KC Chiefs kicker complains about "emasculation of men," gay pride & says women should be homemakers

This post will most certainly torpedo this thread, but it had run its course and was likely dead anyway. Rather than making a quick reactive response to your [@Contra ] post I wanted to take time to reflect and consider what you wrote. This is a response to points you raised and also to thoughts and reflections I've had recently and over the 3 weeks I took time off from Too Hot.

It's likely to be long and perhaps ramble but as your quoted post was the motivation for the reflective 'time out' it's appropriate, I think, to tack it at the bottom of this thread. I've made several prior attempts but got bogged down, side tracked, changed the direction of my thoughts or delayed for other reasons. Even now as I make another attempt I have no agenda or script and don't know for sure what I will end up posting. Hopefully it will be help arrange diverse thoughts in my head. It will most certainly be cathartic.

It is your prerogative to do so, of course. But it saddens and baffles me that you do.

You speak harshly, ignorantly of things you do not know.
Presuming you are speaking around the subject of abortion you are making an erroneous assumption I've placed on it a stamp of approval. My objections are personal but do not infringe upon the rights of others to make their own mistakes. We are living in a democratic republic, not a theocracy (as of yet). I do think there should be restrictions placed on abortion, but overly restrictive laws that devastate the living should be rescinded.

I've both seen 'Sophie's Choice' and read the book years ago. I think it was Styron's last, and perhaps greatest novel. The unforgettable story is fiction, but was inspired by very real acts of atrocity. When the newly released book was on the best sellers list I participated in a book discussion with a group of young mothers some of whom were Jewish. It was a memorable experience; a book discussion like none other. One of the women was the daughter of a woman who had survived the holocaust hidden away in a secret room in the home of a "righteous gentile" Much like the Corrie Ten Boom Hiding Place.

Our consensus on what must have been in the mind of Sophie when she was forced to make the horrendous choice was on based on what she may have believed was the likely outcome of which child had the better chance to survive. In this circumstance it would have been the son. He was older and would perhaps have survived the unspeakable ordeal of imprisonment under the Naziis. The girl was only eight years old, less strong and more vulnerable. Also, I don't recall if the movie scripted another part of the story that would have been an aspect of Sophie's choice. Her daughter took flute lessons from a handicapped flautist who because of his "defect" had also been transported to this terminal of decision. She may have thought her daughter would find some comfort in his company in those last hours.

Some years later when my husband and I were in Israel we visited Yad Vashem, the museum established in memory of those who died in the Holocaust. We toured the museum under the guide of a docent who was a post WW2 refugee from Europe who told us of another situation where 5 Jewish adults were hidden in secret room in the home of a gentile family. I don't recall which country it was. One of the 5 was a young mother who had recently given birth to an infant hidden with its mother. A Nazi patrol was searching the neighborhood and the 6 Jews moved into the secret room. When the patrol approached the house the baby became restless and could not be comforted. The infant began to cry and the mother smothered her child so the others would not be discovered.

I'm not equating what this poor mother did to women who abort their babies for lesser reasons, but I don't think her choice was the wrong one. No greater love.... She exemplifies a good "neighbor."

I don't know what you are refering to in the 2nd sentence and it doesn't really matter to me as we have numerous points of disagreement and I'm not going to dwell on them as it appears neither of us are going to change the other's, or our own mind.

If I believed there was an actual evil being known as Satan I might consider that an insult, but I don't believe Satan exists. Or if I was concerned with what you consider the "3 biggest heretics in the early church / "pawns of Satan"" taught or believed, I might be offended. But I don't. And if I believed in hell I might be afraid. But I don't believe a cursed area outside Jerusalem metaphorically spoken of by Jesus is a place of eternal punishment for the wicked. I'm more inclined to believe there were people who manipulated or twisted the Christian message for their own aggrandizement, those who seek power, just as there are in the world today.

There is an inestimable difference between belief and faith. If all Christians lived their lives exhibiting what they profess to believe, the world would be a different sort of place. Rather than being motivated by the hate, greed, envy that drive people into rapacious, hostile, and violent acts, there would be trust and tolerance and charity universally exhibited by those professing the Christian faith.

Just as various people have different conceptions of faith, diligent seekers, people sincerely looking for answers to questions larger than self will discover and experience the inner workings, joys, and rewards of faith.

