Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[Jackcrevol]

Congrats, and I mean that sincerely.

Btw, she’s likely trying to get your attention. When you’re done thinking about how ugly Livvy Dunne is and how much Sammy Brown reminds you of Farrah Fawcett with a mullet, might want to turn around and ask her to repeat herself.

Went to HS with Sammy's Mom. She made Livvy Dunne look like an old rag.

 

[BJWeeks]

Just being completely honest and I know there are a lot of Dabo haters here... and particularly don't like that he is open about his faith... but if I were him choosing between Smart and Dabo there's no question who I would choose. I am a Christian so that would influence my decision though that would have helped UT with me as well. I'm not sure how seriously I would have considered Smart. I think he's an arrogant punk.

I agree 100%. I much rather play for Dabo. I have no respect for Kirby

 

[Glitch]

Lmao at y’all poo pooin a 21 yr old that just made SI swimsuit. You’d be lucky to lick her spray-on tanned bleached ***hole. @Jackcrevol @Glitch

I made the cover of Dad Bod magazine. SI swimsuit issue ain't what it used to be.

 

[sjt18]

Hype seldomly speaks about his personal family.

That's not true and it is obvious from the comments of the recruits that he talks to them about his family and faith.

He usually directly answers the questions asked of him. He brings up the culture of the football team a lot, which is in the context of football.

Recruits constantly talk about how Heupel and the staff are "genuine" people who talk to them about life and things outside of football. Several have mentioned faith as one of those things.

Dabo on the other hand, brings up some biblical reference majority of the time he steps in front of a podium and tries to parlay that into why he and/or the clemsux program is holier than thou (case in point brown’s comment on best culture in college football ).

So? What is wrong with quoting the Bible and trying to establish a culture built on biblical principles... other than your personal prejudice against anyone who acts as if they take their faith serious.

Dude (dabo) we get it, you’re a Christian like the majority of this country.

I am a Christian. The country has been influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics and morality but is not now nor has it likely ever been a majority Christian country. Labels do not mean much. George Barna who does polling focused on "the church" established through a small set of questions that somewhere around 10% of the country believes the fundamental, biblical things to qualify as a "Christian". It wasn't hard things but rather things like- "Is Jesus divine? Was Jesus sinless? Is Jesus the only way of salvation? Is hell real? Are believers responsible to share their faith?"

Just answer the questions the media asked of you.

The fact that his answers sometimes express his faith doesn't mean he's not answering the questions. I do not know him personally but the fact that his faith seems to influence much of what he says and does indicates the exact opposite of what you seem to think. It indicates that it is an essential part of who he is as a human being.

Be more genuine and let your guard down. It’s like hes hiding behind his religion.

LOL, what? Out of one side of your face you condemn him for applying his faith to his life, coaching, culture, and public statements then on the other side you want him to "let his guard down"? You just dislike him for being openly Christian. That is your problem. Not his.

It’s the same thing the media and fans questioned about russell wilson.

I don't follow the NFL much or Russell Wilson. I do not know what he believes or the nature of his faith or lack thereof. However neither Heupel nor Dabo nor any other professing Christian is responsible for what Wilson or Freeze or someone else does.

I've been expecting you to do this for several posts now btw. Unfortunately, folks like you are all too happy to indict every Christian with the failures of any other professing Christian.

 

[Jackcrevol]

I made the cover of Dad Bod magazine. SI swimsuit issue ain't what it used to be.

no doubt

 

[sjt18]

I don't think he's saying that, but you have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Many see Dabo as a hypocrite because his actions and words don't match. As much as you try to make it seem like people that openly profess their faith are persecuted, that is very far from the truth. People in general are tired of "Christians" doing disingenuous things and then hiding behind religion.

But it is OK for just about anyone else to do disingenuous things and be hypocrites, right?

What exactly has Dabo done that makes him a "hypocrite" any more than you or me or just about everyone else? The only ones that don't fail their own "preaching" are those who have no standards to start with... and they're hypocrites any time they judge those who do have standards.

And yeah, much of the discussion of Swinney is bigoted. I didn't say "persecuted" though the kind of bigotry common today is often a prelude to real persecution in history. Indian Christians are frequently persecuted. Christians in Islamic countries are persecuted. Conversion to Christianity carries a death sentence in North Korea as well as countries under Sharia law. That's persecution. The closest we've come in modern America are bakeries being targeted for declining work at homosexual weddings and such then objectionable material being taught to kids against the will of the parents and in contradiction to their religious convictions. That's bias and discrimination. Not persecution. Yet.

