Tim Hardaway's Comments...

[ladiesbballcoach]

Now see? You went and added a lot more than you originally had in that post! :lol:

 

To specifically address you question/comments about abortion:

 

One does not have to carry signs that say "You'll go to hell" or "God hates killers" in front of an abortion clinic to oppose abortion.

 

Instead of protesting in front of clinics, wouldn't that time be better used to counsel women who are in the situation of feeling the need to choose about other alternatives? Of assuring that mother that she would have support to get through the pregnancy and whatever choice she makes about keeping or giving up the child? Of working to educate young children of the perils of unplanned pregnancy? Of the virtues of celibacy?

 

Or working with young men to teach them the responsibility they assume if they choose to have unprotected sex?

 

Or teaching both young men and young women about respect for each other, themselves, and the sanctity of marriage?

Yes to all and the bottom are more effective. But if the church is teaching this are they not making a judgement on a life of unprotected and careless sex. Some say that life is great and the best. If we teach AGAINST that, are we not making judging.

 

I am not being stubborn or hard headed but pointing out that the church AND it's MEMBERS HAVE to make judgement. If they choose to teach abstinence, then they are making the judgement that is the BEST ALTERNATIVE.

 

Now should we picket outside a person of loose morals homes. Absolutely not.

 

Should we turn them away if they show up at a Bible Study. Absolutely not. In fact just the opposite.

 

But in those Bible Studies, I think we have EVERY right to indicate FROM SCRIPTURE the life that Jesus wants us to lead and that would NOT be the life they are leading.

 

On your point of not using Jesus' name, that is a potential loaded issue (to use a descriptive word for Jim). Christians have longed been accused of "knowing better" on what to do instead of others. Or to put it another way, "they think they are always right and perfect when they are nothing but hypocrits."

 

When I counsel and not refer to Scripture, it comes across as LBBC's knows the best way. AND I DO NOT. Jesus and God knows the best way and will lead us through the Holy Spirit.

[Jim Schue]

Implying is not being inside your head but a reading of what you posted. If you meant something different than what I read, than I will take your word on that and accept it.

 

Yes, they are loaded but are they not important questions that we need to study, discuss and pray about?

 

Perhaps. But I'm still not going to walk into a trap.

[HHSDad]

Are we still on the original topic?

[rockmom]

Yes to all and the bottom are more effective. But if the church is teaching this are they not making a judgement on a life of unprotected and careless sex. Some say that life is great and the best. If we teach AGAINST that, are we not making judging.

We're judging behavior, not individuals. There's a difference.

I am not being stubborn or hard headed but pointing out that the church AND it's MEMBERS HAVE to make judgement. If they choose to teach abstinence, then they are making the judgement that is the BEST ALTERNATIVE.

Again, making a judgement on behaviors is different than judging an individual (and you...stubborn? :sssh: )

Now should we picket outside a person of loose morals homes. Absolutely not.

 

Should we turn them away if they show up at a Bible Study. Absolutely not. In fact just the opposite.

 

But in those Bible Studies, I think we have EVERY right to indicate FROM SCRIPTURE the life that Jesus wants us to lead and that would NOT be the life they are leading.

But, what and the way you teach in Bible Studies is different thatn what you'd do outside that enviornment. If you have gotten them to Bible Studies, you absolutely should be teaching the Bible.

On your point of not using Jesus' name, that is a potential loaded issue (to use a descriptive word for Jim). Christians have longed been accused of "knowing better" on what to do instead of others. Or to put it another way, "they think they are always right and perfect when they are nothing but hypocrits."

 

When I counsel and not refer to Scripture, it comes across as LBBC's knows the best way. AND I DO NOT. Jesus and God knows the best way and will lead us through the Holy Spirit.

 

I think we agree on the premise, but disagree on the practice....

[spindoc]

Are we still on the original topic?

If you connect the tangents!

[rockmom]

If you connect the tangents!

 

 

Is that advanced math?

[spindoc]

Is that advanced math?

Only if you try to work your way back to the topic from where we are now!

[ladiesbballcoach]

RM, do you think society sees a difference between Christians who are judging behavior and who are judging individuals?

[ladiesbballcoach]

If you connect the tangents!

Now you have taken me back to a 1980's Pre Cal class with an Asian mathematics professor of whom I could not understand a singe word he said.

[HHSDad]

RM, do you think society sees a difference between Christians who are judging behavior and who are judging individuals?

Way off topic.

[rockmom]

RM, do you think society sees a difference between Christians who are judging behavior and who are judging individuals?

 

Well, I think it goes both ways, and actually this is probably another topic.

 

I think our society today has become very polarized, even dangerously so at times. When there is a societal polarization, I believe that the factions each have difficulty separating the action and the individual.

 

LBBC, I'm disturbed by one thing. You seem to feel that Christians are somehow under attack these days. I wonder about that. I'm Catholic, and I'm (of course) Christian, but I don't feel that Christians are under attack when our beliefs are questioned.

 

Remember back in the day when there were lots of questions about the Catholic religion? For example, we discussed infant baptism. I didn't feel that was an attack, I felt it was an example of misunderstanding and an opportunity to open dialogue to create understanding.

[Run To State]

RTS, no one is saying he had no rights to say what he said. But, to carry your comments about the Dixie Chicks along, those who seem to be so firmly in the "Hardaway is just speaking the truth" camp are the very one's who slammed the Chicks for excercising their right to free speech.

 

Is it a case that a person only has the right to free speech when that person's opinion mirrors one's own?

 

The fact of the matter is that everyone is afforded the right to free speech, within limits.

