Michael Irvin's induction speech

[jgmacg]

You can speak to his faults, but quote him in context. That's not Christianity at issue, that's first amendment rights of free speech.

No idea what this answer means. Who is "you?" The media?

 

[Yawn]

It was in the same graph, for crying out loud.

 

[Alma]

INSENSITIVITY ALERT (Don't read if you don't want to be offended.)

Yeah, listening to Michael Irvin talk about God isn't on my list of things to do today, but I'm all ears if I hear he told some of his blow and ho stories. Then again, did he mention anything about talking to God while lying on the carpet at the Vet while being rained with boos? I'd like to hear that.

I'm not offended, but I think what you're saying is that Irvin isn't allowed to be a Christian. He's led too ****ty a life for that.

Actually, I think what he's saying is ... why should we believe him now when we know what he was like before? Just because he says the right things doesn't mean we should take him at his word.

That's true only if you assumed Christians led perfect lives. We make mistakes constantly. A Christian life is certainly meant to turn away from sin, but if David, a murderer and an adulterer, was a man after God's own heart, so too can Irvin be.

If you want buy bull**** about Christianity, that's your thing. But Irvin's confession in entirely in keeping with his faith. Christians can even (gasp!) question their faith.

 

[Yawn]

That's the blindness of the you people, BYH. If a person has erred, he's not worthy. Your words. Not what the Bible says.

**** the Bible. Hemingway wrote better stories.

I'm calling bull**** on your running it verbatim argument. You would have cut it no matter what.

Your bias is above.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Yawn, OK. Your point is proven. The sports media is biased. A bunch of god-hating heathens. This also a boad filled with the people you despise. So why not find a bible-thumping message board where you can post this stuff that no one here cares about or sees the same way, and get the affirmation you crave?

 

[jgmacg]

To answer question No. 1: How do we know anything? Merely asking that question lends credence to my argument about the media assuming the God position. <i> If only we had a truth box or something! Then we'd know for sure </i>

Really, I don't think the media much cares whether a person is lying. In some cases, they kinda hope they do. They quote liars constantly; they're called football coaches. If the media views religion so objectively, why would the hypocrisy of those who claim it be any different?


To No. 2: I think C.S. Lewis answered that question better I can in Mere Christianity. I believe that any good thing must come from God, and if a non-believer lives what is called a moral life, it is by the common grace of their conscience given to them by God.

I guess my point in the first case was that the fig leaf of piety is used too often to neutralize criticism. The senator who visits brothels now contends that the matter is between him and his God. In the eternal sense, of course, that's true. But in the meantime, it's between him and his constituents - and the argument that all justice be left to God is merely a tactic for taking the case of his failed morality and personal hypocrisy off the public docket. The final judgment is indeed that, final, but in the meantime, we have to make the earthly judgments we're compelled to make (assuming God granted us free will).

As to the second point, is the morality of a good person somehow more moral, or more good, if we assume it came from God? I'm not sure.

 

[forever_town]

I'm calling bull**** on your running it verbatim argument. You would have cut it no matter what.

Your bias is above.

Who died and made you buckweaver's mindreader?

 

[Yawn]

Well, for one mindreader of Buck there seems to be a dozen who are an expert of mine. What's the difference?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Well, for one mindreader of Buck there seems to be a dozen who are an expert of mine. What's the difference?

I think we have discovered the Sutter's Mill of straight lines right here.

 

[BYH]

America won't elect a female president because too much of Middle America is scared by a woman in power and instead wants her to stay in the kitchen and birth them babies and cook that food and do what the man tells her to do.

Sound familiar, yawn?

Excuse me, but I happen to live in Middle America. And no one I know, either a co-worker, friend or casual acquaintance, thinks that way.

I wouldn't vote or Hilary, but not cuz she is a woman.

I'd chose Obama, though I really wish Colin Powell would one day run.

I did not say it was every resident of Middle America. Only asked if Yawn knew anyone like that, and he answered my question by not answering it.

 

[jgmacg]

Well, for one mindreader of Buck there seems to be a dozen who are an expert of mine. What's the difference?

A Comedy Comstock.

 

[Alma]

To answer question No. 1: How do we know anything? Merely asking that question lends credence to my argument about the media assuming the God position. <i> If only we had a truth box or something! Then we'd know for sure </i>

Really, I don't think the media much cares whether a person is lying. In some cases, they kinda hope they do. They quote liars constantly; they're called football coaches. If the media views religion so objectively, why would the hypocrisy of those who claim it be any different?


