Michael Sams coming out party

[war eagle6 0]

I bet both of U believe # 11 of Pascal's wager huh? See what the bible say about non believers, whether they are good people or not! Since u guys are so smart how and who created mankind?

[Auctoritas 2,828]

After reading the whole thread... Shhh ... U might offend someone.

Seems the holier than thou set (pick a side) seems to forget football has been one of the few endeavors which has been kid friendly. It was a place you didn't have to understand sex except for the cheerleaders outfit's and a wayward coach or two. Maybe it's just my opinion but bedroom habits don't belong being aired about in public. And dragging them out for all the world to see is an affront to the childhoods these media-whores are stealing. It's Michael Sams prerogative to sleep with whomever he chooses; however once brought into public it's no longer his to control it's implications and it's certainly not yours to tell me that I need to like it or maintain from making negative comment. As a media star in the making he should have known to keep his sex life private. Just as we expect AJ, Cam, Saban, Gus, Bobby P, and Bret Bielema to keep theirs private, and when they don't they know to expect to pay a price. So why shouldn't Mr Sams pay the same price?

He's made his bed..... and now he should simply STFU... just like you and me (hint: we don't talk about it in public).

I agree with you but the political arm of the gay and lesbian community has an agenda when it comes to this. I would not be surprised if he was pushed into making his statements and coming out. The LGBT political machine wants pro athletes to come out as gay. They think this will help their cause and help them win the public support they need for the legislation they have been pushing for and they are probably right.

What a bunch of BS. From both of you. That's a classic case of turning the victim into the perpetrator.

He's not trying to draw attention to himself. That was going to happen one way or the other. He had already told his Missouri team that he's gay.

He told his team because he felt he had the right not to live a lie and he respected them enough to feel the same way. He announced before the pro draft because it would inevitably come out anyway so it might as well be on his own terms.

Having said that, I agree that we all need to just take this in stride as a ho-hum matter and not make a big deal of it. If so, it would have disappeared as a news item long ago.

The only reason this has "legs" as a news item is because there are still so many people who feel it is scandalous, if not an outright sin. And - assuming you won't change your mind - the sooner you folks die-off, the sooner people will stop taking note of stuff like this.

So you decided to add more BS......

....in that you think we should ignore what you want us to. As if somehow listing your screen persona as 'Devils Advocate' places you above the fray.

It was Sams who drew attention to himself by outing himself in the first place. It was a calculated deliberate action, made years earlier, when he could of simply left sexual orientation blank. Much like Troy Polamalu's lack of sexual conduct was never brought up, his would of also never had been considered. All Michael had to do was keep his sexual want's, past, or desires to himself. Much like we don't know what manner of pig you place on the spit; no one know's or really cares. My take is that it wouldn't matter to me if my 6 year old discussed bar-b-que... but to have to inform him why some man wants to play mommy with another man is a another topic that... well, it needed have to be forced or broached upon him because of a football game.

For whether sports or rock star, whether congressman or coach, or whether television host or football fan we all are responsible for our own actions. and these actions may very well invoke financial repercussions (both good and bad). Irregardless of how flamboyantly gay the rainbow pattern is, the penalty for sexual reference shouldn't be less for the LGBT than it is for the more typical of pairing. It's simply the nature of the beast, that when you take it from the bedroom and splash it across the headlines, your sex life then becomes fair game to ridicule and have opinion on. No matter how loud you protest, whine, and seek to draw attention to this trashy display of forced comeuppance. There's always been promiscuity and it's always had economic repercussions ( both good and bad), so why should it be different for Michael Sams?

I have zero problems with your opinion on this. I think the media would have found out and may have made a big deal about it anyway, but I certainly respect and understand your objection that it brings a difficult subject that you weren't ready to talk about up for your children.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I bet both of I believe # 11 of Pascal's wager huh? See what the bible say about non believers, whether they are good people or not! Since u guys are so smart how and who created mankind?

I suppose that the Dalai Lama is a bad person. Or maybe Gandhi.

Also, I do not believe that mankind was "created", so your question doesn't make any sense.

