|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 30, 2019 20:45:54 GMT -5
As far as your second statement, Baylor University has the right and privilege to operate events as they want since they are the one hosting them. You can’t just tell someone they can’t express their beliefs just because someone in the audience might be in disagreement. To state that a Christian university shouldn’t express Christian values in their home gym is ridiculous. Should the Bible verses on the various buildings around campus also be covered since they may be seen by the public eye? Baylor also does a Faith and Family night across all sports where athletes share their testimonies after the game. Maybe that should be ended as well since it takes place in public? So, contrarily, it isn't the case that "people overplay the Baptist culture of Baylor as an institution", as you insisted earlier. People are free to express their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean those beliefs should be exempt from criticism, as you seem to be claiming. Except I said the Baptist culture is being replaced with a non-denominational culture so the Christian values still hold true, just without the Baptist tradition intertwined as much. You can criticize the belief all you want, but you were criticizing the presence of the belief along with that. Saying I don’t agree with the opinion you’re expressing is different than saying I don’t think you should express an opinion at all.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 30, 2019 20:48:34 GMT -5
boy....you guys know how to ruin the best of moments. Its really just pathetic.
The Nebraska-Stanford National Championship match was a war not only on the court but also on social media including Volleytalk. None of us were good sports about the match up. Stanford fans did their usual," Our school is so much better than yours," and Nebraska fans were more than happy to point out that Foecke schooled the NPOY and the Whiteboard scandal that wouldn't die. While their was a winner on the court, volleytalk didn't produce alot of winners that night including me.
I didn't know anything about Baylor. Imagine how exciting this had to be for their coach, school, and fans. Someone had finally broke into the Fab four. They also produced a sensation that earned POY. I expected the usual barbs, nasty comments about each team. I am not a big Wisconsin fan but still wanted someone from the Big to win but the team with all that heart won me over. Imagine my surprise afterward when they embraced, hugged, huddled and seemed to have a deep respect and affection for one another. Their were absolutely no sore losers in this bunch. The winnners stood with the losers in perfect harmony. This was a big reminder to me what sports should be about without its ugly ugly fans including me.
That lasted for about 30 minutes until volleytalk erupted with rage over a simple prayer. That beautiful moment in sports came to a crashing halt because the ugliness of just how petty fans can be took over.
Let Baylor enjoy this moment in the spotlight and leave them the hell alone. Be a good sport regardless if it irritated you or not. Show our young fans how to treat each other before and after the battle.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Dec 30, 2019 20:49:25 GMT -5
I think the hard thing about this is the university it occurred at. Its baylor, a private baptist college. He did not say this at a public university, he did not say this UCLA, UH, USC etc. So what he said, is probably, believed by most of those who were listening. I still Vehemently disagree with it, and still think he should have been smart enough not to say it, but it is what it is at this point. Stafford is free to make her own choices on how she lives her life as a married woman and after baylor. I think a batter question would be ,....would you be throwing a hissy fit for the last several days if a coach encouraged pro choice? Yes or no? Avoiding the question I see. But I guess I’ll answer yours. Absolutely, as I think it’s inappropriate for a coach to advocate anything remotely religious and or political to their student athletes. Before you mention Illinois and it’s pride, I’m sure Tamas wasn’t giving Illinois a lecture about gay rights and how good it is, the team just participated in it.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 30, 2019 20:58:57 GMT -5
I think a batter question would be ,....would you be throwing a hissy fit for the last several days if a coach encouraged pro choice? Yes or no? Avoiding the question I see. But I guess I’ll answer yours. Absolutely, as I think it’s inappropriate for a coach to advocate anything remotely religious and or political to their student athletes. Before you mention Illinois and it’s pride, I’m sure Tamas wasn’t giving Illinois a lecture about gay rights and how good it is, the team just participated in it. I think you would encourage tolerance and part of tolerance is being tolerant even when you disagree. Baylor is a Christian University. They pray! Thats what they do. My Mom is a minister. We pray before each meal. Thats important to her. If any of her guests are uncomfortable they don't have to participate and they are still welcome. YOU GUYS HAVE SHOW ZERO TOLERANCE FOR THIS COACH AND BAYLOR UNIVERSITY. Time to practice what you preach.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Dec 30, 2019 21:05:33 GMT -5