He's imperfect. Has he ever claimed to be perfect? But he dares to be open about his faith and some just can't "tolerate" it. That's my point. His faith seems to be a special case to many. Any other connection with a recruit is OK... but somehow an appeal to shared faith is not.

 

[bignewt]

Kinda cool that Dabo's mom is on here honestly

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

But it is OK for just about anyone else to do disingenuous things and be hypocrites, right?

What exactly has Dabo done that makes him a "hypocrite" any more than you or me or just about everyone else? The only ones that don't fail their own "preaching" are those who have no standards to start with... and they're hypocrites any time they judge those who do have standards.

And yeah, much of the discussion of Swinney is bigoted. I didn't say "persecuted" though the kind of bigotry common today is often a prelude to real persecution in history. Indian Christians are frequently persecuted. Christians in Islamic countries are persecuted. Conversion to Christianity carries a death sentence in North Korea as well as countries under Sharia law. That's persecution. The closest we've come in modern America are bakeries being targeted for declining work at homosexual weddings and such then objectionable material being taught to kids against the will of the parents and in contradiction to their religious convictions. That's bias and discrimination. Not persecution. Yet.

He's imperfect. Has he ever claimed to be perfect? But he dares to be open about his faith and some just can't "tolerate" it. That's my point. His faith seems to be a special case to many. Any other connection with a recruit is OK... but somehow an appeal to shared faith is not.

How can they be a hypocrite if they're not claiming to be holier-than-thou? I mean, some people are out right @$$-holes, and other people are out right @$$-holes because they claim to be Christian and hide behind the Bible to justify their behavior.
You seem like a smart fella, so I am sure you know the ugly history of Christianity in this country.

 

[sjt18]

How can they be a hypocrite if they're not claiming to be holier-than-thou?

By having no standard or a low one then condemning someone else for trying to achieve a higher standard. If you don't want to have a standard then what are you trying to apply to others? On the one hand they want no "judgment" of themselves while making themselves judges of others.

In context, that is what is condemned by the "judge not" passages in Luke and Matthew. The command was to judge by God's standard and not one we contrive ourselves. First we are to look at our own lives and then the world around us. Those who make up a standard designed to "pass" them and fail others... are inherently hypocrites.

I mean, some people are out right @$$-holes, and other people are out right @$$-holes because they claim to be Christian and hide behind the Bible to justify their behavior.

True but I kind of suspect that it is true in a way different than you mean.

But I think many of the things thrown at Dabo are just "convenient" because he's a successful rival. Christians fail. Everyone fails- even those who set the bar excessively low. The command is to repent- turn from our way to God's way. That is the thing that is to characterize the life patterns of Christians.

You seem like a smart fella, so I am sure you know the ugly history of Christianity in this country.

I'm aware of the "ugly" history of a lot of groups to include and maybe especially atheists and secularists.

Our nation is legally killing 1 million unborn, living human beings each year. Do I know some really, really ugly scenes from history done under the banner of "Christianity"? Absolutely. None compare to the slaughter of innocents over the past 50 years... most of which were motivated by a desire to avoid the consequences of a freely made personal decision.

 

[Glitch]

 

[Devo182]

See! Told ya @sjt18, dabo always using god n religion (AGAIN) to benefit himself. Cult(ish) behavior. Dude is fake and disingenuous

Ole Pastor Dabo. Snake oil salesmen and a racist to boot. Smdh

 

[Devo182]

Showed his true colors with NIL. Before, I didn't like him, but I respected him, a bit...anybody taking it to Saban and Meyer, I'm a fan of, on THAT day...don't care how big a scumbag they are; at least they're not the biggest scumbag of THAT game.

However, anyone against or wanting to cap these kids getting paid, you're wrong, period
Everyone should be for them getting EVERY SINGLE PENNY they can get. That, "well, they get free education, room and board, etc" (which I agreed with...30 years ago), or whatever other excuse thought of, it all flew out the window the moment 21st Century TV contracts were signed.

It's cool Sugar. He promised us he'd retire the day kids started making money. He's been retired for a few years now.

No way he'd lie!

 

[Devo182]

I am a Christian. The country has been influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics and morality but is not now nor has it likely ever been a majority Christian country. Labels do not mean much. George Barna who does polling focused on "the church" established through a small set of questions that somewhere around 10% of the country believes the fundamental, biblical things to qualify as a "Christian". It wasn't hard things but rather things like- "Is Jesus divine? Was Jesus sinless? Is Jesus the only way of salvation? Is hell real? Are believers responsible to share their faith?"

