Off Topic · OT: Historic Professional Sports Moment - Jason Collins Comes Out (page 9)
VCoug wrote:John 8 3-10
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: Lev. 20.10 · Deut. 22.22-24 but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Matthew 7 1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
If Chris has changed his ways being born again, he isn't being a hypocrite unless he practices it now. Obviously he's been enlighten from being in darkness about a matter.
Rom 1:20-27 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks.
And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.
And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie.
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
Chris isn't walking in that darkness and then talking about others in the dark.
1 Cor 6:9-11 Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
Some of you were once like that But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. .
From what I can see, Collins is using the media platform to build up his social network of gay NBA players.
I'm sure we are surrounded by different people on a daily basis.....as long as they respect me I'm good.
IronWillGiroud wrote:i think this is bad for pro sports, not because he's a gay but because sexuality should not have anything to do with pro sports whether you are a hetero or a homosexual
I agree....BUT
I have been in games before that stopped playing just to watch a nice young lady come out the locker room. Am I wrong for looking, or should I just close my eyes and ignore it? 
VCoug wrote:John 8 3-10
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: Lev. 20.10 · Deut. 22.22-24 but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Matthew 7 1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
This is tremendous. I've always loved watching scripture invalidate scripture.
John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.
2 Thess 2: 9-11 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
1 Tim 1:8-11 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
And just in case you think it's a "hate the gay"-only argument:
Romans 1:28-32 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
So all that needs to be done for a perfect world is to perfectly tolerate, accept and not "hate" anything. Because what's right for you may not be right for Jason Collins, or what's right for me may be wrong for Ghandi.
What is truth?
There's no standards, no absolutes. Except that there are no absolutes.
Stunning reasoning.
IronWill says sexuality has no place in pro sports yet I have yet to see him comment on banning provocative cheerleader and dance teams.
Playa2 and others think our society is not ready. I think or hope many of you are projecting an illogical, expiring 20th century mindset onto the 21st century.
Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman. Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across. One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable to hold his silence, he spoke out.
"Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried her!"
"Brother," the second monk replied,
"I set her down on the other side, while you are still carrying her."
The great thing about scripture is its popular. So you can always find like minded folks who share your views of the above mentioned.
DrAlphaeus wrote:As for all the scripture being thrown around, try meditating on this Zen koan. Which monk are you in this story? The context here is contact with women was forbidden for monks.Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman. Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across. One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable to hold his silence, he spoke out.
"Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried her!"
"Brother," the second monk replied,
"I set her down on the other side, while you are still carrying her."
So why are they Buddhist monks again, and should the enlightened one have put the woman down?
So instead of scripture, let's throw koans around.
Meditate until your navel tells you what's right and wrong.
If you feel like it.
Until the fashions change.
jrodmc wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:As for all the scripture being thrown around, try meditating on this Zen koan. Which monk are you in this story? The context here is contact with women was forbidden for monks.Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman. Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across. One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable to hold his silence, he spoke out.
"Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried her!"
"Brother," the second monk replied,
"I set her down on the other side, while you are still carrying her."So why are they Buddhist monks again, and should the enlightened one have put the woman down?
So instead of scripture, let's throw koans around.
Meditate until your navel tells you what's right and wrong.
If you feel like it.
Until the fashions change.
jrod, I didn't ask you to go into full lotus... But did you read the koan and think about it for a second before responding? Anyway, it was probably too off-topic for this thread. But if you don't appreciate the punchline of the story, let's just drop it. But I brought it up to provoke some thought: A woman gets gawked and harassed in the street: but it's her fault for looking like that? A gay man gets harassed or ostracized: but it's his fault for acting like that. But what about the harasser's culpability?
When you see a pregnant woman, does your mind automatically drift towards the sex act that impregnates her? When you go to a wedding, do you obsess about the wedding night? Or are you mature and sane enough to think about something other than sex acts?
That's all I'd love to see from folks who have an issue with Collins' announcement. Instead minds go straight to the uncomfortable locker room. What the hell goes on in there beside towel snapping?!? I just don't understand the obsession.
Anyway, as they say: "Homophobia: The fear that another man will treat you like you treat women." (origin unknown)
DrAlphaeus wrote:As for all the scripture being thrown around, try meditating on this Zen koan. Which monk are you in this story? The context here is contact with women was forbidden for monks.Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman. Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across. One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable to hold his silence, he spoke out.
"Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried her!"
"Brother," the second monk replied,
"I set her down on the other side, while you are still carrying her."
whoa - I read a lot of philosophy on spirituality but this is the first time I've seen that. Enlightening
SupremeCommander wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:As for all the scripture being thrown around, try meditating on this Zen koan. Which monk are you in this story? The context here is contact with women was forbidden for monks.Two traveling monks reached a river where they met a young woman. Wary of the current, she asked if they could carry her across. One of the monks hesitated, but the other quickly picked her up onto his shoulders, transported her across the water, and put her down on the other bank. She thanked him and departed.As the monks continued on their way, the one was brooding and preoccupied. Unable to hold his silence, he spoke out.