To No. 2: I think C.S. Lewis answered that question better I can in Mere Christianity. I believe that any good thing must come from God, and if a non-believer lives what is called a moral life, it is by the common grace of their conscience given to them by God.

I guess my point in the first case was that the fig leaf of piety is used too often to neutralize criticism. The senator who visits brothels now contends that the matter is between him and his God. In the eternal sense, of course, that's true. But in the meantime, it's between him and his constituents - and the argument that all justice be left to God is merely a tactic for taking the case of his failed morality and personal hypocrisy off the public docket. The final judgment is indeed that, final, but in the meantime, we have to make the earthly judgments we're compelled to make (assuming God granted us free will).

As to the second point, is the morality of a good person somehow more moral, or more good, if we assume it came from God? I'm not sure.

On point 1: I agree with you. Completely. I have to. Paul writes in Romans:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

The governing "authority" in America is the people. The founders never waver from that. A politician is absolutely in submission to his or her constituents.

The wise, informed reporter turns that politician's line right on its head. Most reporters - and I include religion reporters - are entirely clueless to what lies in any religious text. Most of them have never read it.

Know what's funny? No reporter ever battles Bush on his home turf. They drag him into secular humanist realm where he can use his "faith" as a comfortable shield. He believes in this mysterious God who leads him divinely in ways we could not hope to appreciate. Nobody's ever spent an hourlong interview examining this faith he holds so dear. I mean, digging in the Bible and holding his belief system the verses found there.

If they did, they'd discover:

1. Bush's God is neither mysterious, distant, or particularly cryptic in the general sense. (Paul refers to mystery, but he lingers on the meaning of certain things. The spiritual purpose of marriage, for example, is a mystery that he does not really comprehend.)

2. Bush is full of **** in the most important way - what he claims guides him is in fact his own cobbled together goop of feel-good Joel Osteen evangelism, Karl Rove, his sweet wife's good nature, and Mama's bitter, homespun truisms.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And enough Jim Beam to float the Nimitz.

 

[jgmacg]

To answer question No. 1: How do we know anything? Merely asking that question lends credence to my argument about the media assuming the God position. <i> If only we had a truth box or something! Then we'd know for sure </i>

Really, I don't think the media much cares whether a person is lying. In some cases, they kinda hope they do. They quote liars constantly; they're called football coaches. If the media views religion so objectively, why would the hypocrisy of those who claim it be any different?


To No. 2: I think C.S. Lewis answered that question better I can in Mere Christianity. I believe that any good thing must come from God, and if a non-believer lives what is called a moral life, it is by the common grace of their conscience given to them by God.

I guess my point in the first case was that the fig leaf of piety is used too often to neutralize criticism. The senator who visits brothels now contends that the matter is between him and his God. In the eternal sense, of course, that's true. But in the meantime, it's between him and his constituents - and the argument that all justice be left to God is merely a tactic for taking the case of his failed morality and personal hypocrisy off the public docket. The final judgment is indeed that, final, but in the meantime, we have to make the earthly judgments we're compelled to make (assuming God granted us free will).

As to the second point, is the morality of a good person somehow more moral, or more good, if we assume it came from God? I'm not sure.

On point 1: I agree with you. Completely. I have to. Paul writes in Romans:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

The governing "authority" in America is the people. The founders never waver from that. A politician is absolutely in submission to his or her constituents.

The wise, informed reporter turns that politician's line right on its head. Most reporters - and I include religion reporters - are entirely clueless to what lies in any religious text. Most of them have never read it.

Know what's funny? No reporter ever battles Bush on his home turf. They drag him into secular humanist realm where he can use his "faith" as a comfortable shield. He believes in this mysterious God who leads him divinely in ways we could not hope to appreciate. Nobody's ever spent an hourlong interview examining this faith he holds so dear. I mean, digging in the Bible and holding his belief system the verses found there.

If they did, they'd discover:

1. Bush's God is neither mysterious, distant, or particularly cryptic in the general sense. (Paul refers to mystery, but he lingers on the meaning of certain things. The spiritual purpose of marriage, for example, is a mystery that he does not really comprehend.)

2. Bush is full of **** in the most important way - what he claims guides him is in fact his own cobbled together goop of feel-good Joel Osteen evangelism, Karl Rove, his sweet wife's good nature, and Mama's bitter, homespun truisms.