[war eagle6 0]

I bet both of I believe # 11 of Pascal's wager huh? See what the bible say about non believers, whether they are good people or not! Since u guys are so smart how and who created mankind?

I suppose that the Dalai Lama is a bad person. Or maybe Gandhi.

Also, I do not believe that mankind was "created", so your question doesn't make any sense.

So how do we exist? And if those guys didn't believe it doesn't matter how noble they were in the end, some people perish for lack of knowledge!

[2219 0]

Since u guys are so smart how and who created mankind?

Well, let's see. First the Earth cooled, and then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes-Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it! He took her best summer dress and he put it on and went to town...

[WarEagle84 0]

...

Having said that, I agree that we all need to just take this in stride as a ho-hum matter and not make a big deal of it. If so, it would have disappeared as a news item long ago.

...

If you really feel that way, why do you feel compelled to spend so much time making a big deal of it?

[au81bs 32]

You jump to a lot of incorrect assumptions. First, I came late to the topic but read them all before commenting. I didn't just read the last 5%. Also, I am sorry y'all are so hostile to my faith. I have not and will not think I am better than anyone else just because I pray for them. Prayer is to lift others up to the Lord for all sorts of reasons. Because I choose to pray for someone is they are a child of God and I love them for it. You jump to conclusions on my reasons and then condemned others for doing the same with something you have strong passions about. Praying is not to "make me feel better" about myself or for altruistic reasons. And again, you jump to an incorrect conclusion in regards to my comments on pedophilia. I do not in any way equate it to homosexuality. The point I poorly made is, if we go by current social mores for our laws, will you support laws that do not outlaw something in which you have strong feelings morally about or would you say oh well, that's the law? I would encourage a civil discourse on the topic and would love to have that dialogue with others that may not agree with me. This evidently isn't the forum to do that based on the comments I've read. All I ask is to not judge my motives or denigrate my faith and I will extend the same courtesy to you.

I'm sorry, I did a bad job at tagging who I was talking to with the 5%, I was specifically speaking to kingfish. Your comments were thoughtful and showed that you had read the thread, especially since you mentioned Weeg's post regarding pedophilia. In both posts, I have no issues with what you say. I'm trying to have polite dialogue with you since you brought it to the table.

In terms of the prayer for others, I again was talking to kingfish. Your post was a different kind of prayer - albeit there is still an undercurrent that you want those people you pray for, in terms of sin, to change for the "better." It's not wrong, but it does reveal a blind spot in the insular part of a worldview.

"The point I poorly made is, if we go by current social mores for our laws, will you support laws that do not outlaw something in which you have strong feelings morally about or would you say oh well, that's the law?"

The answer to this question is that if it is strictly based on my opinion or my ethics, then I fully support a law protecting, or an absence of a law prohibiting, distasteful things. It's not my individual place to put those laws in effect because I'm not the arbiter of right and wrong. I do not like flag-burning and think it's an affront to me, my family who fought in war, and an insult to the country - but I think the SCOTUS Texas v Johnson ruling was dead on, and I fully support someones ability to think differently and exercise those opinions differently.

It comes down to the fact that something that you "have strong feelings morally about" is simply a personal opinion, and when you start trying to make it someone else's, it's no longer a personal opinion.

Thank you for the civil reply, I truly do appreciate it. Again, just to clarify my position on prayer, I apologize if my words came across as sanctimounious or for them to "change" something that is "sinful". I am not in a position to judge their heart or sin. I lift my prayers up for others, and in this case for Mr. Sams, to find strength in what he does, to find support and love from those close to him, and to suceed in his endeavors. I do not pray to change him or correct his sins, that is entirely between him and the Lord. That was what I meant when I said I would hug him and pray for him. He has a lot of people that will spew hateful and ugly things at him in the name of religion, and that is not the faith in which I adhere. We are to love everyone, and I'm not sure where others get the message from the Bible that says we only pick and choose who we love. Jesus spent time with those shunned by society and pushed back on the religiously pious of his day. It is no different today, people do many things in the name of religion that push people away.

