Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[Teddy KGB]

My .02 cents. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Ga boy said:

In trying to connect the dots, if his faith is real (and from what I know, it is), I would think his conversations were faith-based and he asked for forgiveness.  I don’t think he is looking for a free pass.  I’m sure his text being exposed made him self evaluate the consistency of his beliefs.  No wonder that so many are self censoring when a guy talks about his faith, he gets hammered.  Yes, we wouldn’t be talking about this with your suggested response.  

 

Doesn't context matter with regard to talking about faith? 

 

Do you really think guys get hammered just for talking about their faith?  That's not what I see at all.  I think it's widely respected, with a few who disparage (but there are always a few who disparage anything)

 

Just now, Teddy KGB said:

My .02 cents. 

 

Yet you wandered over here, hit the reply button, and dug out a meme to post.

There are more persuasive ways to demonstrate lack of caring.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I know you’re fielding multiple inquiries so I’ll bow out with this.

 

I’m not here to debate the relative merit of his views on religion, only to try and understand how him sharing his deeply held beliefs ultimately became unacceptable to someone else and their deeply held personal beliefs, and why it even matters as it relates to a “cop out”.  
 

He answered the way he wanted to answer.  He hurt no one, offered no controversial take on the world (except, I suppose, for those who aren’t fans of Bible beaters), and quite likely will be even less forthcoming in the future.  

 

I think saying God before people IS a controversial take when being asked to comment on issues that relate to real people here on earth. 

[HappyDays]

11 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I gave the “spend 5 minutes chatting media presence with his agent” answer. It was a total punt and you equate it to solving world peace? He’s the one that said he wants to be part of the answer and months later said he had been studying up on it.

 

Let's look at his actual response when asked about the text yesterday:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29615286/jake-fromm-looks-make-amends-elite-white-people-text

 

Quote

Fromm called the text a product of his "lack of perspective, being naive and being young and immature." He said jokes or comments like that were not an occurrence from him growing up and "were never said" in his household.

 

 

"I made a mistake and I'm going to own up to it, but that's not indicative of who I am," Fromm said, "and I promise you that is not where my heart is at."

 

"I think the biggest thing is just seeing the world through a different lens," Fromm said. "I grew up kind of seeing it just one way, and seeing the world from a slightly different way has helped me kind of see the background of what's troubling people. I can say that I'm starting to see it, I'm learning, and I'm getting better, and I'm willing to help and be there for whatever situation is needed.

 

"My plan here in this organization is to earn everything here, earn the trust of my teammates, treat people with respect and ultimately perform well on the field. Out of this building, that's educating myself, staying really close to my friends that are on the other side, having those conversations and really helping out however I can.

 

"Being available, I think, is one of the most important things that I can do and be willing to help in whatever situation that's thrown my way."

 

 

Is that good enough for you? Does that sound like someone that was unprepared for the question?

 

This latest "controversy" arose because after all of the answers he gave, MLJ then asked him what he thought in general about social inequality in the country, and Fromm committed the cardinal sin of not saying the exact right thing to make everybody happy.

 

How much further should we take this? Should he write an essay? I mean really, if what he said isn't good enough then what is? How else should he made amends for a somewhat tasteless joke made in private to a friend?

Edited August 8, 2020 by HappyDays

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

honestly, I think this would’ve been a 4 and a half page thread and on page 2 already if not for the “how dare you attack his religion” sentiment early on. I don’t think anyone’s passionately against Fromm so much as baffled by those defending as if he’s facing heavy attack.

 

 

Exactly this. 

[HappyDays]

By the way, MLJ has gotten exactly what he wanted. He tweeted out exactly one out of context statement from Fromm's responses and used it to build a controversy which means people are clicking on his article. Even though reading all of his responses together it is clear that Fromm was ready to answer questions about it and is not deflecting responsibility. Personally I think him having to go through this whole song and dance apology tour is stupid, but he's doing it.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, Mango said:

There was a slam dunk follow up there. “Jake, what people need to love god first and people second? Are you saying that loving people first is bad?”

 

That slam dunk question has a slam dunk answer. "Loving people first is not bad. It's just not what I'm asked to do as a follower of Christ."