Avoiding the question I see. But I guess I’ll answer yours. Absolutely, as I think it’s inappropriate for a coach to advocate anything remotely religious and or political to their student athletes. Before you mention Illinois and it’s pride, I’m sure Tamas wasn’t giving Illinois a lecture about gay rights and how good it is, the team just participated in it. I think you would encourage tolerance and part of tolerance is being tolerant even when you disagree. Baylor is a Christian University. They pray! Thats what they do. My Mom is a minister. We pray before each meal. Thats important to her. If any of her guests are uncomfortable they don't have to participate and they are still welcome. YOU GUYS HAVE SHOW ZERO TOLERANCE FOR THIS COACH AND BAYLOR UNIVERSITY. Time to practice what you preach. Again avoiding the topic but that’s what you do best. You probably won’t ever answer my questions but we know what you would say if someone was making pro choice annoucnements. Reread my post, I said it is what it is at this point. Baylor is a baptist university and Ryan said things Baptist believe. I disagree with it but oh well. Stafford will choose what she wants to do after college, and that’s her choice I’ve said this before, I have no problem with religion. Everyone is free to practice it how they please, but no one is free from criticism. Freedom of speech and religion, especially speech, doesn’t mean freedom from criticism
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 30, 2019 21:13:55 GMT -5
I think you would encourage tolerance and part of tolerance is being tolerant even when you disagree. Baylor is a Christian University. They pray! Thats what they do. My Mom is a minister. We pray before each meal. Thats important to her. If any of her guests are uncomfortable they don't have to participate and they are still welcome. YOU GUYS HAVE SHOW ZERO TOLERANCE FOR THIS COACH AND BAYLOR UNIVERSITY. Time to practice what you preach. Again avoiding the topic but that’s what you do best. You probably won’t ever answer my questions but we know what you would say if someone was making pro choice annoucnements. Reread my post, I said it is what it is at this point. Baylor is a baptist university and Ryan said things Baptist believe. I disagree with it but oh well. Stafford will choose what she wants to do after college, and that’s her choice I’ve said this before, I have no problem with religion. Everyone is free to practice it how they please, but no one is free from criticism. Freedom of speech and religion, especially speech, doesn’t mean freedom from criticism We finally agree!
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 30, 2019 21:22:12 GMT -5
Question, I know baptist take the bible more literally than most christian demoninations, does this include the old Testament, which prohibits wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, playing football, eating shellfish and from women speaking in church? I had a minor in religion throughout college (before I had to drop out) But did not really get into the abrahamic faiths as much as (just the main points, nothing specific), I focused on more on Buddhism, Shinto and Hindu during my first year and a half. There are different categories of law that are seen in the OT, including ceremonial, civil and moral. Ceremonial laws had a purpose of looking to the coming of Jesus Christ. So once he came, lived and was crucified, those laws were fulfilled and no longer apply. Moral laws, including the Ten Commandments, still apply today as they did then. Civil laws are the tricky ones because of how society has adapted to changing times. The principles of these laws still stand and are related to the conduct that Jesus displayed.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 30, 2019 21:36:10 GMT -5
Question, I know baptist take the bible more literally than most christian demoninations, does this include the old Testament, which prohibits wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, playing football, eating shellfish and from women speaking in church? I had a minor in religion throughout college (before I had to drop out) But did not really get into the abrahamic faiths as much as (just the main points, nothing specific), I focused on more on Buddhism, Shinto and Hindu during my first year and a half. There are different categories of law that are seen in the OT, including ceremonial, civil and moral. Ceremonial laws had a purpose of looking to the coming of Jesus Christ. So once he came, lived and was crucified, those laws were fulfilled and no longer apply. Moral laws, including the Ten Commandments, still apply today as they did then. Civil laws are the tricky ones because of how society has adapted to changing times. The principles of these laws still stand and are related to the conduct that Jesus displayed. This is such a convenient rationalization.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 30, 2019 21:46:27 GMT -5
I think Ephesians 5 is generally misunderstood and usually taken completely out of context. There are 3 key phrases as it relates to Ryan's quote:
1) 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (talking about Husband and Wife)
2) 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord (some versions using the phrase 'serve' instead of 'submit')
3) 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ...
