- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 33,984
- Reaction score
- 14,474
Okay, thing number 1, I want to address the notion that players and their families view these sites:
First of all, I think it would be unlikely they see any given thread, but indeed possible. Secondly, I think it is unlikely players/families would be upset that there's some good natured ribbing here and there, but hell, anyone can have a bad day and your comment could "get to them," that particular day. Sure. Point taken.
But more importantly, it would take a LOT of spin, to see the level of "chop-busting" on this thread as malicious, given that the same people essentially post on threads that view Brady, rightly, as one of the greatest QBs of all time. The only way most of the cutting-up here could be seen as hostile, is if the player/family member in question chooses only to read this thread.
Not only that, but the ones "cutting up" are not claiming moral superiority or necessarily making the assumption it could not happen to them (or the statement that it has not happened to them).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing #2, on the claim that a passel of non-Christian faiths "condone" or "condemn" extramarital sex:
I can not give you an answer regarding other ones, but as regards Judaism, it's a matter of emphasis. "Fornication" is mentioned in a pretty unkind light in the Tanakh. However, it is not one of the "Big 10" commandments, and is treated as important but not earth-shatteringly so (as opposed to adultery, in which someone else suffers from your sin.) I think the emphasis on sexual purity we see in many Christian denominations results from the early emphasis on celibacy in the Christian church; Paul tells the Church that marriage is "permissible," by saying "It is better to marry than to burn," using a typical flourish of rhetorical double-entendre. He means, of course, both to burn with desire, and to burn in Hell. But the assumption going in to such a phrase has to be that early Christians, still expecting the Parousia, were likely attempting to live hyper-pure lives in expectation of the "End of Days." But those expectations came from Jewish sects, and can still be seen in many orthodox sects today.
From Paul's phrasing, of course, we tend to retain only the associations with "burning" in Hell, also emblematic of early church concerns. While the literature of Christianity retains a thorough, ubiquitous concern with apocolyptic (and/or afterlife) outcomes, Judaism developed much less rapidly, under varying conditions of apocolyptic or non-apocolyptic expectation; And so, in many interpretations of Christian doctrine, the personal decisions one is responsible for in both faiths, take on extra dimensions of importance.
So, while neither "condones" extramarital sex, the condemnation of same tends not to be central to the Jewish consciousness.
In closing: both Jews and Christians run the gamut in terms of attitudes toward sex; so in terms of descriptions of behavior actually exhibited by members of both groups, study of emphasis or dogma among clergy or literature may not be that useful.
(okay now move the thread to "religion" if youze guys want.)
PFnV
First of all, I think it would be unlikely they see any given thread, but indeed possible. Secondly, I think it is unlikely players/families would be upset that there's some good natured ribbing here and there, but hell, anyone can have a bad day and your comment could "get to them," that particular day. Sure. Point taken.
But more importantly, it would take a LOT of spin, to see the level of "chop-busting" on this thread as malicious, given that the same people essentially post on threads that view Brady, rightly, as one of the greatest QBs of all time. The only way most of the cutting-up here could be seen as hostile, is if the player/family member in question chooses only to read this thread.
Not only that, but the ones "cutting up" are not claiming moral superiority or necessarily making the assumption it could not happen to them (or the statement that it has not happened to them).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing #2, on the claim that a passel of non-Christian faiths "condone" or "condemn" extramarital sex:
I can not give you an answer regarding other ones, but as regards Judaism, it's a matter of emphasis. "Fornication" is mentioned in a pretty unkind light in the Tanakh. However, it is not one of the "Big 10" commandments, and is treated as important but not earth-shatteringly so (as opposed to adultery, in which someone else suffers from your sin.) I think the emphasis on sexual purity we see in many Christian denominations results from the early emphasis on celibacy in the Christian church; Paul tells the Church that marriage is "permissible," by saying "It is better to marry than to burn," using a typical flourish of rhetorical double-entendre. He means, of course, both to burn with desire, and to burn in Hell. But the assumption going in to such a phrase has to be that early Christians, still expecting the Parousia, were likely attempting to live hyper-pure lives in expectation of the "End of Days." But those expectations came from Jewish sects, and can still be seen in many orthodox sects today.
From Paul's phrasing, of course, we tend to retain only the associations with "burning" in Hell, also emblematic of early church concerns. While the literature of Christianity retains a thorough, ubiquitous concern with apocolyptic (and/or afterlife) outcomes, Judaism developed much less rapidly, under varying conditions of apocolyptic or non-apocolyptic expectation; And so, in many interpretations of Christian doctrine, the personal decisions one is responsible for in both faiths, take on extra dimensions of importance.
So, while neither "condones" extramarital sex, the condemnation of same tends not to be central to the Jewish consciousness.
In closing: both Jews and Christians run the gamut in terms of attitudes toward sex; so in terms of descriptions of behavior actually exhibited by members of both groups, study of emphasis or dogma among clergy or literature may not be that useful.
(okay now move the thread to "religion" if youze guys want.)
PFnV