 

Those who follow Christ understand that. How many times have you see Jim Kelly...or hell, a lot of players...post comments like "Faith. Family. Friends. In that order."?

 

Those who don't follow Christ may not understand that concept, but are willing to accept that. Those who think followers of Christ are batschittcrazy will neither understand nor accept that as an answer, and will often will go out of their way to condone that answer all day, every day, calling them "Jesus Freaks," etc.

 

If you're one of those people, no scriptural answer will every satisfy you.

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

I thought Jake did the right thing by dodging the question.

 

His main responsibility right now is too keep his mouth shut and avoid any additional bad press to the team.

 

I'm sure he was counseled by his coaches and members of the front office to keep his mouth shut.  Otherwise he may not be a Bill for much longer.

 

Give the kid credit.  The reporter laid a trap for him and he avoided it.

 

Maybe that is the most important lesson learned for him.

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Most of those people defending him would be slamming him if he wasn’t on the Bills...

Ah, the same old tired statement.

 ?

[Beast]

Unless you bow down and worship at the altar of BLM your views are now considered racists at most, and unacceptable at least, by the mob.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah, I don't expect Fromm to say all that. He's a 22 year old jock from Georgia. I think it is crazy to expect him to have a perfect answer on what he thinks about racial tension in America. And I don't think he should have to study up on it because he made an insensitive joke in a private conversation. He has answered for the text. He doesn't have to also solve world peace.

 

I agree on all these points.  However, since he just spent the previous part of the interview talking about broadening his view with discussions etc in response to the text, it would be chill if he said something showing how the discussions he said he had impacted him personally. 

Doesn't have to sound erudite.  Doesn't have to solve world peace.  Just acknowledge that he's learned some stuff about how stuff based on skin color is still going down today and that's not OK.

 

7 minutes ago, Gene1973 said:

I don't think so.

 

Agree.  As evidence: Brees thread.

 

11 minutes ago, Beast said:

Unless you bow down and worship at the altar of BLM your views are now considered racists at most, and unacceptable at least, by the mob.

 

Can you accept that there's actually a lot of space between "bow down and worship at the altar of BLM" (whatever that means) and acknowledging that racism still exists today and can affect people and their families personally and directly?

I mean, this kind of stuff.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-torrence-california-couple-arrested-hate-crime-vandalism-video-20200801-35os2p6f7nhahc7wzgs3rtxo2y-story.html

[NoHuddleKelly12]

17 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

The only way out of this for Marcel is to quickly publish a list of the top 5 Safety Tandems with Hyde/Poyer at the top....

 

 

Don’t hate the player or the game! They absolutely should be ranked at the top! 

[Dr.Sack]

Fromm reminds me of Peterman so I’m excited to see him throw the ball. ???

[muppy]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think saying God before people IS a controversial take when being asked to comment on issues that relate to real people here on earth. 

I can understand this and even agree with it. The teachings of Jesus the Christ have been seen as radical and outrageous by many ever since they were said. Turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies, too many to write and not to derail the thread. The point that God should be placed first in priority above even family IS a radical thought. But in doing so the love to others flows even more abundantly and without bias or hindrance Because of that first love to God. Its hard to explain and it requires faith. Jake Fromm I really hope in the future will elaborate further on his growth and maturity and beliefs beyond his faith in God. He and others that have the platform of NFL notoriety can inform many and also inspire many also.   

[PBLESS]

In today's world the media decides what it is allowable to say or think, if what you say in public doesn't match their view of correctness, you will be castigated.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

23 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

Fromm reminds me of Peterman so I’m excited to see him throw the ball. ???

How do their college resumes even come close to being a 1 for 1 comparison? 

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

Can you accept that there's actually a lot of space between "bow down and worship at the altar of BLM" (whatever that means) and acknowledging that racism still exists today and can affect people and their families personally and directly?

I mean, this kind of stuff.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-torrence-california-couple-arrested-hate-crime-vandalism-video-20200801-35os2p6f7nhahc7wzgs3rtxo2y-story.html

 

Whatever that means? I didn't type that in a foreign language.