People are pulling out #2 above w/o looking at #1 and 3. Submit to one another means that both the husband and wife is submissive to the other. Husbands, love your wives is talking about Agape Love (the Greek word used in the Bible translation). Agape love is total unconditional love - to love above oneself. For a Husband to have Agape Love for his wife - is to put his wife above him at ALL times - thus making the Husband submissive to his Wife.
I am an Evangelical Man and Husband - yet I have too often missed the mark on that kind of unconditional Love. It is something I strive for everyday - and me striving to be submissive to my wife or encouraging other men to do likewise is not watering down the role of my gender - nor is it doing so with females. People want to key on only the wife being submissive - yet the Bible is very clear that both the husband and wife is to be submissive.
I don't mean this to preach - I am not trying to suggest how others should conduct their married lives. I am just explaining how it is viewed among Evangelicals - and how most Likely how the coach of Baylor (I am not Baptist) views this. And in this context and from this perspective - this doesn't have anything to do with women being subservient to men.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 30, 2019 22:25:37 GMT -5
I think Ephesians 5 is generally misunderstood and usually taken completely out of context. There are 3 key phrases as it relates to Ryan's quote: 1) 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (talking about Husband and Wife) 2) 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord (some versions using the phrase 'serve' instead of 'submit') 3) 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ... People are pulling out #2 above w/o looking at #1 and 3. Submit to one another means that both the husband and wife is submissive to the other. Husbands, love your wives is talking about Agape Love (the Greek word used in the Bible translation). Agape love is total unconditional love - to love above oneself. For a Husband to have Agape Love for his wife - is to put his wife above him at ALL times - thus making the Husband submissive to his Wife. I am an Evangelical Man and Husband - yet I have too often missed the mark on that kind of unconditional Love. It is something I strive for everyday - and me striving to be submissive to my wife or encouraging other men to do likewise is not watering down the role of my gender - nor is it doing so with females. People want to key on only the wife being submissive - yet the Bible is very clear that both the husband and wife is to be submissive. I don't mean this to preach - I am not trying to suggest how others should conduct their married lives. I am just explaining how it is viewed among Evangelicals - and how most Likely how the coach of Baylor (I am not Baptist) views this. And in this context and from this perspective - this doesn't have anything to do with women being subservient to men. Blue, this is bad. You're going to accuse others of taking verses out of context, when you literally skip over verse 23? And leave out the rest of 25? And how about verse 33? The analogy is crystal clear (and this is without even touching the reasoning behind why a husband should love his wife in verses 27-31). Christ = the husband, the church = the wife. Again, it is totally fine if you have a different "modern" interpretation of this text (which really isn't an interpretation of this text but rather a qualification or contradiction but I digress), but the bible (I'm even using the predominantly 'modern' version) says what it says. And textualist/Evangelical churches teach to the bible. So what you've done, is rationalized around this conflict between the bible and your conscience (modern ideology of gender equality), and you're assuming that MacGuyre has done the same thing. Even we accept what you're saying is true about Evangelical teachings (which I disagree with, again, based on personal experience), the way I see it then is either 1) Evangelical/Baptist teachings are no longer textualist and there is a huge radical movement away from the above verses OR 2) they are still mostly textualist and MacGuyre's comments most likely stem (perhaps subconsciously) from the above patriarchal relationship between man and wife.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 30, 2019 22:33:30 GMT -5