"Brother, our spiritual training teaches us to avoid any contact with women, but you picked that one up on your shoulders and carried her!"
"Brother," the second monk replied,
"I set her down on the other side, while you are still carrying her."whoa - I read a lot of philosophy on spirituality but this is the first time I've seen that. Enlightening
Yea I know it from an Allen Ginsberg recording. I love that story.
playa2 wrote:smackeddog wrote:playa2 wrote:gunsnewing wrote:Now when Collins soesnt get another job cos he sucks its gonna be cos he is gayHe announced it because he wants some special treatment. This is just a political agenda they say active player, but hes not on a team .
You with your conspiracy theories!
No sir, this is how people are in our society today.
Do you know how much money will be represented with this agenda worldwide ? Nike is just waiting to make a buck off this agenda and so many others.
Playa, you don't speak for Collins or have 1 iota of what he is thinking or how this will play out or what his motivation will be. You don't know Collins personally, probably don't know him at all outside of his NBA career.
Speak for yourself and no one else.
smackeddog wrote:Knicksfan wrote:Honest question:Why is it that every time the homosexual subject is brought up, all examples assume the homosexual will make unwanted sexual approaches to everybody?
Do you guys impulsively hit on any girl and make them feel uncomfortable when approaching them? Why do we assume that from homosexuals?
What is there to fear about if you play "flesh on flesh" (more like fabric on fabric, but anyway) with a homosexual? The guy may just want to play basketball, nothing else. And if he does and you feel uncomfortable, talk it over and move on. If he doesn't stop, just go. But please let me remark that this behavior can happen with anybody and any sex as long as somebody feels uncomfortable.
The fact that some immediately assume the worst case scenario when discussing this subject is exactly why this has to be talked about.
Exactly, I think people seem to get sexuality mixed up with sleaziness. If you went to play basketball with another man and they started rubbing up against you for their own sexual gratification, that's not okay- they're being sleazy and making unwanted sexual advances, same as if you played basketball with a woman and started rubbing up against her it's not okay- it's nothing to do with the sexual preference, it's them being sleazy. Everyone has a right against being violated or harassed.More heterosexual men behave in that way towards woman than gay men behave that way towards men, so should heterosexual men be banned from working with women? Of course not. Because it's nothing to do with sexual preference, it's about behaving appropriately and not being sleazy.
BRIGGS, how would you feel if you found out that every woman at work was actually fearful of working with you, worrying that you'd stand close to them, or rub up next to them in the elevator? That every time you went in a store, the female cashier became worried you were going to start making sexual advances on her? Having people always thinking that because of your sexuality, you are always going to a) hit on them and b) be unable to control yourself. What would you say to them?
You're changing the subject. I could care less if a person I worked with is gay straight from Mars etc... someone is asking me if I would be interested in having an openly gay man sweating and touching on me in terms of contact sports of which my answer is no I would not. I think my answer is reasonable--I dont want a gay man touching me with his body. I don't care if hes the President of the US--I dont personally like it--and my bet is if people whould give a straight answer--most men would not want an openly gay man touching them sweating on them bumping and grinding into them--thats sports--if I dont know--I assume nothing and I dont care. Its like someone with AIDS they say it s ok to kiss someone with AIDS--but guess what IM not doing it! I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.
BRIGGS wrote:smackeddog wrote:Knicksfan wrote:Honest question:Why is it that every time the homosexual subject is brought up, all examples assume the homosexual will make unwanted sexual approaches to everybody?
Do you guys impulsively hit on any girl and make them feel uncomfortable when approaching them? Why do we assume that from homosexuals?
What is there to fear about if you play "flesh on flesh" (more like fabric on fabric, but anyway) with a homosexual? The guy may just want to play basketball, nothing else. And if he does and you feel uncomfortable, talk it over and move on. If he doesn't stop, just go. But please let me remark that this behavior can happen with anybody and any sex as long as somebody feels uncomfortable.
The fact that some immediately assume the worst case scenario when discussing this subject is exactly why this has to be talked about.
Exactly, I think people seem to get sexuality mixed up with sleaziness. If you went to play basketball with another man and they started rubbing up against you for their own sexual gratification, that's not okay- they're being sleazy and making unwanted sexual advances, same as if you played basketball with a woman and started rubbing up against her it's not okay- it's nothing to do with the sexual preference, it's them being sleazy. Everyone has a right against being violated or harassed.More heterosexual men behave in that way towards woman than gay men behave that way towards men, so should heterosexual men be banned from working with women? Of course not. Because it's nothing to do with sexual preference, it's about behaving appropriately and not being sleazy.
BRIGGS, how would you feel if you found out that every woman at work was actually fearful of working with you, worrying that you'd stand close to them, or rub up next to them in the elevator? That every time you went in a store, the female cashier became worried you were going to start making sexual advances on her? Having people always thinking that because of your sexuality, you are always going to a) hit on them and b) be unable to control yourself. What would you say to them?