 

And you couldn't pay me to click on the Daily News.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Beast

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

honestly, I think this would’ve been a 4 and a half page thread and on page 2 already if not for the “how dare you attack his religion” sentiment early on. I don’t think anyone’s passionately against Fromm so much as baffled by those defending as if he’s facing heavy attack.

I gave the “spend 5 minutes chatting media presence with his agent” answer. It was a total punt and you equate it to solving world peace? He’s the one that said he wants to be part of the answer and months later said he had been studying up on it.

The flip side of “how dare you attack his religion” is “how dare he shove his religion in my face”.  It’s always been a contentious issue, always will be.  I tend to default to the middle—really, who cares what either of them think?  There is nothing all outrageous about what either of them think, and honestly we don’t know what really in their heart either way. Besides, how much can one glean from a young guy who gets shots to the head on one side, and a guy who writes about the shots on the other?

 

 

As for the pages written, I’m as guilty as anyone else. I was interested, opined and off I go.  In my defense, this may be what middle age looks like when you have some time to kill. 
 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 hour ago, Muppy said:

I can understand this and even agree with it. The teachings of Jesus the Christ have been seen as radical and outrageous by many ever since they were said. Turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies, too many to write and not to derail the thread. The point that God should be placed first in priority above even family IS a radical thought. But in doing so the love to others flows even more abundantly and without bias or hindrance Because of that first love to God. Its hard to explain and it requires faith. Jake Fromm I really hope in the future will elaborate further on his growth and maturity and beliefs beyond his faith in God. He and others that have the platform of NFL notoriety can inform many and also inspire many also.   

I struggle how people can believe in the teachings of Jesus and support Donald Trump.  I struggle how people of Jesus are against social reform.  That’s the hypocrisy of religion that bothers people.  

1 hour ago, PBLESS said:

In today's world the media decides what it is allowable to say or think, if what you say in public doesn't match their view of correctness, you will be castigated.

Or just don’t say dumb ?.  

1 hour ago, Beast said:

Unless you bow down and worship at the altar of BLM your views are now considered racists at most, and unacceptable at least, by the mob.

Great point.  Hey Jake don’t say terms like elite whites = Bowing to the altar of blm

 

i never used how people could watch a sport where 70% of the players are black and yet not care about them. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think saying God before people IS a controversial take when being asked to comment on issues that relate to real people here on earth. 

That’s no less controversial imo, but probably only to people who don’t see it as you do, and maybe a guy like me who thinks it’s unreasonable to judge someone else by your standards. 
 

I truly don’t know why you would care to think it controversial, but the point is—Fromm disagrees with you., and Fromm answered.  For those that truly honor God, that’s the hierarchy.  By the way, I couldn’t tell you scripture from Scrabble, and I think it’s splitting hairs one way or the other.  

[C.Biscuit97]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s no less controversial imo, but probably only to people who don’t see it as you do, and maybe a guy like me who thinks it’s unreasonable to judge someone else by your standards. 
 

I truly don’t know why you would care to think it controversial, but the point is—Fromm disagrees with you., and Fromm answered.  For those that truly honor God, that’s the hierarchy.  By the way, I couldn’t tell you scripture from Scrabble, and I think it’s splitting hairs one way or the other.  

IMO, it seems a lot our better at honoring God with words rather than actions.  And I think that is what a lot of people who are disappointed with Fromm’s statement believe.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Muppy said:

I can understand this and even agree with it. The teachings of Jesus the Christ have been seen as radical and outrageous by many ever since they were said. Turn the other cheek, love and pray for your enemies, too many to write and not to derail the thread. The point that God should be placed first in priority above even family IS a radical thought. But in doing so the love to others flows even more abundantly and without bias or hindrance Because of that first love to God. Its hard to explain and it requires faith. Jake Fromm I really hope in the future will elaborate further on his growth and maturity and beliefs beyond his faith in God. He and others that have the platform of NFL notoriety can inform many and also inspire many also.   

I dunno Muppalito.  It’s been a long time since my religious days (for whatever that means), but it seems to me it’s not really an either or, or that the score is kept like in a rousing game of Skeeball.   With enough love in your heart, both are possible.  I can’t recall any suggestion that 100% faith and love in God means you can only love your fellow man 52%.  

