Harrison Butker…oy vey…what a commencement “speech”

[Dr. Who]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Oh it is more than baffling to me it is totally illogical. 

 

But honestly my point isn't to denegrate anyone's faith. I respect totally anyone's belief.

 

My fundamental point is there is no Biblical support for Butker's assertion that homosexuality is a "deadly" sin. And to be honest it is the word deadly I have a particular issue with. Because in a world where people are still being murdered for being gay in many countries (and before anyone says "ah yes but just Muslim countries" think again) I think the use of the word deadly in the waffle he was spouting has pretty dark undertones. If he'd just said sin I'd still think he was wrong, but it would be less triggering. 

I'm not here to defend every aspect of the fella's speech. I think he could have been more careful in his speech, and I say that as someone who is largely sympathetic to traditional Catholic beliefs. Technically, all sin is "deadly" in the sense that it is alienation from the source of Being. And no one properly understands the command to avoid sin as somehow facilitating heinous sins like murdering folk because of their sexual proclivities. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I'm not here to defend every aspect of the fella's speech. I think he could have been more careful in his speech, and I say that as someone who is largely sympathetic to traditional Catholic beliefs. Technically, all sin is "deadly" in the sense that it is alienation from the source of Being. And no one properly understands the command to avoid sin as somehow facilitating heinous sins like murdering folk because of their sexual proclivities. 

 

Yea I don't buy that. Sorry. Unfortunately we live in an era of extremism and gay people are still being persecuted and indeed killed in many parts of our world by people with similar beliefs. I don't accept that sin exists. Or that it is deadly. Or that there is any biblical justification for him saying pride represents a deadly sin. Or that he needed to refer to it in that manner. He's an idiot. I don't think he should be thrown out of the league or anything. But I don't think there is a defence of his comments. 

[DrW]

17 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

 

Finally, the biggest criticism of the NFL was that were very quick to respond to this while they stay silent on many other  cases where their players are doing things FAR WORSE than what Butker did. IMO, that criticism is justly deserved.

 

While I may not agree with their stance, for the NFL the two situations are different. In the "far worse" cases the player is accused of a crime or behavior generally condemned by society. Thus, there is no need for the NFL to confirm "We do not tolerate violence against women" or "Rape is a capital crime". However, in Butker's case there was the (admittedly, very remote) possiblity that the NFL would like women to stay home and serve their husbands wings, pizza and beer during a game. Thus, they had to state their point of view on this issue.

[Einstein]

9 hours ago, DrW said:

However, can you please explain to me how you see this as a "zero-sum argument"?

 

Well that's obvious. The characterization of this debate as a zero-sum argument arises from the fundamental lack of empirical evidence capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of a creator. Within the realms of biology, chemistry, physics, and other scientific disciplines, no data irrefutably supports or negates the hypothesis of a creator. As a result, the discourse often devolves into a series of assertions and counter-assertions, where participants may resort to ad hominem attacks rather than substantive refutations.

 

In essence, both sides present compelling arguments based on their interpretive frameworks, yet neither can achieve conclusive validation or invalidation of their claims. This dynamic results in a stalemate, with the "scales" of the argument remaining balanced due to the inherent limitations in proving or disproving such a profound existential question through scientific means alone. Thus, the discussion exemplifies a zero-sum scenario, where the exchange of ideas does not lead to a decisive resolution but rather highlights the epistemological boundaries of the debate.

 

9 hours ago, DrW said:

Solution 2 just requires time, of which there was plenty.

 

Please note that I never wrote about creationism - the earth in 6 days, etc. I was speaking not of evolution vs tradiotonal creationism, but evolution set in motion by an intelligent creator vs evolution set in motion by 'it'. With it being the unknown that no-one can explain.
 

9 hours ago, DrW said:

Solution 1 needs an "intelligent creator". Don't you see how this complicates everything? 

This is no different than attempting to explain the origin of the big-bang. That is the most complicated question of all and a question that no-one in the history of mankind has ever been able to answer as it breaks the first of law of thermodynamics. Many will semantics their way out of this thought, waxing poetic about the pure definition of the law, but the fundamental problem remains the same - Something does not come from nothing. This question being unanswerable is the foundation of the zero-energy theory. Essentially, apply a precise manipulation of quantum fluctuations within a vacuum, and voilà, a new universe emerges - seemingly without the need for additional energy. Except... where did the vacuum come from and the force to create it? Which leads us back to...

