BB replaced by Dungy on NFL presentation commercial??

[PatsFanInVa]

I really hate to wade in, being one of the handful of professed non-Christians in America...

(By the way, this is why it seems to me that Dungy slapped non-Evangelicals in the face, by saying the "big story" was "two Christian coaches meeting in the S.B." It had happened dozens of times already, but they call news news because it's something new.

Unless you conclude that the catholics, mainline protestants, and others except Marv Levy, were really "fake Christians.")

But I digress... I really hate to wade in, with my scant knowledge of WWJD etc., but it seems that in the stories in the Greek bible, Jesus was always forgiving someone a sin, and explaining how those judging him or her were big fat hypocrites. I mean, it was sort of his modus operandi.

It's in the oldest part of the Torah that you find the injunctions against homosexuality, witches, and ham, not in the Greek bible.

By the way, when Dungy's group starts a Focus on the Roast Beef, I'll give him some credence on that count. Why focus on one predecessor-religion tabu, and leave the others out?

At any rate: The real problem here is reconciling the present interest in gay-bashing for God, with Jesus' modus operandi, as we see it in the "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" parable.

Does Dungy believe he is without sin?

At any rate, I know this is about to be kicked over into the religion forum if I don't shut up now, and I have, in the past, asked for just such results when a thread becomes about religion. So mea culpa, guys.

By the way, I do think PatChick's got it right. It's a diversity angle; once again, indemnifying the league against any negative image (oooo they only value their white coaches. I see how it is....)

Eh well. Hopefully the NFL spot will be back to normal in a year... though we WILL have the proposal to re-do Thomas Jefferson with Sherman Helmsley on Mount Rushmore to worry about....

JUST KIDDING,

PFnV

 

[Miguel]

The business of the NFL is the business of the NFL, not the football.

With that said, I am not surprised that the NFL chose to replace BB with Dungy. Dungy has a book that is currently on the New York Times best-seller list which offers the NFL some cross-marketing opportunities. IMO, this is one.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It's certainly a less irritating speculation. After all, nothing riles up the masses quite like the subject of socioeconomic objectives (i.e., diversity.) I suppose the possibility exists that the league sold the spot to Dungy's publisher as a marketing tie-in.

I stand by the original speculation in the absence of such a deal.

PFnV

 

[patsox23]

I really hate to wade in, being one of the handful of professed non-Christians in America...

(By the way, this is why it seems to me that Dungy slapped non-Evangelicals in the face, by saying the "big story" was "two Christian coaches meeting in the S.B." It had happened dozens of times already, but they call news news because it's something new.

Unless you conclude that the catholics, mainline protestants, and others except Marv Levy, were really "fake Christians.")

But I digress... I really hate to wade in, with my scant knowledge of WWJD etc., but it seems that in the stories in the Greek bible, Jesus was always forgiving someone a sin, and explaining how those judging him or her were big fat hypocrites. I mean, it was sort of his modus operandi.

It's in the oldest part of the Torah that you find the injunctions against homosexuality, witches, and ham, not in the Greek bible.

By the way, when Dungy's group starts a Focus on the Roast Beef, I'll give him some credence on that count. Why focus on one predecessor-religion tabu, and leave the others out?

At any rate: The real problem here is reconciling the present interest in gay-bashing for God, with Jesus' modus operandi, as we see it in the "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" parable.

Does Dungy believe he is without sin?

At any rate, I know this is about to be kicked over into the religion forum if I don't shut up now, and I have, in the past, asked for just such results when a thread becomes about religion. So mea culpa, guys.

By the way, I do think PatChick's got it right. It's a diversity angle; once again, indemnifying the league against any negative image (oooo they only value their white coaches. I see how it is....)

Eh well. Hopefully the NFL spot will be back to normal in a year... though we WILL have the proposal to re-do Thomas Jefferson with Sherman Helmsley on Mount Rushmore to worry about....

JUST KIDDING,

PFnV

Allow me to wade in and try to rein in my self-righteousness a bit this time, while pointing out that I agree a lot with this take - but also think it's iffy to think of gay marriage, or being born/oriented gay, as anything in the ballpark of a "sin." I know that wasn't your point, though.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Allow me to wade in and try to rein in my self-righteousness a bit this time, while pointing out that I agree a lot with this take - but also think it's iffy to think of gay marriage, or being born/oriented gay, as anything in the ballpark of a "sin." I know that wasn't your point, though.

Yep, you read me right, that wasn't the point, though the terminological point is one that could grate at plenty of people.

The Hebrew bible is one thing, and the Greek Bible is quite another... there's a law in the ancient theocracy against male homosexuality (curiously, lesbianism is 100% kosher, by the letter of the law. I think they just never imagined it happened; women were thought of more as possessions than persons under the law.) And the "law" in a theocracy is the same as a sin. So yes, male homosexuality was a sin.

But when we get to more modern Judaism, say, two thousand years ago, and simultaneously, the advent of Christianity, we have many such laws that are no longer ever applied, even prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. The theocracy died with the Babylonian invasion, and Judaism went through an evolution. We're not sure whether something like the Jubilee Year was ever practiced; but most scholars think that, even if it was in the early theocracy, it was certainly not the norm by Roman times.

Within Christianity, many more core concepts were destroyed to make way for easier conversion, with an interpretive gloss negating the de-Judaization through Pauline rhetoric.

Circumcision, for example, practiced by Hebrews/Jews as well as Arabs/Muslims since the time of Abraham, went by the wayside. It was the number one obstacle to spreading the faith to Europeans, coincidentally. Similarly, dietary restrictions, known for at least 1250 years in Judaism (dating from the rough time of the Exodus,) disappeared in one restless night's dreams, for the Christian world.

These aspects of the Hebrew bible were tossed aside, but with an ever accumulating corpus of explanatory doctrine. I wonder why the ban on homosexuality -- not even a real issue in the Greek bible -- is a fixation for modern evangelicals.

Perhaps someone should have had a dream, or written an explanatory gloss. Perhaps they did, but it never made the cut.

At any rate, it is just plain odd to see "WWJD" replaced with "What Would Moses Do?" so often these days.

Of course, it was Jesus who wanted to live in a state of extreme tolerance and lovingkindness, loving the enemy as well as the neighbor, forswearing wealth in favor of wisdom, in effect radicalizing the most "modern" currents in contemporaneous Judaism, those which deal with love, mercy, and charity. He believed himself, after all, to be living in the end times.

Our current focus is on finding and provoking those whose actions are condemned in one or another biblical epoch. We are precisely looking for the mote in the neighbor's eye, and this is, precisely, the beam in our own.

PFnV

 

[patsox23]

There are many things written in the old Holy books that were:

1) based on a total misunderstanding of science
2) metaphorical in nature
3) downright nuts

Back in the day, The West Wing made interesting points about some of this:

"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"

"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"

"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

"Think about those questions, would you?"

 

[questionman]

All this because Dungy replaced BB in a commercial?

 

[patchick]

All this because Dungy replaced BB in a commercial?

We're a deep, deep board.

 

[Peytonsbetter]

The business of the NFL is the business of the NFL, not the football.

With that said, I am not surprised that the NFL chose to replace BB with Dungy. Dungy has a book that is currently on the New York Times best-seller list which offers the NFL some cross-marketing opportunities. IMO, this is one.

This is the best explanation yet.

Of course, money is ALWAYS the best explanation.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Crap we didn't even get to quantum mechanics.