[NoSaint]

20 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The flip side of “how dare you attack his religion” is “how dare he shove his religion in my face”.  It’s always been a contentious issue, always will be.  I tend to default to the middle—really, who cares what either of them think?  There is nothing all outrageous about what either of them think, and honestly we don’t know what really in their heart either way. Besides, how much can one glean from a young guy who gets shots to the head on one side, and a guy who writes about the shots on the other?

 

 

As for the pages written, I’m as guilty as anyone else. I was interested, opined and off I go.  In my defense, this may be what middle age looks like when you have some time to kill. 
 

 

i mean, as many of the pages are from me as anyone. So guilty as charged. 
 

and I agree both sides of that coin exist. I just didn’t see much “he forced his religion” so much as he hid behind it. At least in this thread. No doubt hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. This thread just seemed like an interesting mole hill for so many to die on defending him from relatively innocuous “attacks”

[YoloinOhio]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Oh boy.  That would be....

You rang? 

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

24 pages of MLS and Fromm in a day, but only 7 pages of training camp in a week.  SMH

[Beach]

Marcel messaged me on twitter awhile ago because i tweeted that i had to mute a game beth mowins was calling.  i was done with that guy then.

[purple haze]

On 8/7/2020 at 10:02 AM, DFT said:

“Love God first and love people...”

”That’s not an acceptable response!”

 

When a quote from Jesus isn’t an acceptable response to you, you may have a problem that extends beyond the person that’s quoting him.

Slave owners quoted Jesus too (wrongly).  So did preachers from the Jim Crow era.  People hiding behind their misuse of scripture is not new.  Not that Fromm is doing that, but just for clarifications sake.
 

Fromm got into some hot water.  He’s had to face teammates and he stated he’s had some difficult conversations and is starting to see the world in a new perspective.  MLJ asking what, then, is his view on current events is legitimate.  What Fromm offered in return, is a basic Christian truth, but displays no hint of learning anything from difficult conversations he has supposedly had or what his new perspective might entail.  If he truly has a new perspective, what in these conversations he’s had facilitated that?  What was his perspective before these conversations?  There was a lot to be said.  
 

For those who clamor about cancel culture or “the media” meaning (liberal)—conservative media is no different and Fromm might be scared to speak on a new perspective that his base of support might not like; specifically, southern, white, more-Christian-than-thou, super-Patriotic-yet-Confederate flag waver, Fox-OANN types.  And others.  Or maybe he doesn’t truly have a new perspective.  Faith without works is dead.  If you provide a scripture don’t stop there.  Give us an application of it too.  It’s not hard to do.

 

Love God first then love others.  Violence, hatred and discrimination toward people based on their skin color or for being who they are, even if I’m not a part of that community, is not God’s intention, it is not of God or Godly.  I really don’t want to contribute to that.  If anyone hates his brother, but says he loves God he is a liar.  For those who hate their brother who they have seen, cannot love God who they have not seen (how bout that part of the scripture?)  I am troubled by the racial discord I’ve spoken to my teammates about and I’m searching for a way to make a positive impact in (insert thought here.) 
 

How hard is it, really, to say something like that?  

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by purple haze

[DFT]

16 minutes ago, purple haze said:

Slave owners quoted Jesus too (wrongly).  So did preachers from the Jim Crow era.  People hiding behind their misuse of scripture is not new.  Not that Fromm is doing that, but just for clarifications sake.
 

Fromm got into some hot water.  He’s had to face teammates and he stated he’s had some difficult conversations and is starting to see the world in a new perspective.  MLJ asking what, then, is his view on current events is legitimate.  What Fromm offered in return, is a basic Christian truth, but displays no hint of learning anything from difficult conversations he has supposedly had or what his new perspective might entail.  If he truly has a new perspective, what in these conversations he’s had facilitated that?  What was his perspective before these conversations?  There was a lot to be said.  
 