I may not agree with your position or others on this topic, but I respect what you have to say (as long as it is done in a civil way and my view is respected also). The only way we can continue to grow is to listen and respect each other.

I know one poster was offended when I said I would pray for Mr. Sams, but I am sincere when I say I will pray for you. Not to change your opinion or to turn you from your "Evil ways" , but, if I remember correctly, you are a firefighter, so I pray for your safety and thank you for your service. If I have you confused with someone else, my apologies, but I will still pray for you!

[Auctoritas 2,828]

You jump to a lot of incorrect assumptions. First, I came late to the topic but read them all before commenting. I didn't just read the last 5%. Also, I am sorry y'all are so hostile to my faith. I have not and will not think I am better than anyone else just because I pray for them. Prayer is to lift others up to the Lord for all sorts of reasons. Because I choose to pray for someone is they are a child of God and I love them for it. You jump to conclusions on my reasons and then condemned others for doing the same with something you have strong passions about. Praying is not to "make me feel better" about myself or for altruistic reasons. And again, you jump to an incorrect conclusion in regards to my comments on pedophilia. I do not in any way equate it to homosexuality. The point I poorly made is, if we go by current social mores for our laws, will you support laws that do not outlaw something in which you have strong feelings morally about or would you say oh well, that's the law? I would encourage a civil discourse on the topic and would love to have that dialogue with others that may not agree with me. This evidently isn't the forum to do that based on the comments I've read. All I ask is to not judge my motives or denigrate my faith and I will extend the same courtesy to you.

I'm sorry, I did a bad job at tagging who I was talking to with the 5%, I was specifically speaking to kingfish. Your comments were thoughtful and showed that you had read the thread, especially since you mentioned Weeg's post regarding pedophilia. In both posts, I have no issues with what you say. I'm trying to have polite dialogue with you since you brought it to the table.

In terms of the prayer for others, I again was talking to kingfish. Your post was a different kind of prayer - albeit there is still an undercurrent that you want those people you pray for, in terms of sin, to change for the "better." It's not wrong, but it does reveal a blind spot in the insular part of a worldview.

"The point I poorly made is, if we go by current social mores for our laws, will you support laws that do not outlaw something in which you have strong feelings morally about or would you say oh well, that's the law?"

The answer to this question is that if it is strictly based on my opinion or my ethics, then I fully support a law protecting, or an absence of a law prohibiting, distasteful things. It's not my individual place to put those laws in effect because I'm not the arbiter of right and wrong. I do not like flag-burning and think it's an affront to me, my family who fought in war, and an insult to the country - but I think the SCOTUS Texas v Johnson ruling was dead on, and I fully support someones ability to think differently and exercise those opinions differently.

It comes down to the fact that something that you "have strong feelings morally about" is simply a personal opinion, and when you start trying to make it someone else's, it's no longer a personal opinion.

Thank you for the civil reply, I truly do appreciate it. Again, just to clarify my position on prayer, I apologize if my words came across as sanctimounious or for them to "change" something that is "sinful". I am not in a position to judge their heart or sin. I lift my prayers up for others, and in this case for Mr. Sams, to find strength in what he does, to find support and love from those close to him, and to suceed in his endeavors. I do not pray to change him or correct his sins, that is entirely between him and the Lord. That was what I meant when I said I would hug him and pray for him. He has a lot of people that will spew hateful and ugly things at him in the name of religion, and that is not the faith in which I adhere. We are to love everyone, and I'm not sure where others get the message from the Bible that says we only pick and choose who we love. Jesus spent time with those shunned by society and pushed back on the religiously pious of his day. It is no different today, people do many things in the name of religion that push people away.

I may not agree with your position or others on this topic, but I respect what you have to say (as long as it is done in a civil way and my view is respected also). The only way we can continue to grow is to listen and respect each other.

I know one poster was offended when I said I would pray for Mr. Sams, but I am sincere when I say I will pray for you. Not to change your opinion or to turn you from your "Evil ways" , but, if I remember correctly, you are a firefighter, so I pray for your safety and thank you for your service. If I have you confused with someone else, my apologies, but I will still pray for you!

And I fervently wish there were more Christians like you.

