or from the (publicly, at least) humble atheist, "... how great the genetic pool is."
A priest who has sex with anyone is sinning. He's taken a vow to abstain from that as a priest. When he violates that vow, he's committed a sin.
This really isn't religion specific. Even if you were to believe that unmarried heterosexual sex is not a sin (though the Church obviously does), it shouldn't be difficult to understand that whether conduct is sinful (or right or wrong, in layman's terms) can be context dependent. What would be sinful/wrong for an ordinary citizen to do (withhold information on a murder, for instance) would not just be defensible but appropriate for someone else (a lawyer).
And every episode of the Bill Maher show.
If you call that entertainment!
ZING
I actually forgot he had a show.
No. He just changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that.
Even heterosexual sex with a willing partner, snapper?
How is that "a sin"?
Unless he is married to her. All unmarried sex is a sin in Catholicism.
Note: The Catholic Church does have married priests in its Eastern Churches and among Protestant clergy who have converted and become Catholic priests. The men must be married before they are ordained; once ordained no priest can marry.
You don't really understand the concept of the vow, do you?
No, there's a procedure for that. If a priest feels he can no longer live up to his vows, he can request to be "laicized", i.e. returned to the lay state. If he goes through the appropriate procedural channels, he can return to living as a lay Catholic, and then is free to marry.
You can't just "change your mind" on vows. Try telling your wife you "changed your mind" and are going on a date with another woman tonight. See how that goes over.
I don't know, that's pretty easy for a breaking a vow. Maybe I'm old fashioned but if it's something you just change your mind on you probably shouldn't be taking a vow as solemn as that.
Also, I could be wrong here, but I think there's a difference between a priest renouncing his vows to take up a secular life and marry, (the Rickety Crickets of the world) and a priest who is getting some action on the side while still acting as a priest.
So, you know, sex with your adult girlfriend, sex with the neighbor's kid, 6 of one half-dozen of the other. Hey, you gotta go to confession either way, amirite?
I knew this already but I don't really understand it. From an outside perspective the Catholic Church is usually reasonably self-consistent on matters of dogma, but this one makes little sense to me. Can you deconstruct this so it makes sense to me?
Not a gotcha, I am curious.
Assault is illegal. So if you're already punching that guy in the face, why not kill him too? You have to go to jail either way.
Hah, hah. Nice to see your new handle is so accurate.
You know very well there are degrees of sin within Catholicism, from venial (no confession needed), to mortal, to "sins that cry to heaven for vengeance".
Oh sure, I think everyone knows the priests hold their sins to a different standard than those of the proles. Imagine them covering up for an international child rape ring run by the laity - preposterous!
I knew this already but I don't really understand it. From an outside perspective the Catholic Church is usually reasonably self-consistent on matters of dogma, but this one makes little sense to me. Can you deconstruct this so it makes sense to me?
Not a gotcha, I am curious.
Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. The Pope could decide tomorrow to ordain married men, it is purely a matter of Church rules, not any divine or inspired law.
Different rites within the Church have different traditions re: the celibate priesthood. In the East (Catholic and Orthodox) regular priests were usually married, monks were celibate. In the West, it developed in the first millennium that the priesthood was celibate also. It was a norm and became a universal rule in ~1100.
In all the Catholic and Orthodox Churches Bishops must be celibate. So, a married priest can not become a bishop unless his wife dies.
Note: A married man can become a priest, but a priest can never marry. So, once a priest's wife dies, he must remain celibate.
Since priestly celibacy is not doctrine or dogma, the Pope is able to relax it for converting Protestant and Anglican ministers.
No one is defending what they did. Many of those priests and bishops belong in jail, de-frocked, and excommunicated. There are evil men in the clergy. If they had actually followed what Church law dictated in these case, none of this would have happened.
After years of alleged hand-holding in the woods with Berniece, the school's secretary, our headmaster did just that after my senior year. Supposedly it went all the way to the Pope. It had to have been true love, ordained from above, because as my father said much later in life, "Berniece was the homeliest woman I ever saw." Other than the lunch ladies, she was the only woman in that school.
The vow of chastity requirement is an unreasonable one, you could even argue it's an immoral one, so I don't see how breaking it is any big deal.
And it certainly isn't "a sin". Engaging in perfectly acceptable behavior between two consenting adults cannot in any way be considered "a sin". The sin is prohibiting behavior is innate and essential for emotional health and well-being.
I believe all such cases must. Just like there are certain sins and excommunications that can only be handled by the Pope.
So what happens if you or your wife is seriously ill and can't engage in sexual relations anymore?
snapper, you write this as though the chastity requirement and the pervasive criminal and perverted behavior of the clergy are not related. They are related, reforms are badly needed, and the church has done nothing that will lead to meaningful reform.
So the problem will continue to recur, until there is such a rebellion that the church will either cease to exist or the needed reforms will be imposed, either from within or without.
You're mixing apples and oranges. A mutual vow of fidelity between spouses is not the same thing as a vow of chastity to an institution (and a corrupt one at that) to not engage in behavior that is perfectly acceptable and healthy. The former is a necessity for mutual trust and commitment. The latter is a requirement that corrupts the human spirit.
The church has no right to make that a requirement. It's a violation of a basic human right. That they still get away with it tells you how far we have to go in terms of respect for human rights, dignity and secular law by religious institutions.
It's very simple. The exceptions serve the interests of the church to expand it's power and reach.
If the Sacrament of Holy Orders was compulsory, you'd have an argument.
So this is because of tradition? Because it is the part that I find very odd. I mean I guess there is a difference between being married and becomming married, but I am not seeing the theological difference.
Ray: I see and understand some of what you are saying, but where you lose me is when you make assertions on how the Catholic Church runs itself, they should be allowed to have their own rules.
Note: I am specifically talking about the marriage and other vows and NOT anything about the pedophilia horror show. Among other things that directly impacted those outside the Churh organization, where many of these rules you are complaining about are truly internal, and hey where there are consenting adults they can agree to anything (Safe, Sane, Consensual - you know the drill) including lots of nothing.
So the problem will continue to recur, until there is such a rebellion that the church will either cease to exist or the needed reforms will be imposed, either from within or without.
Except they're not actually related.
Protestant and Jewish clergy have had exactly the same sort of scandals, and their clergy are 100% married. There is a huge sex scandal investigation in Brooklyn right now among Hasidic Jewish religious and social service organizations. It follows exactly the same pattern.
Yes. That tradition is consistent for 2000 years.
Holy orders (ordination) is considered a bar to marriage. Marriage is not a bar to Holy Orders (except for Bishops).
I'm not sure the exact theological basis for the distinction. I'll do some quick searching, or ask my brother-in-law when I see him. He's studying for his PhD. in Moral Theology.
Page 3 of 4 pages
< 1 2 3 4 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.