For those who clamor about cancel culture or “the media” meaning (liberal)—conservative media is no different and Fromm might be scared to speak on a new perspective that his base of support might not like; specifically, southern, white, more-Christian-than-thou, super-Patriotic-yet-Confederate flag waver, Fox-OANN types.  And others.  Or maybe he doesn’t truly have a new perspective.  Faith without works is dead.  If you provide a scripture don’t stop there.  Give us an application of it too.  It’s not hard to do.

 

Love God first then love others.  Violence, hatred and discrimination toward people based on their skin color or for being who they are, even if I’m not a part of that community, is not God’s intention, it is not of God or Godly.  I really don’t want to contribute to that.  If anyone hates his brother, but says he loves God he is a liar.  For those who hate their brother who they have seen, cannot love God who they have not seen (how bout that part of the scripture?)  I am troubled by the racial discord I’ve spoken to my teammates about and I’m searching for a way to make a positive impact in (insert thought here.) 
 

How hard is it, really, to say something like that?  

 

 

 

He was asked his thoughts on what was going on in the country.  He gave what he felt was a solution rather than belabor any narrative.  He’s apologized already.  Maybe we could all take a page from the ol’ Biblical playbook and practice forgiveness.  And to the bolded part above, declaring a stupid comment as an act of “hatred” instead of youthful stupidity is gross.  

 

And lastly he gave you the application of the scripture when he profusely apologized.  You missed it because you were too focused on his answer to a completely different question.   

Edited August 8, 2020 by DFT

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s no less controversial imo, but probably only to people who don’t see it as you do, and maybe a guy like me who thinks it’s unreasonable to judge someone else by your standards. 
 

I truly don’t know why you would care to think it controversial, but the point is—Fromm disagrees with you., and Fromm answered.  For those that truly honor God, that’s the hierarchy.  By the way, I couldn’t tell you scripture from Scrabble, and I think it’s splitting hairs one way or the other.  

 

But you understand that someone who is not religious isn't going to see it that way, right?  

[DFT]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But you understand that someone who is not religious isn't going to see it that way, right?  

Not everyone understands a kippah or hijab, yet how much less significant does it make it to the person wearing it? Personal acts of faith (non-violent of course) don’t need to meet the expectations of people.  Quoting Jesus whether a person agrees or not is an act of faith.  It should be respected.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, DFT said:

Not everyone understands a kippah or hijab, yet how much less significant does it make it to the person wearing it? Personal acts of faith (non-violent of course) don’t need to meet the expectations of people.  Quoting Jesus whether a person agrees or not is an act of faith.  It should be respected.  

 

 

 

I respect an act of faith. But it isn't enough on its own to be an explanation. Which is what Jake sought to use it as. 

 

I have muslim friends, jewish friends, my best friend is a devout catholic. I always respect the faith of others - but I also always expect them to do more than lazily throw out the 'God card' when they are taking a position on something. 

[DFT]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I respect an act of faith. But it isn't enough on its own to be an explanation. Which is what Jake sought to use it as. 

 

I have muslim friends, jewish friends, my best friend is a devout catholic. I always respect the faith of others - but I also always expect them to do more than lazily throw out the 'God card' when they are taking a position on something. 

He wasn’t asked for an explanation though.  He was asked his thoughts on what’s going on.  His answer was a profession of faith (quoting the Bible). The interviewer wanted him to relate it to his insensitive comment (as do many of the posters here - which please know I don’t condemn at all.). But if you go into a conversation expecting to receive a specific answer, ask question(s) that direct the conversation.  Don’t condemn a guy for answering a general question with a faith-based answer (not directed towards you, Gunner)...   Is that really where you want to be when Jesus returns?  ?

Edited August 8, 2020 by DFT

[GunnerBill]

Just now, DFT said:

He wasn’t asked for an explanation though.  He was asked his thoughts on what’s going on.  His answer was a profession of faith (quoting the Bible). The interviewer wanted him to relate it to his insensitive comment (as do many of the posters here - which please know I don’t condemn at all.). But if you go into a conversation expecting to receive a specific answer, ask question that direct the conversation.  Don’t condemn a guy for answering a general question with a faith-based answer (not directed towards you, Gunner)...   Is that really where you want to be when Jesus returns?  ?

 

Jesus won't return so I feel good about that.