Perhaps a decade, but certainly not decades. I don't know, part of what I reflected on those weeks I was absent and still ponder. Your reply to my question was so shocking I've never forgotten it. Outside of orthodox faith in Christ there are so many, many reasons to live a moral life. Just as you think I am wrong in certain matters, I think you are in some things misguided . I also think it's unlikely we will see eye to eye as I know I will not - cannot - believe orthodox Christian dogma based on miraculous doctrines of belief. I view them as unnecessary burdens, contrary to the encompassing, inclusive message of Love taught by Jesus in the multilayered interpretation of Matthew 11:28-30.

I'm sorry for the offense. I should not have dragged up whatever you are referring to, but I don't know or remember what, or did not read whatever recantation you refer. It is not clear to me. Nonetheless, I apologize for the offense. 'Tis better to forgive and forget.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your feedback in what I've read in your post. Upon deep reflection I can agree with some of it, but not all of it. It is helpful in the process I am engaged.

My concern is not fear of not being forgiven or saved. My aim is to do the best I can to live the sort of life exemplified by Jesus. To live a life that does no harm, but is of benefit to others. That is of far greater importance to me than believing a public profession of correct beliefs in doctrines and dogma will gain me a place in heaven.

Earlier up thread I challenged your statements on religious pluralism before I remembered something I read many years ago. I paraphrase what a wise man once wrote: If a man is satisfied with his religion and it works for him, don't try and change his mind. It will perhaps shake his faith to his detriment and he will lose all faith.

We have perhaps both tried to do that. It is not a contest and if there are changes to be made they will be made in God's time. In that I have faith.

Relax, my faith is intact. I trust yours is also.

It was for the last sentence quoted in your post I decided to finish this reply tonight. Since Friday night I have been hospitalized after an attack of ischemic colitis, the same type hemorrhage that took the life of GatorKnights wife a few years before he died. Mine was not as severe as Mrs GK's and I'm still here after a transfusion and a procedure to stop the bleeding. But it's given me time to think about your post and other things weighing on my mind.

My health in general is shaky and I know my time is limited. I'm okay with that as I think, believe, have faith there is better to come. It is not something I believe I am compelled to share. It is an awakening I believe will come to those who are seeking it.

What I am planning to do is take some time off from posting on this aggravating forum to enjoy my garden, read a few books, and allow my body to heal as it will.

Be kind to one another...
Shalom...

 

How can this line of thinking take you to down any other path than pushing for a theocracy? What other Commandments should be enforced by the Government? Which ones shouldn't?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

It is good to think and reflect. I respect that. I also deduced you had taken a break from Too Hot after our exchange.

I have done the same before. So no problem with that.

This is another point where we will disagree. What I posted was not a simple prerogative. What love is or is not is objectively defined within the pages of scripture, and it is perfectly embodied in the Godhead who is revealed in the scriptures.

Now, I can qualify my previous comments a bit. I know you through your posts on this message board. I know you through the interactions I see with others on this message board. I do not claim to know anything beyond that, but posts on a message board are something, especially over a long period of time. The words we type do reveal our hearts. I think of the posters on this message board as iceburgs where we can see the surface, but there is also a lot under the surface we cannot see. I readily admit there is a lot of your life that is underneath the surface so to speak that is invisible to me.

The saying, "When words are many, transgression is not lacking" is true, and that works both ways. If you type enough words, then the sin nature will come out eventually. I have retracted things I have said on occasions, and I have also used the edit feature on some occasions as well, which has saved me more than a few times when I have gone back and reworded something to be kinder or more gracious than it originally was worded. So, being slow to speak is a good thing, and I respect that.

Jesus said in the High Priestly Prayer, Your word is truth. That was Jesus' view of scripture. So, I am going to push back here and challenge what you have placed in the realm of the unknowable. We have very different ideas of what truth is and how we know the truth, especially in the realm of spiritual matters and matters pertaining to morals and ethics. The truth has been revealed, and because God has revealed it we know the truth, but I am sure you would state some disagreements with that.