See, that's it! Right there. Sit him down and have him walk you through the Gospel according to George. I'd be dumbfounded, if, for example, he could rattle off the Ten Commandments, much less parse a letter to the Ephesians.

His faith is part and parcel of the millenial Osteen/Warren don't-sweat-it revisionism wherein Jesus arrived on Earth only to make sure you could earn more, lose weight, have better sex with your wife, raise conventionally above-average children and feel better about yourself. Religion, toothless, sinless and pointless, as self-help, with Mr. Jesus as Life Coach.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I like the better sex part.

 

[Yawn]

America won't elect a female president because too much of Middle America is scared by a woman in power and instead wants her to stay in the kitchen and birth them babies and cook that food and do what the man tells her to do.

Sound familiar, yawn?

"answered my question by not answering it."

I've been taking notes from Fenphen.

 

[Yawn]

Osteen hasn't stepped on anyone's toes since he was a baby.

 

[jgmacg]

Having misread The Purpose Driven Life, I spent several months losing money and earning more weight. Luckily, a new prescription from the optician changed all that.

 

[jimmymcd]

I'm guessing none of you really have any idea what the depth or breadth of Bush's faith is. Much like few on the right have any real idea about the true faith of the Dem bunch.

The Jim Beam comment is beneath you, FB.

 

[Alma]

To answer question No. 1: How do we know anything? Merely asking that question lends credence to my argument about the media assuming the God position. <i> If only we had a truth box or something! Then we'd know for sure </i>

Really, I don't think the media much cares whether a person is lying. In some cases, they kinda hope they do. They quote liars constantly; they're called football coaches. If the media views religion so objectively, why would the hypocrisy of those who claim it be any different?


To No. 2: I think C.S. Lewis answered that question better I can in Mere Christianity. I believe that any good thing must come from God, and if a non-believer lives what is called a moral life, it is by the common grace of their conscience given to them by God.

I guess my point in the first case was that the fig leaf of piety is used too often to neutralize criticism. The senator who visits brothels now contends that the matter is between him and his God. In the eternal sense, of course, that's true. But in the meantime, it's between him and his constituents - and the argument that all justice be left to God is merely a tactic for taking the case of his failed morality and personal hypocrisy off the public docket. The final judgment is indeed that, final, but in the meantime, we have to make the earthly judgments we're compelled to make (assuming God granted us free will).

As to the second point, is the morality of a good person somehow more moral, or more good, if we assume it came from God? I'm not sure.

On point 1: I agree with you. Completely. I have to. Paul writes in Romans:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

The governing "authority" in America is the people. The founders never waver from that. A politician is absolutely in submission to his or her constituents.

The wise, informed reporter turns that politician's line right on its head. Most reporters - and I include religion reporters - are entirely clueless to what lies in any religious text. Most of them have never read it.

Know what's funny? No reporter ever battles Bush on his home turf. They drag him into secular humanist realm where he can use his "faith" as a comfortable shield. He believes in this mysterious God who leads him divinely in ways we could not hope to appreciate. Nobody's ever spent an hourlong interview examining this faith he holds so dear. I mean, digging in the Bible and holding his belief system the verses found there.

If they did, they'd discover:

1. Bush's God is neither mysterious, distant, or particularly cryptic in the general sense. (Paul refers to mystery, but he lingers on the meaning of certain things. The spiritual purpose of marriage, for example, is a mystery that he does not really comprehend.)

2. Bush is full of **** in the most important way - what he claims guides him is in fact his own cobbled together goop of feel-good Joel Osteen evangelism, Karl Rove, his sweet wife's good nature, and Mama's bitter, homespun truisms.

See, that's it! Right there. Sit him down and have him walk you through the Gospel according to George. I'd be dumbfounded, if, for example, he could rattle off the Ten Commandments, much less parse a letter to the Ephesians.

His faith is part and parcel of the millenial Osteen/Warren don't-sweat-it revisionism wherein Jesus arrived on Earth only to make sure you could earn more, lose weight, have better sex with your wife, raise conventionally above-average children and feel better about yourself. Religion, toothless, sinless and pointless, as self-help, with Mr. Jesus as Life Coach.

But here's the key...you can't call Bush on his bull**** unless you take Christianity seriously. Otherwise he can claim (and has allowed his media toads to do so in various outlets) that his "calling" is beyond your distrust and secular cynicism.

The media steadfastly refuses to play on that turf, and a good portion of our Republicans play this mysterious, personal God card. All the time. And win with it. The media believes, incorrectly, that the rest of America is as skeptical. They are not.