[DFT]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Jesus won't return so I feel good about that.

Boooooo!  

[HamSandwhich]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I doubt Fromm had a choice about speaking to the reporters.  Press availability is part of the football players contract.  If the team says “get out there and talk to the press” you go.

 

My take and I could be wrong, is that if he said “I’m still listening and learning and I want to keep my conversations personal and private” M L-J would have respected that.  I know if Fromm said that and M L-J sniped at it, my respect for L-J would have plummeted.

 

Copping out - if you assert that you’ve spent the last 2 months having difficult conversations and broadening your viewpoint, and someone asks your opinion on social injustice in this country - presumably something that came up in those convos or might be influenced by those convos - the response he gave does not appear to reflect 2 months of conversations on the topic that Fromm mentioned as taking place thus in that regard is a “cop out”.  I completely understand that Fromm doesn’t want to express an opinion on riots in Portland or painting Black Lives Matter in the street (Hell, I wouldn’t myself to reporters) but as I’ve said before, there’s plenty of space in between.  Something like “Racism is unacceptable and I’ll keep the details private, but I’m learning it’s been part of my teammates experience growing up in the last 10 years and that’s wrong”.

 

Nah, but I laughed at it.

What is the acceptable response?  Please tell us, you who are the gatekeeper of what is the appropriate response. 
 

if he would have said BLM is based on a false premise and that the numbers don’t bear out systemic racism within police murders of black people (spoiler they don’t) would you have been ok with that? Or would there be even more drama? 

[purple haze]

19 minutes ago, DFT said:

He was asked his thoughts on what was going on in the country.  He gave what he felt was a solution rather than belabor any narrative.  He’s apologized already.  Maybe we could all take a page from the ol’ Biblical playbook and practice forgiveness.  And to the bolded part above, declaring a stupid comment as an act of “hatred” instead of youthful stupidity is gross.  

 

And lastly he gave you the application of the scripture when he profusely apologized.  You missed it because you were too focused on his answer to a completely different question.   

1.  The bolded part was more of that scripture he used, and my suggestion of how he could have used it in an answer regarding the current climate in the country at large, not related to his specific comment about guns (although it’s a weird “joke“ to tell).  Giving part of that scripture leaves out an important part of it that is entirely relevant to what is going on.  

 

2.  He provided part of a scripture.  An application would be the actions taken based on that scripture, i.e. the works.   I didn’t miss anything.  Love God and love people.  There’s many who claim to love God and hate certain people.  The scripture states it’s not possible to do both.  So, he could have said turn away from race based violence or discrimination.  THAT is an application.  Telling someone they should put out fires is right.  Telling them to, therefore, call the fire dept. or douse the fire with water if it’s small enough is an application.  

[HamSandwhich]

24 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I respect an act of faith. But it isn't enough on its own to be an explanation. Which is what Jake sought to use it as. 

 

I have muslim friends, jewish friends, my best friend is a devout catholic. I always respect the faith of others - but I also always expect them to do more than lazily throw out the 'God card' when they are taking a position on something. 

Are you saying he wanted to take a position on something? I’m thinking he didn’t, but people apparently people think silence is violence and so staying out of the fray is considered inappropriate. That’s basically what the issue of this whole thing is. You can’t stay silent, you HAVE to be anti-racist all the time or you are racist (never mind that you’re racist simply because your white and there nothing you can do about it).

[DFT]

8 minutes ago, purple haze said:

1.  The bolded part was more of that scripture he used, and my suggestion of how he could have used it in an answer regarding the current climate in the country at large, not related to his specific comment about guns (although it’s a weird “joke“ to tell).  Giving part of that scripture leaves out an important part of it that is entirely relevant to what is going on.  

 

2.  He provided part of a scripture.  An application would be the actions taken based on that scripture, i.e. the works.   I didn’t miss anything.  Love God and love people.  There’s many who claim to love God and hate certain people.  The scripture states it’s not possible to do both.  So, he could have said turn away from race based violence or discrimination.  THAT is an application.  Telling someone they should put out fires is right.  Telling them to, therefore, call the fire dept. or douse the fire with water if it’s small enough is an application.  