[homersapien 11,393]

...

Having said that, I agree that we all need to just take this in stride as a ho-hum matter and not make a big deal of it. If so, it would have disappeared as a news item long ago.

...

If you really feel that way, why do you feel compelled to spend so much time making a big deal of it?

Not sure if serious.

[war eagle6 0]

Since u guys are so smart how and who created mankind?

Well, let's see. First the Earth cooled, and then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes-Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it! He took her best summer dress and he put it on and went to town...

lol, good one.

[WarEagle84 0]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/michael-sam-receiving-backlash-from-teammates-and-media-for-documentary-on-oprah-winfrey-s-network-204836308.html

So it seems AJ isn't the only rookie with a really show in the works. If Sams really wants to be known as a football player and not a gay football player, why would he do this?

[Auctoritas 2,828]

http://sports.yahoo....-204836308.html

So it seems AJ isn't the only rookie with a really show in the works. If Sams really wants to be known as a football player and not a gay football player, why would he do this?

Because a 249th draft pick doesn't get paid like a first rounder? That's just a guess. It's also a possibility that a deal was already done before the draft, and the announcement came after. Regardless, I don't think I would have done it.

[ToraGirl 5,498]

WHAT a discussion! And I guess we all know "football board" discussions segue frequently because the issues are much bigger than 100 yards of turf and a leather ball.

I am a pastor's wife, but a child of God far long before that. I do believe that if any of us could fully comprehend exactly HOW PASSIONATELY and enormously we are loved by the One who did create us, and yes, that takes faith (but so do atheism and agnosticism), we would be so consumed with living out of this love that we wouldn't have time to look right or left except to serve the one next door. My personal motto is, "Live narrowly, love broadly." That concept to me draws near to the "purely justice/purely mercy" perfect balance of Elohim, the Creator God and Jesus Christ, His Son to whom I believe we each owe an unfathomable debt. I detest what many "Christians" have done throughout centuries to lessen the cause of Christ, but we are all remiss if we ignore the multitude of good, far outweighing the bad throughout time, that has been done by imperfect people to bring God glory by giving their lives to make the world a better place. Just imagine a Godless world...because IMO, since humankind is by nature self-centered, no one could persevere for any amount of time in living selflessly apart from being empowered by the Holy Spirit. Therefore any good we see that exists, even if perpetrated by an unbeliever, points to the Author of it...which can only be a Being higher than self. Yes, He works through us all whether we acknowledge His existence or not.

No, this isn't a "religion" board, but if anyone is interested, the recent release of "God Is Not Dead" answers a lot of questions that many ARE asking. Watching the admission of God-hatred by the atheist professor (for how can you hate someone who does not exist?) was the epicenter of the movie. For every atheist, there is ALWAYS a root cause behind that choice...whether or not they realize it, and responding to that initial cause (or series of them) is most definitely an individual choice. I am grateful to have made the one I have...and for those who helped me along the way as I now seek to do.

As for Michael Sams...it will all depend upon whether being a "gay athlete" or being a "top athlete" is most important to him. If it's the former, then you can't discount the agenda that exists to advance that cause. If it's the latter, then his goal is no different than that of any gifted sportsman or woman. It's the motive behind the admission that none of us can know for sure...nor do we need to. Yet to say that this most assuredly has or should have no effect on team chemistry and inner workings is naive. I truly feel for all involved...

[cooltigger21 0]

http://sports.yahoo....-204836308.html

So it seems AJ isn't the only rookie with a really show in the works. If Sams really wants to be known as a football player and not a gay football player, why would he do this?

Because a 249th draft pick doesn't get paid like a first rounder? That's just a guess. It's also a possibility that a deal was already done before the draft, and the announcement came after. Regardless, I don't think I would have done it.

This was done before the draft. He did not disclose this information to any of the NFL teams. The rams are not exactly thrilled about this. It does not help his bid to make the team or help him fit in to be the star of a reality show.

[AUwent 3,756]

WHAT a discussion! And I guess we all know "football board" discussions segue frequently because the issues are much bigger than 100 yards of turf and a leather ball.