No true Scotsmen. Sorry, but you don't get to define for others what a Christian is. Out there somewhere there is a more fundamental one that says you're not a real Christian either... and so on.

And Jews would say no Christians are correct followers of the Judeo god. Same as Muslims would say. And vice versa. And yet, categorically, nearly everyone that is an absolutist believer is wrong, because everyone can't be right, but all will still believe they are. Their .1% of the population is the right one. Must be nice to be so right.

Hey, to each their own. If a loving god doesn't allow mistakes in understanding for the fallable humans it created (which I don't believe) then 99.999999% of us are screwed to begin with and the rest is moot. It would mean salvation basically comes down to luck (belief is almost completely correlated with where and when you were born).

 

[Glitch]

No true Scotsmen. Sorry, but you don't get to define for others what a Christian is. Out there somewhere there is a more fundamental one that says you're not a real Christian either... and so on.

I think we could probably boil it down to...

1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?
2. Do you believe that he died on a cross for the sins of all mankind?
3. Do you believe that he rose from the dead three days later and left the tomb?
4. Have you accepted him as your Savior and do you follow him as the Lord of your life?
5. Do you try to show love and compassion to all people, including and most importantly those that treat you poorly?

It might be a bit of an over simplification but to me that is the core of what a Christian is. Most of the rest is denominational dogma and man made doctrine that may or may not have roots in biblical truth.



Sorry if you weren't actually trying to engage in a philosophical debate about the definition of Christianity. Please just ignore this post if that is the case.

 

[sjt18]

No true Scotsmen. Sorry, but you don't get to define for others what a Christian is. Out there somewhere there is a more fundamental one that says you're not a real Christian either... and so on.

Nope. I do NOT get to define it. God does... and did. Barna's questions weren't debatable secondary doctrinal issues. They were the very basics of biblical Christianity. He didn't get into any finer points like eschatology, monergism vs synergism, the creation account, etc.

Not sure what your objective is but there is room for pretty broad disagreement within the "minimum" set of biblical beliefs.

And Jews would say no Christians are correct followers of the Judeo god. Same as Muslims would say.

And? According to the NT they are 100% wrong. According to the principle of individual responsibility before God implicit and at times explicit in the NT... they have a right to do so. They are accountable before God for what they do concerning Jesus Christ.... according to the NT.

And yet odds are 99% every individual is wrong, because everyone can't be right, but all will still believe they are. Their .00001% of the population. Must be nice to be so right.

Did you say that into a mirror?

I do not express views that I have not thought through and believe with conviction. If proven wrong then I want nothing more to be humble enough to change my view.

Try this analogy. Somewhere out there is a specification for the perfectly dimensioned football. There may be or have been one "perfectly correct", ready for play, inflated football. But it would be pretty idiotic to declare that football or even the .00001% most similar to it to be the ONLY footballs. There can be some deviation from the absolute standard, right? However you wouldn't say that a rugby ball was a football... or a baseball. You would rightly question whether a half flat football qualifies.

 

[Devo182]

I think we could probably boil it down to...

1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?
2. Do you believe that he died on a cross for the sins of all mankind?
3. Do you believe that he rose from the dead three days later and left the tomb?
4. Have you accepted him as your Savior and do you follow him as the Lord of your life?
5. Do you try to show love and compassion to all people, including and most importantly those that treat you poorly?

It might be a bit of an over simplification but to me that is the core of what a Christian is. Most of the rest is denominational dogma and man made doctrine that may or may not have roots in biblical truth.



Sorry if you weren't actually trying to engage in a philosophical debate about the definition of Christianity. Please just ignore this post if that is the case.

I had a larger point in mind which I added. But what SJT posted was far more exclusive.

I get what you're saying as a more inclusive definition. And even the "man rising from the dead" is too much for many Christians that are more of the non-literal/scientific tradition that take it as allegory written by man.

But yeah I'm not debating specifics, only that they are relative to denominations and applied dogma, as you aptly stated. To box others in seems disingenuous, when many others more fundamental would do the same to you to denounce you...the "eye of the needle" folks that would expect Buddhist-like (well, Jesus-like ) ascetism of all his followers. Even the most Hasidic Jews fail when it comes to scripture...it seems ludicrous to define to the "trues" vs "not true believers".