 

In this context, considering evolution as a process set in motion by an intelligent creator offers a coherent explanatory framework. It posits that a creator established the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, providing the foundational conditions for life to evolve. This perspective does not contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution but rather complements it by addressing the question of ultimate causation. Prominent figures in science have acknowledged the limits of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life and the universe. Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

 

Edited May 19 by Einstein

[DrW]

30 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Well that's obvious. The characterization of this debate as a zero-sum argument arises from the fundamental lack of empirical evidence capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of a creator. Within the realms of biology, chemistry, physics, and other scientific disciplines, no data irrefutably supports or negates the hypothesis of a creator. As a result, the discourse often devolves into a series of assertions and counter-assertions, where participants may resort to ad hominem attacks rather than substantive refutations.

 

In essence, both sides present compelling arguments based on their interpretive frameworks, yet neither can achieve conclusive validation or invalidation of their claims. This dynamic results in a stalemate, with the "scales" of the argument remaining balanced due to the inherent limitations in proving or disproving such a profound existential question through scientific means alone. Thus, the discussion exemplifies a zero-sum scenario, where the exchange of ideas does not lead to a decisive resolution but rather highlights the epistemological boundaries of the debate.

 

 

Please note that I never wrote about creationism - the earth in 6 days, etc. I was speaking not of evolution vs tradiotonal creationism, but evolution set in motion by an intelligent creator vs evolution set in motion by 'it'. With it being the unknown that no-one can explain.
 

This is no different than attempting to explain the origin of the big-bang. That is the most complicated question of all and a question that no-one in the history of mankind has ever been able to answer as it breaks the first of law of thermodynamics. Many will semantics their way out of this thought, waxing poetic about the pure definition of the law, but the fundamental problem remains the same - Something does not come from nothing

 

In this context, considering evolution as a process set in motion by an intelligent creator offers a coherent explanatory framework. It posits that a creator established the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, providing the foundational conditions for life to evolve. This perspective does not contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting evolution but rather complements it by addressing the question of ultimate causation. Prominent figures in science have acknowledged the limits of scientific explanation regarding the origin of life and the universe. Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."

 

 

I would suggest to return to Butker's speech.

[Jauronimo]

21 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

What is truly fascinating is that the vast majority (80%) of newly minted trans people are from the United States. It's almost as if the media/culture proliferates the desire.

 

Of course, we are just now starting to see the pendulum swing the other way, with many of these children realizing later in life that they were never trans. Dr. Michael Irwig, a board certified endocrinologist and Harvard faculty member predicted this, stating:

“There is reason to believe that the numbers of detransitioners may increase. It is quite possible that low reported rates of detransition and regret in previous populations will no longer apply to current populations,”

Even outspoken trans advocates, such as trans-psychologist Erica Anderson (who herself is trans), has begun to postulate the reason, stating:

“A fair number of kids are getting into it because it’s trendy... I think in our haste to be supportive, we’re missing that element. I have these private thoughts: ‘This has gone too far. It’s going to get worse. I don’t want any part of it,"

Here is a good article on that:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html

I am guessing its easier to be "minted" as trans in the United States than it is in say Iran. Lots of bureaucracy and red tape over there.

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea I don't buy that. Sorry. Unfortunately we live in an era of extremism and gay people are still being persecuted and indeed killed in many parts of our world by people with similar beliefs. I don't accept that sin exists. Or that it is deadly. Or that there is any biblical justification for him saying pride represents a deadly sin. Or that he needed to refer to it in that manner. He's an idiot. I don't think he should be thrown out of the league or anything. But I don't think there is a defence of his comments. 

Alright. You are very sure of your metaphysical conclusions. I am doubtful you have an air-tight argument for atheism. There is no metaphysics that doesn't depend on some radical belief. Proof doesn't reach down to ultimacy, though I recognize dialectic isn't going to convince you, nor do I have any interest in attempting to do so. Sin is a religious concept dependent on an understanding of well-being and perfection with theological roots. Naturally, if you deny God, the holy will be a surd concept, and apart from that, sin is meaningless. 