In your own words you said What baffles me is why you back and support the Trump fueled MAGA extremists. Now, to make sense of that quote I had to think about what you were referring to here. The only thing I could think of was my willingness to vote Republican in past elections. I invoked the story about Sophie's Choice because of that quote. I was employing it as an allegory or a comparison for the voting question in 2016, 2020, and 2024 due to the choice being forced upon us, and there are also lives that hang in the balance that we must consider when making a decision like this. The reality that life is precious and it is an atrocity of the highest order when the government commits innocent people to destruction was the point I was driving at. I still hold the opinion that no one would be baffled by a vote for the Republican party if they agree that the gravity of atrocity that occurs in this nation with abortion is equivalent to what plays out in the story of Sophie's Choice. You have to downplay the gravity of abortion in America as something less than that to be baffled by a vote for a candidate who pledged to strike down Roe vs. Wade. That is what was intended by invoking that analogy.

I had more written here as well, but to be succinct, I place this issue in the same category as American slavery and The Holocaust. Most people would reject "Well, I don't want to create a theocracy" as a defense for the atrocities committed in those eras, and I see no reason why we would accept that line of thinking now.

That is a sad story. I am not confident either way in saying what the right thing to do was in that situation, but I am glad I never had to make such a decision like that under such immense pressure, though.

I agree that there is often a disconnect between one's profession and one's obedience. Hypocrites are real, and hypocrites should be condemned. I believe, however, we make a serious error when we look at the hypocrite and conclude belief does not matter. Consider this:

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. -1 John 4:8
​

What we see is God's nature embodies what is commanded. We could extend this further:

And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. - 2 John 1:6​

So, God is love, and love is obedience to the commandments. So, any kind of obedience, fruitfulness, righteousness, good works, etc is a form of imitating God.

It seems to be that the aim of Holy living is to be imitators of the Holy God, as God commanded Abraham. A consequence of that is we can't imitate something we do not know. If the goal of the Christian life is to imitate God, then what we know about God becomes absolutely central to that endeavor.

So, if God is love, and substitutionary atonement is the crowned jewel of how God has expressed His love, grace, and mercy to us, then one must know how God has loved us, been gracious to us, and been merciful to us to properly imitate those things. If someone does not believe in the atonement, then how can they imitate a love, grace, and mercy they don't believe in?

If in that atonement Jesus was the bridegroom who bought and purified for Himself a spotless and perfect bride in His church, then how can anyone be an imitator of God in their own marriage if they don't believe in the marriage between Christ and His church?

If the cross is the ultimate expression of God's lovingkindness, then how can anyone imitate a lovingkindness they don't believe in?

You might consider some of these things unnecessary burdens, but I don't think scripture views knowledge of God and obedience to God as unconnected train cars that have nothing to do with one another. They are deeply connected such that without a knowledge of God one cannot love God as the disciple whom Jesus loved penned in 1 John 4:8.

They say imitation is the best form of flattery, and I cannot imagine God would be pleased if all of our energies in this life were spent imitating another God rather than the God.

I see no contradiction between anything I have written and what Jesus said in Matthew 11:28-30. There is only one person we can go to and find eternal rest for our souls, and that is Jesus. The question is have we found rest in Jesus or did we call something Jesus that was not Jesus and try to find rest in that. Is the person you think of in your mind when you think of Jesus the person you will meet face to face in eternity? That is the question.

The person I think of when I think of Jesus is the one who looked to the thief dying on the cross as a criminal next to Him, and said "Today you will be with me in paradise." It is the God-man who took on human flesh and died a brutal death to justify undeserving sinners, sinners who came to Him and believed on Him for a righteousness that was not their own. It is the God-man who justifies sinners and not the righteous who we will meet face to face. Do you know Him? Have you gotten your rest from the burden of a guilty conscience soiled by the guilt and shame and burden of sin? Did you go to Him and find rest in Him? That is the question.

I accept your apology. There was a time where it was brought up ad nauseum in response to almost anything I posted on this board. It has been brought up many times, and I can't count the number of times I have recanted it and said that I made some ignorant comments that were wrong. You have quite the memory, so I assumed you knew this, but maybe it has faded a little bit.

If it is the case that you did not remember one single instance of the many times that has occurred on this message board, then I will take you at your word on that.

Jesus once said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." Those are probably the wisest words that speak to this subject IMO. Some are not well who think they are well, and we know from medicine that is true. Self evaluations can be deceiving. The deceitfulness of sin should not be underestimated.