You're changing the subject. I could care less if a person I worked with is gay straight from Mars etc... someone is asking me if I would be interested in having an openly gay man sweating and touching on me in terms of contact sports of which my answer is no I would not. I think my answer is reasonable--I dont want a gay man touching me with his body. I don't care if hes the President of the US--I dont personally like it--and my bet is if people whould give a straight answer--most men would not want an openly gay man touching them sweating on them bumping and grinding into them--thats sports--if I dont know--I assume nothing and I dont care. Its like someone with AIDS they say it s ok to kiss someone with AIDS--but guess what IM not doing it! I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.
The AIDs comparison is a little heavy handed, I mean one is a matter of life or death. Honestly, I don't want any sweaty dude, gay or straight touching me, in the first place. It's unhygienic. But it's one of the things you have to deal with if you want to play basketball. I'm competitive and I'm not going to give up on a rebound because the dude guarding me is gay. We saw that when Rodman was in the NBA when he had those rumors swirling about.
BRIGGS wrote:smackeddog wrote:Knicksfan wrote:Honest question:Why is it that every time the homosexual subject is brought up, all examples assume the homosexual will make unwanted sexual approaches to everybody?
Do you guys impulsively hit on any girl and make them feel uncomfortable when approaching them? Why do we assume that from homosexuals?
What is there to fear about if you play "flesh on flesh" (more like fabric on fabric, but anyway) with a homosexual? The guy may just want to play basketball, nothing else. And if he does and you feel uncomfortable, talk it over and move on. If he doesn't stop, just go. But please let me remark that this behavior can happen with anybody and any sex as long as somebody feels uncomfortable.
The fact that some immediately assume the worst case scenario when discussing this subject is exactly why this has to be talked about.
Exactly, I think people seem to get sexuality mixed up with sleaziness. If you went to play basketball with another man and they started rubbing up against you for their own sexual gratification, that's not okay- they're being sleazy and making unwanted sexual advances, same as if you played basketball with a woman and started rubbing up against her it's not okay- it's nothing to do with the sexual preference, it's them being sleazy. Everyone has a right against being violated or harassed.More heterosexual men behave in that way towards woman than gay men behave that way towards men, so should heterosexual men be banned from working with women? Of course not. Because it's nothing to do with sexual preference, it's about behaving appropriately and not being sleazy.
BRIGGS, how would you feel if you found out that every woman at work was actually fearful of working with you, worrying that you'd stand close to them, or rub up next to them in the elevator? That every time you went in a store, the female cashier became worried you were going to start making sexual advances on her? Having people always thinking that because of your sexuality, you are always going to a) hit on them and b) be unable to control yourself. What would you say to them?
You're changing the subject. I could care less if a person I worked with is gay straight from Mars etc... someone is asking me if I would be interested in having an openly gay man sweating and touching on me in terms of contact sports of which my answer is no I would not. I think my answer is reasonable--I dont want a gay man touching me with his body. I don't care if hes the President of the US--I dont personally like it--and my bet is if people whould give a straight answer--most men would not want an openly gay man touching them sweating on them bumping and grinding into them--thats sports--if I dont know--I assume nothing and I dont care. Its like someone with AIDS they say it s ok to kiss someone with AIDS--but guess what IM not doing it! I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.
Thats not what nature intended but people are wired differently and have a chemical imbalance and they have the right not to repress their feelings and desires.
We will see what happens. Wake me up when a relevent active player comes out. Until then this is a nonstory. Maybe now a relevent player will come out and in time it will hopefully not even be an issue.
Dont think you can get aids from sweat but if you rather avoid any contact then that is your right but remember you might have already rubbed sticky sweat with someone who is hiv positive and not even know because that person is pressured into repressing himself
BRIGGS wrote:
I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.
Is there anybody that refutes Briggs comment here ?
playa2 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:
I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.Is there anybody that refutes Briggs comment here ?
Yep! But not sure what line of argument to respond with because I don't believe in god or marriage!
Im brought up catholic but lean towards the realistic, natural and scientific approach like with everything else. I dont think briggs realizes people have different beliefs. He has the right to his beliefs just as he has the right to steer clear of gay sweaty men. Dont know if hes winning any popularity contests though. Surely should never bother running in politics
playa2 wrote:yes.. please prove this is gods will. I guess god created the world AND invented marriage. Good stuff (garbage)BRIGGS wrote:
I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.Is there anybody that refutes Briggs comment here ?
fishmike wrote:playa2 wrote:yes.. please prove this is gods will. I guess god created the world AND invented marriage. Good stuff (garbage)BRIGGS wrote:
I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.Is there anybody that refutes Briggs comment here ?
Weird that god is so hung up on genitals- is it like an OCD thing where everything has to be done 'the right way'?
playa2 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:
I don't believe a marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman either--thats not how God intended life to be.Is there anybody that refutes Briggs comment here ?
Religion does not get to define marriage for the rest of us. If it did then people of different religions and people with no religion wouldn't be able to marry and people who are divorced wouldn't be able to re-marry unless they were a follower of certain religions. Marriage is a social construct that predates recorded history; it can have religious meaning but it certainly isn't defined by it. j
Also, there are Christian churches that DO believe marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr... Among others there are Lutheran, Presbyterian, and even Pentecostal churches that perform and bless homosexual marriage.