Gay Rights groups trying to "Bully" Tim Tebow

Oh my hat, I think this is the first time I actually saw this sport (I figured this was a creative license for movies).

It's totally different to football or rugby.
It's American Football, right?

I can't say if it's better or worse.
These guys are certainly built and crash into each other.
The tight uniforms and so forth do look a bit funny at first.
And then they film them speaking on the field?

This is what I saw.
Is it always like that?


Well this is rugby (the interesting bit anyway):

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by dusty1

 

You omitted the context of what the sin committed actually was (according to Paul who wrote this as well).

Romans 1:21-25 translated from the Latin Vulgate:

21 because when he knew God, they neither glorified him as God, neither were thankful but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened

22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and of birds and four-footed beasts, and creeping things

24 for which cause God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever amen

The sin was not worshipping god but worshiping themselves.

www.home.messiah.edu...
I don't have time this evening to do much research into the subject of interpreting Romans 1 but I found this interesting excerpt in the link above (and below) where there is some kind of discussion about a twist on the argument of sexuality from a cultural relativity perspective in a "1978 book by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, who write out of an evangelical heritage. They argue that sexual acts that homosexuals do are condoned by evangelicals when done in a heterosexual marriage, so obviously it is not the acts that are at issue (despite sodomy laws in most states) but the gender of the partner that is at issue. Considering the variety of sexual practices that the OT winks at (concubines, polygamy, silence about female homosexuality), they argue that traditionalists are making too much of something the Bible makes little of.


So Evangelicals find acceptable and condone homosexual acts so long as they occur in heterosexual marriages: that sounds awfully kinky to me!! Evangelicals condoning either sodomy between men and women, or condoning anal sex between men and women: those things are not an abomination!! How ironic! So this means that pastors, and reverends and the whole bunch are actually really kinky in their beds and it is totally ok and "natural" to god, even though those acts are NOT procreative in nature. I thought that sexuality was exclusively meant for pro-creative purpose to god, or at least isn't that what the evangelical/protestant church professes? Then your argument with Romans is completely null and void, but I'll let you open the link here. So these male Evangelicals so long as they are committing these sexual acts with the opposite sex are doing nothing wrong, even though it is entirely non-procreative. That's a bunch of bull, and you'll have to excuse me because I actually always believed that evangelicals only did things according to "missionary" (sexual) position.

This is just too much for me, and I have to go;
Here is the link: www.home.messiah.edu...

reply to post by halfoldman

It's totally different to football or rugby.
It's American Football, right?

There is actually many other countries that call 'football', 'soccer'. Not USA specific nor USA in origin.

But yeah...that's 'American Football' And yeah, pretty normal hehe.

Also, fencing is the best sport. Not opinion but fact

The Biblical witness about homosexuality centers on Romans 1 because the passage is clearly a NT doctrinal passage which refers to both men and women. Any discussion of the Bible and homosexuality today must address 43 years of pro-gay arguments about Romans 1. What are these arguments?


www.home.messiah.edu...
I don't have time this evening to do much research into the subject of interpreting Romans 1 but I found this interesting excerpt in the link above (and below) where there is some kind of discussion about a twist on the argument of sexuality from a cultural relativity perspective in a "1978 book by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, who write out of an evangelical heritage. They argue that sexual acts that homosexuals do are condoned by evangelicals when done in a heterosexual marriage, so obviously it is not the acts that are at issue (despite sodomy laws in most states) but the gender of the partner that is at issue. Considering the variety of sexual practices that the OT winks at (concubines, polygamy, silence about female homosexuality), they argue that traditionalists are making too much of something the Bible makes little of."


So Evangelicals find acceptable and condone homosexual acts so long as they occur in heterosexual marriages: that sounds awfully kinky to me!! Evangelicals condoning either sodomy between men and women, or condoning anal sex between men and women: those things are not an abomination!! How ironic! So this means that pastors, and reverends and the whole bunch are actually really kinky in their beds and it is totally ok and "natural" to god, even though those acts are NOT procreative in nature. I thought that sexuality was exclusively meant for pro-creative purpose to god, or at least isn't that what the evangelical/protestant church professes? Then your argument with Romans is completely null and void, but I'll let you open the link here. So these male Evangelicals so long as they are committing these sexual acts with the opposite sex are doing nothing wrong, even though it is entirely non-procreative. That's a bunch of bull, and you'll have to excuse me because I actually always believed that evangelicals only did things according to "missionary" (sexual) position.

This is just too much for me, and I have to go;
Here is the link: www.home.messiah.edu...

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

He does not speak against homosexuals, he speaks against homosexuality... and no it is not semantic.

I engage in certain activities.


I like to golf.

Some might say I'm a golfer.


Should that define me?


What would people think of me if I started wearing golf shoes, plaid pants and a golf glove everywhere I went?

How about if I boisterously talked about the 18 holes I played the day before?

I begin to chip and putt in the office. I start hitting golf balls into my neighbors yard.