One of the most tragic things I have heard relating to this is when someone grows up in a faith like Christian Science or even certain forms of charismatic Christianity that reject modern medicine and then they get sick. Christian Science rejects the idea there is sickness at all. It is just an illusion of the mind. Some charismatics believe you need to take authority over the sickness and rebuke it with faith. So, no physician is necessary. Some of these people die of the most curable ailments that believe these things. It is just so tragic to watch something like that when all they had to do was go to the doctor and get treatment. When someone has made up their mind in that way it is very hard to watch. What do you believe lovingkindness looks like in that situation? Do you give up? Or do you keep trying? I have asked myself that question many times and I find myself divided between the two. It depends on the day how I might the answer that question.

I am sorry to hear about your health. I pray for a swift recovery.

 

It depends on your definition of theocracy. We could say theocracy is the union of church and state. I do not believe that is what I am advocating. Separation of morality and ethics from the state is dangerous, though. If we separate the state from morality and ethics, then Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc is what you get. A moral and ethical state is what we want, and we need that to be based in something that is real and that is true. That is all I am advocating for.

 

Thank you, M.

You asked a number of questions, but I'm going to step away from the temptation to reply. There is no point as I don't see us reaching agreement. I would rather enjoy my garden, read my books, and avoid lengthy exchanges in Too Hot.

 

I respect your decision to do that. I will be praying for you. I don’t know what you plan on reading, but the Bible is a good book to read. It is always fresh and good for our souls.

Also, Jesus knew His time was short, and the last place He went before He was arrested was a garden. He went to the garden to pray.

I hope your time in your books and in your garden proves to be refreshing for your soul.

 

Highest paid kicker in the NFL.

Sources: Chiefs make Butker NFL's richest kicker

 

So much for all the idiotic posts on here stating that Butker’s career would be threatened, or even ended, because of these comments.

Since the commencement speech, Butker has instead received positive support from Chiefs ownership, Andy Reid, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce. And now he had also received a new contract making him the highest paid kicker in the NFL. Not a bad summer at all for Harrison Butker.

 

So much for all the idiotic posts on here that Butker’s career would be over because of his comments made earlier this summer.

 

This is a most challenging problem, contra. No one wants an evil state, but the problem is that apart from obviously evil acts such as murder, rape, or theft, evil isn’t so easy to define. To my lights, the acts of the despots you cited don’t demonstrate a lack of morals, but the imposition of a different set of morals. Many people sincerely pushed for the Bolshevik revolution, because for them it was the moral choice. If governments are to be in charge of instilling morals, the real question becomes, whose morals? I think this is the failing of communism, that some thought they had access to moral truths which they could impose on their states.

 

The failing of communism was its immorality. They stoked the fires of envy and covetousness teaching the proletariat that coveting the bourgeoisie’s power, possessions, money, and status was morally good. They were liars. They taught children to disrespect their parents and their elders. They were murderers. They inverted almost all of the 10 commandments and advocated a government that opposed almost every single one of the 10 commandments.

 

Nothing like that would happen in a capitalist society



Your post is pretty interesting in how much its wrong, because the communist bloc was incredibly conservative in many ways. The capitalist countries were the ones about blue jeans, free love, "dont trust anyone over 30" and all that in the popular imagination.

 

The real lesson here is, if you are elite at your craft, you can do/say whatever you want, there’s still going to be market for your skills.

 

I think you are focused more on socialist ideas, which are today found in the platforms of both parties. Check out Trump’s messaging, it’s often about elites and taking power and status back from “them”.

Perhaps his message is moral, but this brings us back to my main question: who in government should get to determine what is truly good?

 

Your question presupposes the existence of something you don’t even know how to define, which is interesting.

For morality to exist in such a way that it should be universally enforced by government there must be a universal morality that binds all of humanity. Otherwise something that is not universal is being enforced universally.

If we deny the existence of a universal morality that binds the consciences of all men regardless of race, creed, sex, religion, geographical location, age, etc, then government is simply the process of men arbitrarily choosing tribal rules that they wish to impose on all people in a nation. It is a Darwinian competition for the imposition of power among competing tribes in society to write the rules of government if we deny the existence of a universal morality. So, then for example the only thing wrong with Trump then, is his tribal rules disagree with your preferred set of tribal rules. You don’t like his tribe and the rules he wants to write. His behavior is looked down upon by your tribal preferences.

I know that almost all posters here believe in a universal morality because the type of argumentation they engage in demonstrates a belief in a universal morality that applies to other people who don’t think like them.