I am a pastor's wife, but a child of God far long before that. I do believe that if any of us could fully comprehend exactly HOW PASSIONATELY and enormously we are loved by the One who did create us, and yes, that takes faith (but so do atheism and agnosticism), we would be so consumed with living out of this love that we wouldn't have time to look right or left except to serve the one next door. My personal motto is, "Live narrowly, love broadly." That concept to me draws near to the "purely justice/purely mercy" perfect balance of Elohim, the Creator God and Jesus Christ, His Son to whom I believe we each owe an unfathomable debt. I detest what many "Christians" have done throughout centuries to lessen the cause of Christ, but we are all remiss if we ignore the multitude of good, far outweighing the bad throughout time, that has been done by imperfect people to bring God glory by giving their lives to make the world a better place. Just imagine a Godless world...because IMO, since humankind is by nature self-centered, no one could persevere for any amount of time in living selflessly apart from being empowered by the Holy Spirit. Therefore any good we see that exists, even if perpetrated by an unbeliever, points to the Author of it...which can only be a Being higher than self. Yes, He works through us all whether we acknowledge His existence or not.

No, this isn't a "religion" board, but if anyone is interested, the recent release of "God Is Not Dead" answers a lot of questions that many ARE asking. Watching the admission of God-hatred by the atheist professor (for how can you hate someone who does not exist?) was the epicenter of the movie. For every atheist, there is ALWAYS a root cause behind that choice...whether or not they realize it, and responding to that initial cause (or series of them) is most definitely an individual choice. I am grateful to have made the one I have...and for those who helped me along the way as I now seek to do.

As for Michael Sams...it will all depend upon whether being a "gay athlete" or being a "top athlete" is most important to him. If it's the former, then you can't discount the agenda that exists to advance that cause. If it's the latter, then his goal is no different than that of any gifted sportsman or woman. It's the motive behind the admission that none of us can know for sure...nor do we need to. Yet to say that this most assuredly has or should have no effect on team chemistry and inner workings is naive. I truly feel for all involved...

You are correct with your point. While I truly don't believe Sam wanted that publicity, his focus should be (along with ours, quite frankly) with what he does on the field. I'm not sure how he'll do in the NFL, but he was co-SEC DPOTY for a reason.

As for "God's Not Dead," the answer to the question which I italicized is that one who does not believe in God generally does not "hate" him, or believe he is dead. That "movie" was based off of a straw-man chain email (then again, what chain email with a political agenda isn't highly fallacious?).

[AU-24 3,107]

Comes down to the following:

1. Do you believe in the God of the bible?

2. Do you believe Jesus is who he said he was? (Son of that God, the Messiah, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the great I am, etc...)

Jesus was either who he said he was or he was the biggest hoax, irrational fraud, most complete lair that ever walked the face of the earth. I happen to believe he was, who he claimed to be or we wouldn't be talking about him and his father's teachings some 2,000 plus years after his death and resurrection. We wouldn't have a calender marked this year of 2014 (that's two thousand and fourteen years since the birth of Jesus) Christmas, Easter, U.S. and other Western Civ countries Constitutions littered with Biblical laws and practices, etc... etc... on and on... I just can't believe all this came from a liar and a fraud.

You either believe the bible or you don't there is no in between. I am saying the following with love in my heart not hate in any way: I have plenty of sin myself to pray and deal with; but to say homosexuality isn't sin, is simply not biblical. One either believes the Bible or they don't.

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

• Lev. 18:22
  , "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
  1
  
  
• Lev. 20:13
  , "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
  
  
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10
  , "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
  
  
• Rom. 1:26-28
  , "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
  
  

[Shire5k 19]

Comes down to the following:

1. Do you believe in the God of the bible?

2. Do you believe Jesus is who he said he was? (Son of that God, the Messiah, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the great I am, etc...)

Jesus was either who he said he was or he was the biggest hoax, irrational fraud, most complete lair that ever walked the face of the earth. I happen to believe he was, who he claimed to be or we wouldn't be talking about him and his father's teachings some 2,000 plus years after his death and resurrection. We wouldn't have a calender marked this year of 2014 (that's two thousand and fourteen years since the birth of Jesus) Christmas, Easter, U.S. and other Western Civ countries Constitutions littered with Biblical laws and practices, etc... etc... on and on... I just can't believe all this came from a liar and a fraud.

