Scholarship table
So Jeff Fisher is lying. Got it.
Not to mention the much more ancient societies that practiced polyandry now if you were to make that case to a literalist their head would explode at the concept.
I had a Theo prof at MU, Dr Zemler. That guy was awesome, former artillery officer and became a theologian. I had him for a couple of classes and one of the biggest concept he talked about that really stuck with me, was the thought of the Bible as an evolutionary book. Societies and people evolve into higher and higher order things(in theory ) and if you look at the bible in the historical context it is the story of evolving society into a more and more stable platform. Eye for an eye was evolution because it put an end to blood feuds that would wipe out entire families. That eventually evolved into turn the other cheek. Lots and lots of instances like this.My whole point, society evolves, we can look to the past for context and guidance but it shouldn't be the standard we stay with.
This. It's amazing how many people don't get even the simplest idea that the Bible wasn't written in English and therefore it is an imperfect translation of a language spoken 3500+ years ago.
What? I thought Jesus, Rick Santorum and Tebow wrote it!!
OK, I'm a dummy. Sometimes, sarcasm gets lost in the translation. I hereby do not condemn you to getting stoned to death on the village square.I mean, if one is gonna get stoned, it should be a joyous occasion, with much passing of the bowl and then Doritos afterward!
And the Constitution....with Baby Jesus!
PRSpinStretchingetc.Presidential Press Secretaries (from at least Nixon to the present) get large dollars for doing this. Journalists who want to increase their pay become PR consultants. One of the most important jobs for a Fortune 500 CEO is to guide how the public views their company. Are they all liars?The boiler plate for how to handle any Michael Sam story was written weeks before the draft. The only blank was which team would get it.
One of my neighbors here in Bumblef@ck, N.C., puts out a lawn decoration every Christmas of Santa looking over Baby Jesus in the manger. I can't believe Rudolph and Mary aren't there, too!
What's crazy is a significant % of folks believe this is for real.
I think this is a good point, I mean, what's jeff fisher supposed to say?
You're like a moth to a lightbulb. You can't help yourself. A LOT of people on Twitter are stupid. They don't have reasonable points of view, and they just rant about crap. It's both ends of the political spectrum, and it should be thrown out, not used as evidence of anything other than a lot of vocal people are stupid. You run to this stuff as "proof"!, but it's just junk. Don't read it. Don't waste your time. It's gotcha BS. It's nothing. Junk. BS. Garbage. Forget about it. Nonsense. Leave it. Outliers.
I agree to everybody should be allowed to have their own views as long as those views are properly informed. I had severe tourette syndrome growing up and some of my teachers used to kick me out of class because they were convinced I was faking it, after my doctor lectured them one still was convinced I was faking it. That was her view ok she deserves it, the original uninformed view though is what people should be allowed to get up in arms about. Same with say Dungy and his views regarding being gay. As far as tolerence including religion, it is. See this link? https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/eleven-year-old-muslim-girl-harassed-after-declining-bible-school-principal-aclu-la- See intolerance covers religion as well, just not the religion you were hoping to get covered. As far as religios views being covered or not, well congress will not make any laws with respect to a religion (establishment clause) thus you are free to practice your religion but using it as grounds for law to enforce discrimination (the situation for going against gay marriage) wouldn't be constitutional. Finally, using religious views as an example for going against gay marriage would be tremendously more effective if those same people followed everything the bible says about marriage. Genesis states that essentially God's plan was marriage between cain and his sister. In Genesis Abraham is stated as the half brother of Sarah but I can't imagine that most of the bible guys (maybe in the south, pause for laughter) are going to be marrying their sister. Not to mention adultery is considered a sin yet Sarah invited the maid to get in bed with Abraham, and then become his wife so the bible says multiple wives is traditional as well. David had something like 8 wives, solomon 700, not to mention the huge quantity of concubines that the bible mentions. In the bible it also says that a woman must marry her rapist if he pays 50 pieces of silver but well I don't see anybody defending that part of the bible. Jesus states that divorce is against the bible (though you can have as many wives as you want) But a ton of anti gay marriage christians have had divorces. Essentially this point is that using the bible is not an excuse for protecting "traditional" marriage when the bible's concept is all sorts of f'd up.
This is just great. The guy who complains about the media distraction, is the one who created it. Classic. NOt too mention, the head coach of his team, said it was not a distraction. So who is right, you, or Jeff Fisher?
Actually, "traditional" marriage for thousands of years meant polygamy. Religions don't own the concept of marriage.
I'm in no way arguing for Chicos here, but IMHO you should be tolerant of that. You don't have to like it, agree with it, or even listen to it without vomiting but you should be tolerant of someones beliefs and opinions. Otherwise its censorship, justified or not.Whether it's justified or not, once we decide this is an ok opinion to have and this is not you are restricting the flow of thought and ideas....not a good idea.
Me calling out bigoted opinions for being bigoted isn't "censorship." No one is arresting anyone for thinking terrible things. Making yourself immune to criticism and insults isn't how freedom of speech works. Tolerance allows enables bad behavior, but the lack of it doesn't obstruct it.
On draft day, Jeff Fisher said all he had to say about inclusiveness, tolerance and not being worried about alleged distractions.
Hope it works out for Sam, Fisher, the Rams. For the other teams that didn't take him, are they intolerant bigots, did they not think he was good enough to spend a draft pick, did they think he might be good enough but not worth the distraction? If the team before the Rams had taken Sam, would we not know how wonderfully tolerant and inclusive Fisher is? Or is this the sole way in which is tolerance will be defined for the rest of time? On the flip side, all of the great thing Dungy has done over the years which has lead to two man of the year awards for his work with the poor, inner city youths, etc, etc....are they wiped away because he said he wouldn't want the distractions in prepping his football team for the season by taking a marginal athlete while having a circus reality show follow him around?Merely asking.
Why do you assume I have anything against Islam? I took the class at MU. I work with two Muslims directly in my new gig, no issues at all. What I have to chuckle about is your opening paragraph about being "properly informed". LOL. Who gets to decide the properly informed part? Just like your last sentence about the bible's concepts being f'd up. Is that based on your Properly Informed viewpoint?You see, this is the problem in all this. Many folks think their view is the properly informed view and the other view sucks hairy balls. Now, however, it is taken to a new level because you have folks not only saying someone else's view sucks, but they throw things around like homophobe, racist, etc, to try and control the argument.Ministry of Truth....not that far away from it. Seen the last few weeks how Oxford and Roget is now defining certain words? It like someone just read 1984 in the last few months and started to roll it out.