So you're all in favor of people "publicly acknowledging" their genitals, if they're important to them?
Ed and I have both always agreed what athletes are just entertainers that we have no personal connection to, like actors or pop stars.
Not at all. They could pray for improved focus, they could pray for protection from injury, they could pray for good decision-making--there are many things that a player could pray for on a day-to-day basis which relate to individual performance but would not be equivalent to God dictating the outcome of a game.
To be fair, Christianity involves adherence to a written document which (among other things) states, "...whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Homosexuality has no such comparable doctrine, so it's not really a fair comparison.
When an athlete makes a big play, they get the applause of the crowd. Most Christians recognize that anything they achieve is only possible because of the talents and gifts that God gives them. When they point to heaven or make statements thanking God, they're simply being true to their faith by showing that they recognize the source of their achievements. As a Christian, while I understand the motives of Christian professional athletes when they do something like this, I have to say that I wish they wouldn't. As evidenced by many of the comments here, it's often taken the wrong way by non-believers. In their shoes, I think I'd just offer a silent prayer and move on with the game. That said, what I do find annoying is the constant chest thumping and strutting that goes on in pro football by some players after every even relatively routine plays. Yuck.
OK. I inferred equation of the two from the juxtaposition of your statement within this thread. My apologies.
But that's redundant, right? Because everything that happens happens because of God. It's also a bit self-centered. Do they point to the sky when the opposing team scores? They should, if they're consistent. Otherwise (as Christian philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out long ago) they're questioning God's will. If God loves them, everything that happens is the best possible thing that could happen. Including them being paralyzed in career-ending accidents, say. The fact that most athletes don't acknowledge this shows that they are poor theologians. That's what we're all complaining about really.
If one does not publicly acknowledge the place of God in one's life, then one is keeping credit for oneself rather than giving the glory to the One to whom it belongs.
You think God really cares? Isn't that a bit self-centered? Either that or it paints a picture of a God who created little beings just to brownnose him, and I think that's incredibly insulting to God. Besides, God knows what you're thinking, so just think it.
Obviously, it's silly that I would even need to detail this, but despite the fact that you're obviously just being contrarian, I'm willing to oblige. People are born with genitals--people choose their religion. With extremely rare exception, everyone has genitals. Not everyone is religious. Those with genitals cannot help those without gentials to procure genitals through discussion thereof. Possession of genitals does not have an impact on one's eternal destination. I could go much further, but there is clearly no need.
The notion that all events that occur are the best possible outcome presupposes that God is divinely orchestrating every event. This is not a Biblical concept. The Bible indicates that "God works all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose"--this does not mean that every event in a believer's life is the best possible, just that God uses all events for our benefit. There is a difference, and I'm certain that you are aware of this.
Thank you! Now, let's recap: oldmangrouch's (humorously intended) comparison was between one's religion and one's genitals, with the point being to make an argument by analogy: Sound advice! Now, you're criticizing this argument by pointing out disanalogies between religions and genitals. But of course there are plenty of differences - otherwise it would be a very dull analogy ("religions are like religions"). You have to show a relevant difference, such that it makes sense to conclude that you shouldn't shove your genitals in someone's face, but you can shove your religion. I don't think you've done that. In fact, a couple of them seem to me to suggest that you have more right to "publicly acknowledge" your genitals than your religion. After all, if you really DO choose your religion, then it's your fault you have it, so it seems more reasonable to ask you to keep it to yourself. Whereas, if you can't help having genitals, then it seems unreasonable to ask you to hide them. After all, everybody's got 'em - what's the problem? As for the "eternal destination" - you don't know that possession of a religion has any impact on it. Even if God exists, it's easier to argue that a loving God shouldn't care than that he should.
There's nothing wrong with a religious player thanking God. They're not going, "I'd like to thank God for allowing me to make that shot, giving me the skill to make such a shot, AND BY THE WAY YOU HEATHENS AT HOME BETTER GET BAPTIZED OR YOU ARE GOING TO HELL". They're just thanking God. As much as I dislike Tebow because of how much the columnists and media folk get all over his jock, I have to respect him for his upcoming anti-abortion ad that will air during the superbowl. That takes some guts from today's sportsfolks who are taught to value endorsements over standing up for what they believe is right.