You either believe the bible or you don't there is no in between. I am saying the following with love in my heart not hate in any way: I have plenty of sin myself to pray and deal with; but to say homosexuality isn't sin, is simply not biblical. One either believes the Bible or they don't.

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

• Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
  
• Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
  
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
  
• Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
  

In Leviticus it also says that you can't eat pork or shellfish.

In 1 Corinthians it also says that women cannot speak in the house of God.

In Romans it also says not to pass judgment on one another.

My point is that the Bible says a lot of things that you can or cannot do...many of which modern Christians choose to ignore. The Bible was written by men, who (I believe) put their own spin on things based on their time. Believing in Jesus as the savior of mankind, and believing the Bible is completely and utterly without error (or outdated laws/sins) are two different things, and are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Why can't the Bible be inspired by God, yet written by man and filled with man's errors? If God actually wrote the Bible, I'm sure it would be different than what it is.

The fact is no Christian follows the Bible to the letter. That people cherry pick verses to suit their own needs at the time while ignoring other verses in the same book shows hypocrisy.

[FootballFanatic 4]

My little brother has served a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan.

Please pass a message to your brother - my family and I sincerely appreciate his service to our country. We cherish our freedom and consider him the hero.

Football is a game, no matter how much they pay 'em. Sams being openly gay just tells me he enjoys sodomy. Again, not my idea of heroism.

I will pass the message along to my brother.

I'm sorry you fail to see the heroism in Mr. Sam's statements. Standing up for a segment of our citizenry that continues to fight for equality is heroic, especially in an overly masculine environment like professional football. I eagerly await the day that an announcement like this isn't necessary or newsworthy, unfortunately that won't be the case until people can see beyond their own bigotry.

I would love to know how standing for the truth of God's word is considered bigotry? Romans 1:26-32 not only condemns the sin of homosexuality but those that have pleasure in their unrighteousness. To sit back, tolerate, or condone the sin of homosexuality is something that New Testament Christians are commanded against. That's why we stand opposed to these people today. And this has nothing to do with my personal feelings. I have no feelings of hatred, fear, or predjudice against these people. I'm simply standing up for how God feels about this subject.

Please learn how to read whole context within biblical texts. That section of the bible starts about 8 verses earlier and relates to those who don't embrace god being cast out to be punished. In that verse it says more that those who were worshiping other gods and animals were given awy to be base and dishonorable passions. http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ro1.18-32 You are adding details to a limited verse selection that isn't there. That verse simply lists homosexuality as a Dishonorable passion not a sin.

Please at least read the book you are trying to use to oppress others.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Comes down to the following:

1. Do you believe in the God of the bible?

2. Do you believe Jesus is who he said he was? (Son of that God, the Messiah, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the great I am, etc...)

Jesus was either who he said he was or he was the biggest hoax, irrational fraud, most complete lair that ever walked the face of the earth. I happen to believe he was, who he claimed to be or we wouldn't be talking about him and his father's teachings some 2,000 plus years after his death and resurrection. We wouldn't have a calender marked this year of 2014 (that's two thousand and fourteen years since the birth of Jesus) Christmas, Easter, U.S. and other Western Civ countries Constitutions littered with Biblical laws and practices, etc... etc... on and on... I just can't believe all this came from a liar and a fraud.

You either believe the bible or you don't there is no in between. I am saying the following with love in my heart not hate in any way: I have plenty of sin myself to pray and deal with; but to say homosexuality isn't sin, is simply not biblical. One either believes the Bible or they don't.

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

• Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
  
• Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
  
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
  
• Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
  

In Leviticus it also says that you can't eat pork or shellfish.

In 1 Corinthians it also says that women cannot speak in the house of God.

In Romans it also says not to pass judgment on one another.