 

Now, why is it not OK to say "I'm embarrassed to say that the President of the United States is from Texas", but it is OK to say "I hate homosexuals"?

 

To me, there's a marked difference between expressing displeasure and expressing hatred. But, maybe that's just me. I think "hate" is one of the greatest crimes of all, and it's so often justified by quoting the Bible.

OK RM let me break this thing down.

Actually, the Hardaway comment and the DC's comment are different to me for one thing only. I don't care that they said "I'm embarrassed to say that the President of the United States is from Texas", I care that they did it such an offensive cowardly manner. On foreign soil. That's just downright unforgivable to me, and I'd feel that way if they would have said it about Clinton, whom you know very well I can't stand. Honestly, I think if they would have said it in this country it would've been much ado about nothing. I don't think it would have even been much of a blurb. But, Hardaway makes a statement about his hatred for homosexuals and it's all over the airwaves, papers, blogs etc...

And why exactly is that? The tolerance police (those beautiful left-wingers) deem it horrible and reprehensible to harbor such feelings. My lord, he must go to sensitivity training so we can make him think like us. We simply can not allow this man to speak his mind, he must learn to accept whatever we think is appropriate, and after all, he must have some kind of mental disorder to even think such a thing.

I find the PC people’s hypocrisy to be the offensive thing here more so than his comment. I don’t agree with what he said, but why is it such a big deal really? Who cares? How exactly do Hardaway’s feelings about homosexuals affect you or me? Why is this even an issue?

[CatchMeIfYouCan]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_blogs/nba/2007/02/tim-hardaway-moron.html?cnn=yes

NBA needs to take stand against homophobia

It would be a mistake to take the opinions of morons like Hardaway and declare them to be the defining sensibility of the Sports World, whatever that might be. I'm not sure that sensibility can be easily defined. But now that Hardaway's comments and the overall subject of homosexuality in sports are out there, it's time for clear-thinking team leaders to step forward and do the right thing. That's you Shaquille O'Neal, you Kobe Bryant, you Steve Nash, you Dirk Nowitzki, you Ray Allen. It's time for you to say that what came out of King Crossover's mouth is crap and that anyone who feels that way is a moron.

 

You don't have to use that word, though. It's pretty strong. But it's also accurate.

[rockmom]

OK RM let me break this thing down.

Thanks...I'm a simple-minded person. It helps a lot when you do that for me.

Actually, the Hardaway comment and the DC's comment are different to me for one thing only. I don't care that they said "I'm embarrassed to say that the President of the United States is from Texas", I care that they did it such an offensive cowardly manner. On foreign soil. That's just downright unforgivable to me, and I'd feel that way if they would have said it about Clinton, whom you know very well I can't stand. Honestly, I think if they would have said it in this country it would've been much ado about nothing. I don't think it would have even been much of a blurb.

Well, to be honest, we could (and have been) going round-and-round on this one, and it really only peripherally relates to this topic. So, in the interest of keeping HHSDad happy, I'll just agree to disagree with you on this part, if that's OK?

But, Hardaway makes a statement about his hatred for homosexuals and it's all over the airwaves, papers, blogs etc...

And why exactly is that? The tolerance police (those beautiful left-wingers) deem it horrible and reprehensible to harbor such feelings. My lord, he must go to sensitivity training so we can make him think like us. We simply can not allow this man to speak his mind, he must learn to accept whatever we think is appropriate, and after all, he must have some kind of mental disorder to even think such a thing.

What's wrong with tact, diplomacy and manners? Exactly when did we lose our manners as a society? Exactly what is wrong with being tolerant? You act as if tolerance and tact are bad things. They're not. They're what helps reach compromise, helps us all get along, helps keep the peace.

I find the PC people’s hypocrisy to be the offensive thing here more so than his comment. I don’t agree with what he said, but why is it such a big deal really? Who cares? How exactly do Hardaway’s feelings about homosexuals affect you or me? Why is this even an issue?

Maybe you would care if you were homosexual. It is an issue because (although I have no idea who he is), he's some sort of individual who's opinion is sought. Maybe this would affect you if you were, or were the family member of, a homosexual. Because a person's lifestyle isn't what you deem appropriate, it doesn't mean they should be afforded any less decency than someone of whom you do approve.

[Run To State]

Thanks...I'm a simple-minded person. It helps a lot when you do that for me.

So BF has told me.

 

Well, to be honest, we could (and have been) going round-and-round on this one, and it really only peripherally relates to this topic. So, in the interest of keeping HHSDad happy, I'll just agree to disagree with you on this part, if that's OK?

Fair enough.

What's wrong with tact, diplomacy and manners? Exactly when did we lose our manners as a society? Exactly what is wrong with being tolerant? You act as if tolerance and tact are bad things. They're not. They're what helps reach compromise, helps us all get along, helps keep the peace.

Nothing is wrong with it and there have been ill-mannered people since the dawn of time. No, I don't think tolerance and tact are bad things. I also don't thing we as a people have to always be in that mindset. It's OK to dislike others and it's OK to speak your mind about them. Just look at all the people in this thread alone speaking their mind about Hardaway, but that's OK, he isn't gay, he just some intolerant moron. Let's all slam him, he's fair game.

Maybe you would care if you were homosexual. It is an issue because (although I have no idea who he is), he's some sort of individual who's opinion is sought. Maybe this would affect you if you were, or were the family member of, a homosexual. Because a person's lifestyle isn't what you deem appropriate, it doesn't mean they should be afforded any less decency than someone of whom you do approve.

If I were, I couldn't care less what someone else thought of me. Same goes for a family member, I just don't live my life needing approval from everyone.