Some get annoyed with my muddy cleats and start to complain.


This is where I draw the line.


How dare these bigots not approve of my lifestyle!


I love what I do so much that I organize a golf pride parade.

I love golf so much that I think my golf partner and I should be able to enter into a civil union, that way we can get better rates at the course and cheaper insurance. Who cares if everybody else has to pay higher rates now!

I hang out exclusively at golf bars. Hey, once and a while I might pick up a new golf partner on the side for a quick nine holes...


Oh sure, we cant all get along in the golf community, you know, there's bears, and there's buffs. We really can't accept each others style of play, but hey, we rally together in golf pride parades!!!


Yes, my activity defines me!





I'm not a person like everyone else.

I'm not a man.

I'm not dusy1.



I am what I do!


Golf Pride!!!!

So you're equating golf to sex? That's what homosexuality is all about when you get down to it... who one chooses to have sex with. I could care less who one chooses to have sex with (in private of course). I am a Libertarian, and I support the liberty of everyone, including homosexuals. My problem is having homosexuality driven down my kids throat (no pun intended) at school or by pop culture.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

That's what homosexuality is all about when you get down to it... who one chooses to have sex with.

It's a sexual orientation.

This is what it gets down to:

Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender.

It's about attraction. Sex is merely one way of expressing this attraction.

But protesting doesn't mean Bullying!

This is just word games by Fox News in an attempt to make a story and promote their agenda.

Originally posted by Ghost375
But protesting doesn't mean Bullying!

This is just word games by Fox News in an attempt to make a story and promote their agenda.

Its not even a protest. Its a petition, asking him to reconsider.

I am thinking this group is walking the line here. Protest it all you want but demanding a person to not talk under threat of further protest becomes near stalking in my opinion. Why is this group so worried about this one person? Or is their larger goal the private University itself?

In either case, it is counter-intuitive. Claim we are all equal and we all have the right to be who we are, until someone is not who we are, then we will mobilize and make the world turn against that person for not being the same as us (or at least believing what we believe).

If the man wants to be an ardent Christian with beliefs that "gays" are sinful, so be it. Why is this group putting so much effort to stifle his opinion?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I am thinking this group is walking the line here. Protest it all you want but demanding a person to not talk under threat of further protest becomes near stalking in my opinion. Why is this group so worried about this one person? Or is their larger goal the private University itself?

In either case, it is counter-intuitive. Claim we are all equal and we all have the right to be who we are, until someone is not who we are, then we will mobilize and make the world turn against that person for not being the same as us (or at least believing what we believe).

If the man wants to be an ardent Christian with beliefs that "gays" are sinful, so be it. Why is this group putting so much effort to stifle his opinion?

edit on 8-3-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2013 by ownbestenemy because: autocorrect isn't all it is cracked up to be....

You'll have to quote for me where there is any threat made, whatsoever. I sure dont see it. I do wish people would take the time to actually read the petition. Its posted on a previous page. Its actually rather polite.

These propaganda pieces sure do seem to work on some...

reply to post by halfoldman


That was a hilarious look at the NFL, halfoldman. Not only is it like that, always, but ususally it is more of that. Funny thing; my father never watched sports on tv. He was always reading or working. My mom loved it and got us kids into it. I cried when the Broncos won the superbowl and even though I realize how silly it is I am not ashamed. Admittedly I love sports, but not for the reason most do. I have my own reasons.

CJ

reply to post by Christian Voice


One massive spear tackle will shut them all up pretty fast..

reply to post by DarknStormy


Violence is the answer eh?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Lucid L. For no other reason to post I say, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

CJ

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Violence is the answer eh?

No, its just hes an NFL footballer

Originally posted by SinMaker
I'm embarrassed that people believe in a vengeful God. That's pretty pathetic. If God is vengeful, then he's taking everyone of us out. No one to spare. Hypocrites. Hateful human beings.

Thank god, the god that truelly are is not like that. . I love god. It is so nice. It makes you feel love and comfort even when you walk in places that are very weird and barbaric like Earth.



If they wanna waste time eating the dualistic apple over and over again let them. Only those who know the way in their soul or can let go long enough to be guided will find their way.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


It's not just a freaking petition dude dang. Get that through your head. The first paragraph states: Gay rights activists are demanding Tim Tebow back out of a speaking engagement at Liberty University just two weeks after pressuring the New York Jets quarterback to cancel a speaking engagement at the First Baptist Church of Dallas.

They are demanding he shut up.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I think you failed to see the sarcasm in that post. Don't be ridiculous.

The point to this thread is about how homosexuals rant and rave about rights and freedoms and are attempting to remove Tebow's rights. Again this is very hypocritical. They don't even know the topic of his speech. It's absolutely none of their business either. Tebow is not out on a public podium preaching anti gay rhetoric. He is going to a private Christian University. Why do homosexuals care?

reply to post by Christian Voice


People are gay. People are straight. Some swing both ways.

Who cares????

Live and let live.