My point is that the Bible says a lot of things that you can or cannot do...many of which modern Christians choose to ignore. The Bible was written by men, who (I believe) put their own spin on things based on their time. Believing in Jesus as the savior of mankind, and believing the Bible is completely and utterly without error (or outdated laws/sins) are two different things, and are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Why can't the Bible be inspired by God, yet written by man and filled with man's errors? If God actually wrote the Bible, I'm sure it would be different than what it is.

The fact is no Christian follows the Bible to the letter. That people cherry pick verses to suit their own needs at the time while ignoring other verses in the same book shows hypocrisy.

First of all, I hate it when the bama fans make the most sense on here

Second of all, it's Michael Sam. Only one S.

[gravejd 3,270]

I gvie this guy a 1% chance to make the Rams. I was giving him about a 40% chance prior to the reality show stuff coming out...get it coming out....i digress. NFL teams are very much opposed at the look at me types and will barely tolerate it from an extremely gifted and successful athlete (T. Owens) there is no way in hades they are going to take it from a 7th round DE draft pick that ran a 4.9 forty. Either Sam is getting bad advice about this reality show business or he doesn't really think he has a chance to make it in the NFL and this is his shot at making some money and possibly moving into a new career. Pretty savy if it the latter and pretty stupid if its the former.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I gvie this guy a 1% chance to make the Rams. I was giving him about a 40% chance prior to the reality show stuff coming out...get it coming out....i digress. NFL teams are very much opposed at the look at me types and will barely tolerate it from an extremely gifted and successful athlete (T. Owens) there is no way in hades they are going to take it from a 7th round DE draft pick that ran a 4.9 forty. Either Sam is getting bad advice about this reality show business or he doesn't really think he has a chance to make it in the NFL and this is his shot at making some money and possibly moving into a new career. Pretty savy if it the latter and pretty stupid if its the former.

Agree with all that.

[AU-24 3,107]

Comes down to the following:

1. Do you believe in the God of the bible?

2. Do you believe Jesus is who he said he was? (Son of that God, the Messiah, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the great I am, etc...)

Jesus was either who he said he was or he was the biggest hoax, irrational fraud, most complete lair that ever walked the face of the earth. I happen to believe he was, who he claimed to be or we wouldn't be talking about him and his father's teachings some 2,000 plus years after his death and resurrection. We wouldn't have a calender marked this year of 2014 (that's two thousand and fourteen years since the birth of Jesus) Christmas, Easter, U.S. and other Western Civ countries Constitutions littered with Biblical laws and practices, etc... etc... on and on... I just can't believe all this came from a liar and a fraud.

You either believe the bible or you don't there is no in between. I am saying the following with love in my heart not hate in any way: I have plenty of sin myself to pray and deal with; but to say homosexuality isn't sin, is simply not biblical. One either believes the Bible or they don't.

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

• Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
  
• Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
  
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
  
• Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
  

In Leviticus it also says that you can't eat pork or shellfish.

In 1 Corinthians it also says that women cannot speak in the house of God.

In Romans it also says not to pass judgment on one another.

My point is that the Bible says a lot of things that you can or cannot do...many of which modern Christians choose to ignore. The Bible was written by men, who (I believe) put their own spin on things based on their time. Believing in Jesus as the savior of mankind, and believing the Bible is completely and utterly without error (or outdated laws/sins) are two different things, and are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Why can't the Bible be inspired by God, yet written by man and filled with man's errors? If God actually wrote the Bible, I'm sure it would be different than what it is.

The fact is no Christian follows the Bible to the letter. That people cherry pick verses to suit their own needs at the time while ignoring other verses in the same book shows hypocrisy.

All in love Brother!!

Pork and shell fish was and in many cases still is Jewish tradition for health reasons. (Sanitary cooking etc...) We can eat beef and certain fish raw, (Sushi for example) but pork or shell fish not properly prepared can kill a brother.

Women speaking in Church (1 Corinthians) was referring to idle chatter or socializing during teachings and meetings, meaning the church is not the place for it. (explained further below if you care to read)

Passing judgement: lovingly point out a brothers sin (For their good and their sake) is not judgement, it is something we should do especially if we love our brother! We should also take lovingly given constructive criticism about our own sin and be great-full for it.

