I roll my eyes more times than not when some shot for brains sports dude exclaims that: "GOD was truly on their side tonite." Or they look to the sky with a thank you. Funny, but I submit that GOD has a heck of a lot better things to worry about in this world. But, if GOD was truly for that dude, what did the other dude do to upset GOD?

We've had Tony Dungy's faith pounded in to our heads for ions but have not heard much ablout Lovies faith. Wait...Lovie goes to church too. Just heard it on ESPN.

So, which team does GOD want to win today?? Or, could HE be busy trying to stop another 200+ from being killed in homicice bombings in Iraq? Perhaps another abortion from taking place....tornadoes in Florida...the Celtivs from losing 15 straight...

Priorites.

Well what a question and the answer is neither. You our correct Dave in thinking that it is not  a particular team god wants to win. When in reality it is the individuals he is after to work  and support each other. I think the statement is just phrased wrong that God was on our side that is why we won. They should just simply be saying thanks for God giving me the chance and ability to help the team win. Dave do not roll your eyes at the guys looking up in a thnak you after they score a touch down. After all they do need to thank him for the talent that he provided them with to score the touch down. It is a big debate just like politics and all but both come down to which we choose to beleive and put our faith. So priorities our to remeber it is about each one of us and how we treat each other.

I say may the most talented team on this day win and I vote the Colts.

Reuben

Reuben, we're on the same page, I just don't put up with the air of self importance these sports dudes put on their game and their foolishness as it relates to GOD being in THEIR locker room.

I spoke with GOD ealier this morning and he wants the Colts to win. 

Dave,
While I don't think God much cares one way or the other, I hear he has awesome insight on the stats.

Tom

So GOD lives in Vegas???

[QUOTE]FEDSAWDAVE wrote

 Or, could HE be busy trying to stop another 200+ from being killed in homicice bombings in Iraq? [/QUOTE]

Dave:

I believe Paul Kurtz, Editor in Chief, Free Inquiry, may have the answer and/or shed some light on your question:

"The Shia Muslims believe that the rightful successor of Muhammed after his death should have been Ali, the second person to accept Islam (after Muhammad's wife Khadija). Ali was male head of "the people of the prohpet's house" (Ahlul Bayat). Shiites believe that Ali was appointed by direct order of Muhammad himself. The branch supporting Ali is also known as "the party of Ali". Upon the death of Muhammed, however, the majority of Muslims favored Abu Bakr as the first caliph. He was succeeded by the second and third caliphs, Umar and Uthman; the fourth was Ali. the Sunnis recognize the heirs of the four Caliphs (including Ali) as the only ligitimate Islamic leaders, the Shia recognize only those of Ali. There are important doctrinal differences in the interpretation of the Hadith, allegedly based on the testimony of the Prophet's original companions.

One can only imagine why ,thirteen centuries later, men and women are so concerned about these diffferences that they will destroy each other's mosques and slaughter one another over them. This is, of course, reminiscent of the battles between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe, such as the Hundred Years War in the early modern period, when there were disputes about the Hegemony and authority of the Bishop of Rome. The alleged statement of Jesus to Peter in the New Testament, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," has led to vast bloodshead and violence when Protestants and Eastern Orthodox rejected the authority of the Pope. But this happened centuries ago, and Christians by and large have learned to tame their animosities and have abandoned the Inquisition and the Holy Crusades. Apparently the disputes in the Muslim world are as great as ever, and the world watches as violent jihad is unleashed.The key lesson to learn is that it's not so much the existence of God (or Allah) that's in dispute, for both factions claim to believe in the diety, but the legitimacy and authenticity of Divine Revelation, delivered, in this case to Muhammed, who transmitted it to humanity. The key issue is whether these ancient revelations (Jesus, Paul, Moses Abraham)  have been corrroberated by reliable eyewitnesses or rather have been corrupted by oral tradition and  insufficient eyewitnesses. But that is another matter.

"Enough already," we say in disgust. Surely, there must be other source  of morality besides religion. From the fatherhood of God, one can deduce all kinds  of contrary moral prescriptions, as one can justify bloodshead, torture, punishment and death in the name of Allah. This is an old story in human history that has been repeated time and time again. When religion becomes dogmatic, when it becomes thoroughly entrenched in human civilization and institutions, the only way to overcome differences of creed seems to be violence. The best antidote to such devastating nonsense, in my judgement, is the cultivation of critical thinking and the administration of a dose of scientific skepticism to unmask claims of faith."

Joe

So what you're saying Joe is that Allah roots for the Bears??

He was p*ssed when the MGM bumped him for Seigfried and Roy.
You think the tiger thing was an accident?

Joe ,

  Critical thinking and scientific skepticism to unmask claims of faith. This helps how?

Reuben

Joe,
Does he mention which well the 12th Imam is springing out from? I want a good seat.

The best antidote to such devastating nonsense, in my judgement, is the cultivation of critical thinking and the administration of a dose of scientific skepticism to unmask claims of faith.

Won't happen. The best you can hope for is that a different kind of religion will replace the sectarian kind. Like communism, or environmentalism.

We need to have faith. We need to believe in something which is otherwise unprovable.

By the way, you need to be clearer on when you quote the source versus your own opinion. I need to do this to, but I don't notice it when it's me doing it.

Tom

Also, Joe,
pertaining to this discussion, no Islamic faith has a problem with Allah being the one true god. We're just wondering which team he's rooting for. All those other guys are prophets.

Shoot Tom Allah could care less he is still looking for those virgins he was promised, but Dave is probably correct it being the Bears.

Rueben,
Allah would be the supplier of the virgins.
The splodeydopes were the receivers.

There are other interperetations that suggest he actually meant raisins, but that's not worth dying for, of course.

Although that Sun Maid girl was pretty hot, I have to admit...

"GOD led us on this journey" say Irsay !

"We did it the Lords way" says Dungy !

Absolute ignorant humans says I !

[QUOTE]Reuben wrote

Joe ,

  Critical thinking and scientific skepticism to unmask claims of faith. This helps how?

Reuben

[/QUOTE]

Reuben:

Remember when the majority religion in this country burned people at the stake for witchcraft? Doesn't that seem uncivilized and barbaric now? Of course.

But then critical thinking and scientific skepticism came along and unmasked claims of faith. I'd say that was very helpful.

Do you know why the Southern Baptists came into existence in this country? Because the regular Baptists wouldn't support slavery, so the Southern's started their own denomination. Amazingly enough, the bible supports the Southern Baptist's position overwhelmingly, don't make me get the quotes. They just got around to apologizing for this several years ago.

A little critical thinking and a civil war and here you are.

Tom:

I don't know how much more clear I could have been. I mentioned Paul Kurtz in the beginning and put quotation marks around everything he said. Were I so articulate and learned.

Joe

[QUOTE]FEDSAWDAVE wrote
So what you're saying Joe is that Allah roots for the Bears??[/QUOTE]

Yes, Dave. You've nailed it.

Joe

Joe,
I take it the whole thing was a quote?

Tom:

Yep. Everything you read between those " thingies were said by someone else, not me.

It's called attribution, and it's the right thing to do.

Joe

Joe,
There were an awful lot of " thingys.
But no matter. He kind of went off a bit, didn't he?

Tom