So, contrarily, it isn't the case that "people overplay the Baptist culture of Baylor as an institution", as you insisted earlier. People are free to express their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean those beliefs should be exempt from criticism, as you seem to be claiming. Except I said the Baptist culture is being replaced with a non-denominational culture so the Christian values still hold true, just without the Baptist tradition intertwined as much. I was going to reply to this earlier, but I drank a margarita instead. The non-denominational/Baptist distinction you keep making is such a stretch (coming from someone who went to a non-denominational church in high school). Same cake, different icing. The "non-denominational" phenomenon really is just 1) a branding effort that coincides with contemporary music and casual dress and 2) the retirement of some of the antiquated political structures in certain denominations, such as deacons or elders. Many of the non-denominational churches in Central Texas, were once Baptist churches struggling with congregation numbers. In some ways, they actually feel more Evangelical, due to the heightened "spirituality" they preach (i.e. ritual is dumb, it's all about your spiritual relationship with God). But the textualist, "make disciples of all men," spirit is still very predominant. Just because the youth pastor has tattoos, doesn't mean it changes his views on Ephesians. Edit: For the record, not taking away anything you said about his character in your previous reply to my post. I'm trying not to comment on his character, I don't know the guy. But I don't think the "non-denominational" shift carries as much weight as you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 30, 2019 22:59:08 GMT -5
I was going to reply to this earlier, but I drank a margarita instead. This sounds like a good choice. "Non-denominational" can mean a lot of different things, but it often means a very local (usually just one person, the pastor) interpretation of Christian theology. Sometimes that hews pretty closely to the standard lines, and sometimes it veers off pretty wildly. Most of the "mega churches" are non-denominational, led by one charismatic pastor. We used to have one in the Seattle area that was so popular he had multiple churches he preached at, and used a helicopter to fly between them quickly enough that he could appear at each of them every Sunday. It was pretty much a cult of personality, and when the pastor stepped down after accusations of bullying, the church basically fell apart. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Hill_Church
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Dec 30, 2019 23:12:52 GMT -5
I think Ephesians 5 is generally misunderstood and usually taken completely out of context. There are 3 key phrases as it relates to Ryan's quote: 1) 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (talking about Husband and Wife) 2) 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord (some versions using the phrase 'serve' instead of 'submit') 3) 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ... People are pulling out #2 above w/o looking at #1 and 3. Submit to one another means that both the husband and wife is submissive to the other. Husbands, love your wives is talking about Agape Love (the Greek word used in the Bible translation). Agape love is total unconditional love - to love above oneself. For a Husband to have Agape Love for his wife - is to put his wife above him at ALL times - thus making the Husband submissive to his Wife. I am an Evangelical Man and Husband - yet I have too often missed the mark on that kind of unconditional Love. It is something I strive for everyday - and me striving to be submissive to my wife or encouraging other men to do likewise is not watering down the role of my gender - nor is it doing so with females. People want to key on only the wife being submissive - yet the Bible is very clear that both the husband and wife is to be submissive. I don't mean this to preach - I am not trying to suggest how others should conduct their married lives. I am just explaining how it is viewed among Evangelicals - and how most Likely how the coach of Baylor (I am not Baptist) views this. And in this context and from this perspective - this doesn't have anything to do with women being subservient to men. Blue, this is bad. You're going to accuse others of taking verses out of context, when you literally skip over verse 23? And leave out the rest of 25? And how about verse 33? The analogy is crystal clear (and this is without even touching the reasoning behind why a husband should love his wife in verses 27-31). Christ = the husband, the church = the wife. Again, it is totally fine if you have a different "modern" interpretation of this text (which really isn't an interpretation of this text but rather a qualification or contradiction but I digress), but the bible (I'm even using the predominantly 'modern' version) says what it says. And textualist/Evangelical churches teach to the bible. So what you've done, is rationalized around this conflict between the bible and your conscience (modern ideology of gender equality), and you're assuming that MacGuyre has done the same thing. Even we accept what you're saying is true about Evangelical teachings (which I disagree with, again, based on personal experience), the way I see it then is either 1) Evangelical/Baptist teachings are no longer textualist and there is a huge radical movement away from the above verses OR 2) they are still mostly textualist and MacGuyre's comments most likely stem (perhaps subconsciously) from the above patriarchal relationship between man and wife. Not really planning on getting into a Biblical discussion/debate - not really sure that VT is the appropriate place. I am just giving