Women must not Engage in Idle Chatter in Church Meetings

In his Homily 9 on First Timothy, Early Church Father John Chrysostom refers to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Here he wrote that the Corinthian women regarded congregational meetings as an opportunity for socialising and recreation; and that they chatted more during church gatherings then they did in the marketplace or the public bath. Chrysostom wrote that this idle conversation brought confusion into church meetings.

Silence is called for three times in 1 Corinthians 14: in verses 28, 30 and 34.[5] In 1 Corinthians 14:28and 30, silence is called for in specific situations to regulate congregational contributions to the meetings. (The “silence” in verses 28 and 30 is not gender specific.) It is very likely that the silence called for in verse 34 is also addressing a specific situation and is not meant to be a blanket statement to silence all women for all time in church meetings.

In fact, Paul’s intention could not have been to silence women at all the times during church meetings. In 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul acknowledges, without disapproval, that women prophesied and prayed aloud in church.

Paul not only approved of praying and prophesying by women in the assembly but he encouraged it! Reading 1 Corinthians 11:10 with the literal, active voice (“has authority”) instead of the presumed, passive voice (“sign of authority”), Paul states that a woman has authority[6] (has the right!) to pray and prophesy . . . (Hicks 1990)

If Paul condones verbal ministry from women in chapter 11 it is very unlikely that he censures it in chapter 14. Paul was probably prohibiting a certain form of speech from the women in 14:34-35. Several theologians have tried to identify the type of speech that Paul appears to be disallowing.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Women must not Engage in Idle Chatter in Church Meetings

In his Homily 9 on First Timothy, Early Church Father John Chrysostom refers to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Here he wrote that the Corinthian women regarded congregational meetings as an opportunity for socialising and recreation; and that they chatted more during church gatherings then they did in the marketplace or the public bath. Chrysostom wrote that this idle conversation brought confusion into church meetings.

Silence is called for three times in 1 Corinthians 14: in verses 28, 30 and 34.[5] In 1 Corinthians 14:28and 30, silence is called for in specific situations to regulate congregational contributions to the meetings. (The “silence” in verses 28 and 30 is not gender specific.) It is very likely that the silence called for in verse 34 is also addressing a specific situation and is not meant to be a blanket statement to silence all women for all time in church meetings.

In fact, Paul’s intention could not have been to silence women at all the times during church meetings. In 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul acknowledges, without disapproval, that women prophesied and prayed aloud in church.

Paul not only approved of praying and prophesying by women in the assembly but he encouraged it! Reading 1 Corinthians 11:10 with the literal, active voice (“has authority”) instead of the presumed, passive voice (“sign of authority”), Paul states that a woman has authority[6] (has the right!) to pray and prophesy . . . (Hicks 1990)

If Paul condones verbal ministry from women in chapter 11 it is very unlikely that he censures it in chapter 14. Paul was probably prohibiting a certain form of speech from the women in 14:34-35. Several theologians have tried to identify the type of speech that Paul appears to be disallowing.

Dude. You're making it worse.

[Tiger 8,829]

Why are we taking something written centuries ago and trying to match it up with today's world after loads of knowledge and wisdom has been attained since that time that contradicts some of the books teachings? Not an 'attack' on any certain religion, the question could be asked about any of the holy books. I'm asking an honest question as someone who fails to see the connection between ancient texts and today, not trying to stir the pot or anything, just trying to learn other perspectives.

[WarEagle84 0]

Why are we taking something written centuries ago and trying to match it up with today's world after loads of knowledge and wisdom has been attained since that time that contradicts some of the books teachings? Not an 'attack' on any certain religion, the question could be asked about any of the holy books. I'm asking an honest question as someone who fails to see the connection between ancient texts and today, not trying to stir the pot or anything, just trying to learn other perspectives.

If you believe that said holy book was inspired by the Creator of the Universe to tell us what we need to know to live according to his plan, then it makes sense to try to understand it in modern context. I would contend that we have gained an awful lot of knowledge (which should be applied to interpreting scripture), but not so much wisdom.