Correction...  that’s the application you WANTED.  Another application is to apologize because he honestly knew he was wrong.  He did that.  So he did apply what he was speaking in a follow-up convo.  Just not to your liking which is fine, but not fine enough to say he’s wrong.

 

Side note - It’s totally ok seeing from your perspective - and several quality posters here do.  I’m not at all trying to demean that.  But I don’t see it that way.  Appreciate the conversation staying respectful.  ?

Edited August 9, 2020 by DFT

[HamSandwhich]

1 hour ago, purple haze said:

Slave owners quoted Jesus too (wrongly).  So did preachers from the Jim Crow era.  People hiding behind their misuse of scripture is not new.  Not that Fromm is doing that, but just for clarifications sake.
 

Fromm got into some hot water.  He’s had to face teammates and he stated he’s had some difficult conversations and is starting to see the world in a new perspective.  MLJ asking what, then, is his view on current events is legitimate.  What Fromm offered in return, is a basic Christian truth, but displays no hint of learning anything from difficult conversations he has supposedly had or what his new perspective might entail.  If he truly has a new perspective, what in these conversations he’s had facilitated that?  What was his perspective before these conversations?  There was a lot to be said.  
 

For those who clamor about cancel culture or “the media” meaning (liberal)—conservative media is no different and Fromm might be scared to speak on a new perspective that his base of support might not like; specifically, southern, white, more-Christian-than-thou, super-Patriotic-yet-Confederate flag waver, Fox-OANN types.  And others.  Or maybe he doesn’t truly have a new perspective.  Faith without works is dead.  If you provide a scripture don’t stop there.  Give us an application of it too.  It’s not hard to do.

 

Love God first then love others.  Violence, hatred and discrimination toward people based on their skin color or for being who they are, even if I’m not a part of that community, is not God’s intention, it is not of God or Godly.  I really don’t want to contribute to that.  If anyone hates his brother, but says he loves God he is a liar.  For those who hate their brother who they have seen, cannot love God who they have not seen (how bout that part of the scripture?)  I am troubled by the racial discord I’ve spoken to my teammates about and I’m searching for a way to make a positive impact in (insert thought here.) 
 

How hard is it, really, to say something like that?  

 

 

 

It’s difficult if you think that the idea is completely false, that the majority of white people are not racist as the BLM and anti-racists believe (in fact you are racist no matter what based on your white skin color). Maybe he didn’t want to weigh in because he does not believe in the narrative and doesnt want to create any more controversy by saying so. If you look under the covers of what BLM stands for, it’s not what it seems. Maybe he found that and what he learned is that it’s not right what they stand for. 

11 minutes ago, purple haze said:

1.  The bolded part was more of that scripture he used, and my suggestion of how he could have used it in an answer regarding the current climate in the country at large, not related to his specific comment about guns (although it’s a weird “joke“ to tell).  Giving part of that scripture leaves out an important part of it that is entirely relevant to what is going on.  

 

2.  He provided part of a scripture.  An application would be the actions taken based on that scripture, i.e. the works.   I didn’t miss anything.  Love God and love people.  There’s many who claim to love God and hate certain people.  The scripture states it’s not possible to do both.  So, he could have said turn away from race based violence or discrimination.  THAT is an application.  Telling someone they should put out fires is right.  Telling them to, therefore, call the fire dept. or douse the fire with water if it’s small enough is an application.  

You must be a disciple of the church of critical race theory. Your suggestion is to cow tow to far leftist ideas of the day. Why did you choose that direction? What if he doesn’t believe in all that ridiculousness? 

[purple haze]

4 minutes ago, DFT said:

Correction...  that’s the application you WANTED.  Another application is to apologize because he honestly knew he was wrong.  He did that.  So he did apply what he was speaking in a follow-up convo.  Just not to your liking which is fine, but not fine enough to say he’s wrong.

 

Side note - It’s totally ok seeing from your perspective - and several quality posters here do.  I’m not at all trying to demean that.  But I don’t see it that way.  Appreciate the conversation staying respectful.  ?

I don’t always make it, but I do try to keep things respectful.  We’ll agree to disagree. ??