 

[sjt18]

I think we could probably boil it down to...

1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?
2. Do you believe that he died on a cross for the sins of all mankind?
3. Do you believe that he rose from the dead three days later and left the tomb?
4. Have you accepted him as your Savior and do you follow him as the Lord of your life?
5. Do you try to show love and compassion to all people, including and most importantly those that treat you poorly?

It might be a bit of an over simplification but to me that is the core of what a Christian is. Most of the rest is denominational dogma and man made doctrine that may or may not have roots in biblical truth.



Sorry if you weren't actually trying to engage in a philosophical debate about the definition of Christianity. Please just ignore this post if that is the case.

I have them somewhere but cannot remember all of Barna's questions but you have several of them.

I know there was one about Jesus being sinless that a significant number of self-described evangelicals answered "no".

 

[Devo182]

Nope. I do NOT get to define it. God does... and did. Barna's questions weren't debatable secondary doctrinal issues. They were the very basics of biblical Christianity. He didn't get into any finer points like eschatology, monergism vs synergism, the creation account, etc.

God does - ok, what does that even mean to mankind? Clearly we don't agree. At all. That's what we're discussing. Not trying to read the "mind" of god. If that were simple, we wouldn't have 100+ religions.

So then you shouldn't be trying to limit or define it. Clearly you have no further power of insight than any other human.

Did you say that into a mirror?

I'm not claiming any special knowledge.

Only questioning those that claim extraordinary knowledge...all of whom seem to disagree with one another, yet all proudly lay claim to the same thing. I'd say the same to anyone else claiming they understand what the "one true believer" has to believe to be "right".

 

[sjt18]

I had a larger point in mind which I added. But what SJT posted was far more exclusive.

I get what you're saying as a more inclusive definition. And even the "man rising from the dead" is too much for many Christians that are more of the non-literal/scientific tradition that take it as allegory written by man.

But yeah I'm not debating specifics, only that they are relative to denominations and applied dogma, as you aptly stated. To box others in seems disingenuous, when many others more fundamental would do the same to you to denounce you...the "eye of the needle" folks that would expect Buddhist-like (well, Jesus-like ) ascetism of all his followers. Even the most Hasidic Jews fail when it comes to scripture...it seems ludicrous to define to the "trues" vs "not true believers".

Barna's questions define what he terms "evangelical" or biblical Christians. It is unfortunate that pretty much anyone can claim a "label"... that has a definition.... without conforming to the definition. But... we have to keep adding adjectives to make the distinctions. That definition from the beginning included most especially the belief in Christ's literal resurrection and adherence to His teachings and those of the Apostles. LOL... "box others in"? By applying the definition of a word accurately?

And yeah. There are minimum doctrinal beliefs that define the other religions you mention and sub-groups within them. Many fundamental (not specifically the violent type) who believe the Quran and doctrines of Islam literally and with conviction do in fact say that liberalized Muslims aren't real Muslims.

 

[sjt18]

God does - ok, what does that even mean to mankind? Clearly we don't agree. At all. That's what we're discussing. Not trying to read the "mind" of god. If that were simple, we wouldn't have 100+ religions.

Not necessary. He gave us inspired scripture through men specially chosen for the task AND the testimony of Jesus Himself. Believe or don't believe. But you don't get to re-define the word "Christian" to include things it does not include. You can try to redefine "cow" to include your cat... and your cat still isn't a cow.

So then you shouldn't be trying to limit or define it. Clearly you have no further power of insight than any other human.

Point settled.

Ah, but quite obviously YOU do... "point settled"?

I actually didn't claim it but YOU have. I have simply said that Christian (biblical) is defined by what the Bible says a Christian is. Unless you just really struggle with the concept that words mean things... that's a pretty straight forward proposition.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No true Scotsmen. Sorry, but you don't get to define for others what a Christian is. Out there somewhere there is a more fundamental one that says you're not a real Christian either... and so on.

And Jews would say no Christians are correct followers of the Judeo god. Same as Muslims would say. And vice versa. And yet, categorically, nearly everyone that is an absolutist believer is wrong, because everyone can't be right, but all will still believe they are. Their .1% of the population is the right one. Must be nice to be so right.

Hey, to each their own. If a loving god doesn't allow mistakes in understanding for the fallable humans it created (which I don't believe) then 99.999999% of us are screwed to begin with and the rest is moot. It would mean salvation basically comes down to luck (belief is almost completely correlated with where and when you were born).