One can assert the existence of a universal morality, but not all assertions are automatically true. So the question is are their moral assertions true? The question underneath the question, then, is how do we know a universal moral claim to be true or false?

We know the answer to this question. The precondition for the universal morality we all believe in is the existence of the Christian God as testified of in the Bible. Apart from Him there is no universal morality for government to enforce. There is only a godless Darwinian competition for power among tribes to impose their will on one another if the Christian God does not exist.

FWIW, when someone has denied the existence of universal morality and they see the entire world through the lens of tribal/group conflict…that is a dangerous situation. All kinds of evil become easily justifiable when we begin to believe that there is no right or wrong but only class and tribal conflict.

 

Wow, you like to gloss over stuff.

"So, then for example the only thing wrong with Trump then, is his tribal rules disagree with your preferred set of tribal rules. You don’t like his tribe and the rules he wants to write. His behavior is looked down upon by your tribal preferences."

The Ten Commandments are NOT tribal rules. Eight out of ten, Contra, 8 out of 10.

 

To make that argument you have to
assume the Christian worldview. All I ask is you follow that and apply it to both parties. If that worldview is true, then you also have to consider the blood of the innocent on the hands of the Democratic Party. There are roughly 1 million more every single year. They have enabled and supported a conspiracy to exterminate one third of our nation if that worldview is true. Trump was the first POTUS to strike down the evil ruling that protected that holocaust at the federal level.

If you know the God of the Bible He often avenges the shedding of innocent blood even in this life. The Mayans, Incans, the American Indians, Nazi Germany, the Carthaginians…all of these nations shed innocent blood. They participated in human sacrifice. The arc of history turned against these nations so that they were utterly destroyed.

I don’t like Trump, but not all sin is equally heinous and equally punished. We lack a candidate who can win the 2024 election who is better than Trump, but the lessons of history tell us something really bad could happen to this country to bring about our extinction due to the shedding of the blood of the innocent and the widespread acceptance of sexual deviancy. Rome fell as they became more perverted and more devious. God has judged nations very severely for doing what the Democrats have done, and I think we are fools stiffening our necks if we think we are somehow going to escape a similar outcome.

@92gator has used an analogy that I think is very good: chemotherapy. No one chooses chemotherapy unless if it is absolutely necessary. It does damage. It causes suffering, but it is a choice that is made solely due to staring down the alternative outcome and what that looks like. Apply the 10 commandments to the DNC. Apply the entire biblical worldview to the DNC, and you will see that it is cancer. Complain about chemo all you want. I’d rather go through chemo than perish because of cancer.

 

You well explained the issue to which I was driving, contra. Can there be anything but a war of rival morals won by force? You suggest that our only other option is for all of us to accept the Bible as the only source of true morals. I disagree though.

My first answer would be that we should not empower government to legislate morals as much as we can avoid it. Again, no one wants rape to be legal, so a law against rape is uncontroversial, but what about homosexuality? If this is truly a sin, then we could make it illegal, but a huge swath of people do not think it is a sin. What stand should the law take? I would suggest that the government not to take a stand at all. Who we love is simply outside the purview of the state.

The other issue is claiming that the Christian god is required to develop a universal morality. As you point out, to take this stance, one must start with the assumption that the Bible is true. But if our quest is to identify a universal morality, this just assumes the very thing we were trying to determine in the first place. Since I am not a Christian, being told I must accept Christianity is exactly what you wanted to avoid: a tribe imposing their will on others.

When it comes to theory, I think we might be able to frame our quest as you did: how do we know a universal moral claim to be true or false? But if we are developing a government in practice, I think we have to use my formulation: who should have the power to decide? If it’s you, then the Christian God it is. If someone else, then we likely get a different viewpoint, pushing for reason, Islam, or astrology. This fact that these answers can differ so widely is why we have separation of church and state. Our morals should not be dictated by whomever happens to be in power at the moment.

 

The funny thing about this debate and the supposed stakes involved, is one of the big donors to the Republicans, Peter Thiel is a Rene Girard disciple who thinks "woke" morality derives from Christian morality, and that it unlike all other religious/moral systems prizes identification with the scapegoat/victim over that of the community. In his formulation scapegoating plays a crucial role in order, and Christianity upends that.

Mimetic theory - Wikipedia

 

Super Bowl winning placekicker never misses …

Cancel Culture Takes Massive 'L' After Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker Scores Another Sweet Victory