you a glimpse of how a Christian Man views Ephesians 5 which gets into the probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer's remarks. Several have claimed that the remarks represent a viewpoint that women are below men - and I know that this is not what is in the Bible or in Ephesians 5. I didn't intentionally skip verses in Ephesians 5 - I was only pointing out how verse 23 is almost always taken out of context. I would be more than happy to go through every verse in the Bible - but this really isn't the place for that. BTW, I am among the 'textualist/Evangelical' readers of the Bible - and I can assure you that no Christian husband believes he is = to Christ. And I also believe that the English translation 'love' used in Ephesians 5 is not the same as the Greek word 'Agope' used in that verse. That Ephesians 5 is very clear that both the husband and wife is to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Dec 30, 2019 23:18:02 GMT -5
I was going to reply to this earlier, but I drank a margarita instead. This sounds like a good choice. "Non-denominational" can mean a lot of different things, but it often means a very local (usually just one person, the pastor) interpretation of Christian theology. Sometimes that hews pretty closely to the standard lines, and sometimes it veers off pretty wildly. Most of the "mega churches" are non-denominational, led by one charismatic pastor. We used to have one in the Seattle area that was so popular he had multiple churches he preached at, and used a helicopter to fly between them quickly enough that he could appear at each of them every Sunday. It was pretty much a cult of personality, and when the pastor stepped down after accusations of bullying, the church basically fell i.imgflip.com/2zfikc.jpg
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Dec 30, 2019 23:36:35 GMT -5
Blue, this is bad. You're going to accuse others of taking verses out of context, when you literally skip over verse 23? And leave out the rest of 25? And how about verse 33? The analogy is crystal clear (and this is without even touching the reasoning behind why a husband should love his wife in verses 27-31). Christ = the husband, the church = the wife. Again, it is totally fine if you have a different "modern" interpretation of this text (which really isn't an interpretation of this text but rather a qualification or contradiction but I digress), but the bible (I'm even using the predominantly 'modern' version) says what it says. And textualist/Evangelical churches teach to the bible. So what you've done, is rationalized around this conflict between the bible and your conscience (modern ideology of gender equality), and you're assuming that MacGuyre has done the same thing. Even we accept what you're saying is true about Evangelical teachings (which I disagree with, again, based on personal experience), the way I see it then is either 1) Evangelical/Baptist teachings are no longer textualist and there is a huge radical movement away from the above verses OR 2) they are still mostly textualist and MacGuyre's comments most likely stem (perhaps subconsciously) from the above patriarchal relationship between man and wife. Not really planning on getting into a Biblical discussion/debate - not really sure that VT is the appropriate place. I am just giving you a glimpse of how a Christian Man views Ephesians 5 which gets into the probable intent implied by Ryan McGuyer's remarks. Several have claimed that the remarks represent a viewpoint that women are below men - and I know that this is not what is in the Bible or in Ephesians 5. I didn't intentionally skip verses in Ephesians 5 - I was only pointing out how verse 23 is almost always taken out of context. I would be more than happy to go through every verse in the Bible - but this really isn't the place for that. BTW, I am among the 'textualist/Evangelical' readers of the Bible - and I can assure you that no Christian husband believes he is = to Christ. And I also believe that the English translation 'love' used in Ephesians 5 is not the same as the Greek word 'Agope' used in that verse. That Ephesians 5 is very clear that both the husband and wife is to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'. Blue, The Ephesians text is often used to shame women (and girls) into not reporting rape and to blame them for the rape, partially the "submit" language and partially the "cleanse" language. What McGuyrre said bothers me much more bc it was said at Baylor bc I know how that language has been used (and is still used). If McGuyre didn't realize that, he needs to spend more time learning how many Baptists and other Evangelicals interpret it. Obviously not all of them but IMO using Ephesians at Baylor was at best horribly insensitive and ill-advised given how that text has been used to pressure women to not report rape and to cover it up to protect men.
Of course, he has a right to say it but IMO he needs to be more sensitive to context and how his words could be interpreted (if he did not mean to endorse the more traditional view of the text or its use in rape cover-ups).
|
|