You're kind of undermining the desire of the "Christians have an ugly history here" argument by then allowing anyone to identify as Christian, and assigning such a degree of relativity to Christian beliefs. Hell, the argument started that Christians are hypocrites (don't live up to their beliefs) and has morphed into "who can really say what they believe?".

There are some pretty basic beliefs that traditional Christian doctrine has defined as central and definitive. People can disagree. People can even disagree and call themselves Christians. That's between them and God. But it's completely legitimate for core Christianity to have the right to define what beliefs should be associated with them, especially if we're in a bigoted discussion seeking to broad-brush the conversation with statements like "and we all know the ugly history Christianity has in this country".

At the end of the day, Christianity claims that we are all sinful, fallen humans who will never in this life be anything but sinful and fallen. We all desperately need the gospel of grace that states that Jesus died for our sins, took the condemnation for that and gave us His rightstanding before God because God loves us and that's the only way we could be saved.

It goes on to say that of we prioritize fruits of the Spirit over the lusts of the flesh, then the power of the Spirit can change our character, but the reality is taught that we will always carry those lusts and at any given moment, we are susceptible to failures of character. We have a constant war within us, and we are guaranteed to lose battles.

So, we will continue to live that tension.

The Christain Bible, the core canon of scripture for our faith, says that Jesus Christ (For whom the faith is named), spent a LOT of His time teaching what the church would be like after He died and went to be with the Father. A HUGE swath of that included goats and tares--i.e. people who would claim to be a part of the faith but who would not be.

So, have genuine Christians done reprehensible things both before and after coming to the faith? Yah. Are we hypocrites? Yah. The core belief predicted we all would be and states, as a matter of fact, that that's why its gospel is so important.

Can we look at everything done by anyone claiming to be a Christian and attribute it with broad brush to "Christianity"? No. And it's surprising, in this modern, enlightened, tolerant culture that hates bigoty and stereotypes, that this is still a discussion people want to try to pawn off as legitimate.

Maybe a better, more fair discussion would be to go through the canon of Christian scriptures, discuss what they say, and then discuss what it means to individuals. That seems like a much more interesting conversation. I'm up for it. How about you?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think we could probably boil it down to...

1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?
2. Do you believe that he died on a cross for the sins of all mankind?
3. Do you believe that he rose from the dead three days later and left the tomb?
4. Have you accepted him as your Savior and do you follow him as the Lord of your life?
5. Do you try to show love and compassion to all people, including and most importantly those that treat you poorly?

It might be a bit of an over simplification but to me that is the core of what a Christian is. Most of the rest is denominational dogma and man made doctrine that may or may not have roots in biblical truth.



Sorry if you weren't actually trying to engage in a philosophical debate about the definition of Christianity. Please just ignore this post if that is the case.

May be good to make explicit: Salvation by grace is in there per Paul to Galatians.

 

[Glitch]

I have them somewhere but cannot remember all of Barna's questions but you have several of them.

I know there was one about Jesus being sinless that a significant number of self-described evangelicals answered "no".

I suppose adding "lived a sinless life" to my question 2 is appropriate as Jesus would not have been a sufficient sacrifice otherwise.

 

[Glitch]

May be good to make explicit: Salvation by grace is in there per Paul to Galatians.

To your previous point about the hypocrisy of Christians, Christians have made the mistake of letting the world impress upon them that if they do not live perfectly then they are hypocrites. As a person grows in their relationship with God they should naturally produce fruits that show that relationship and they should more easily turn away from sin. However, our good friend Paul wrote in Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

I would also agree that a vital aspect of the Christian faith is the grace based salvation. If a person can accumulate enough good works to earn their way to heaven then it cheapens Christ's sacrifice. Paul again said in Ephesians, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Both are crucial and central to Christianity.

 

[Orange_Crush]

To your previous point about the hypocrisy of Christians, Christians have made the mistake of letting the world impress upon them that if they do not live perfectly then they are hypocrites. As a person grows in their relationship with God they should naturally produce fruits that show that relationship and they should more easily turn away from sin. However, our good friend Paul wrote in Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

I would also agree that a vital aspect of the Christian faith is the grace based salvation. If a person can accumulate enough good works to earn their way to heaven then it cheapens Christ's sacrifice. Paul again said in Ephesians, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Both are crucial and central to Christianity.

Yes sir. Paul seemed to make that gospel of grace a dividing line. If you deny it, you're outside of the faith.

Gal 1:6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.