 

In the end, reality is not a product of our willing or subjective fantasy, nor can anyone's judgment replace our unique responsibilities to pursue truth to the best of our capacities. At the same time, words have specific meaning, even shades of meaning. Part of responsible communication is noting what they mean in the context of a particular community, or even idiosyncratic usage by an individual. Traditionally, pride is "sinful" because it results in a habit of thinking and acting that lacks receptivity towards the fullness of Being, whether that be in nature or the divine. 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Alright. You are very sure of your metaphysical conclusions. I am doubtful you have an air-tight argument for atheism. There is no metaphysics that doesn't depend on some radical belief. Proof doesn't reach down to ultimacy, though I recognize dialectic isn't going to convince you, nor do I have any interest in attempting to do so. Sin is a religious concept dependent on an understanding of well-being and perfection with theological roots. Naturally, if you deny God, the holy will be a surd concept, and apart from that, sin is meaningless. 

 

In the end, reality is not a product of our willing or subjective fantasy, nor can anyone's judgment replace our unique responsibilities to pursue truth to the best of our capacities. At the same time, words have specific meaning, even shades of meaning. Part of responsible communication is noting what they mean in the context of a particular community, or even idiosyncratic usage by an individual. Traditionally, pride is "sinful" because it results in a habit of thinking and acting that lacks receptivity towards the fullness of Being, whether that be in nature or the divine. 

 

 

Nor am I trying to convince you. What I am saying is the biblical justification for his statement is at best arguable.

[Einstein]

17 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I am guessing its easier to be "minted" as trans in the United States than it is in say Iran. Lots of bureaucracy and red tape over there.

Certainly. However, there are many non-Iran (or similar) nations in this world. Canada, UK, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Finland, Denmark, Australia, France, Spain, etc all rank higher than the USA on the LDI (liberal democracy index).

These nations have a combined population greater than the United States yet only account for 17%-ish of the World's new trans population, while the USA accounts for over 80%, with a smaller combined population. That is incredible.

[Dr. Who]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Nor am I trying to convince you. What I am saying is the biblical justification for his statement is at best arguable.

Yes, I was not really returning to his particular statements. I was attempting to explain the very traditional notion of pride as one of the seven deadly sins.

 

 

[muppy]

Greetings

 

Reading you IQ heavyweights discourse on this subject is fascinating.  I was basically unchurched until I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and savior at age 40

 

Oh Yes I have a faith testimony. But that is not what this thread is about. So if anyone is interested I will reply in PM

 

anyway to bottom line is MY belief is Jesus is the way the truth and the Life. I am never undecided where my ultimate salvation is concerned.  I trust I am heaven bound not on my efforts or goodness but on HIS.

 

I had ugly discourse with a Roman Catholic once and I refuse to do it again. But you see arrogance and IM RIGHT exists within Christianity also.

 

I left a Lutheran church to a black southern gospel and Both of those have dogma I don't agree with. The crux of ALL CHRISTIAN faith is Jesus the Christ.

 

I'll hang my hat on HIM the rest of the arguments and denominational differences Is above my pay grade to decide.

 

*shrugs* good talk

 

m

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

I am guessing its easier to be "minted" as trans in the United States than it is in say Iran. Lots of bureaucracy and red tape over there.

Just the same, the US free markets and business of the trans folks is booming. Why wouldn't some quack doctor and folks embrace what could be a brilliant edge on the market of medications?

 

I mean, the medical community has never been wrong, experts have never lied to us, mass organized movements of a society have never had a bad outcome, and most importantly our medical officials have always been honest and had our best interests at heart.

 

Most of the trans movement is nothing more than some ***** for kids like goth was in the 90's and 00's, except now parents get into it and claim their social status and special Munchausen by proxy cards of virtue!

[Bill from NYC]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

But I don't think there is a defence of his comments. 

I defend his right to say what he thinks as an invited guest at a parochial school. Is there something wrong with that?

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I defend his right to say what he thinks as an invited guest at a parochial school. Is there something wrong with that?

 

I defend his right to say it too. But I can do that and still object totally to what he said. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I defend his right to say it too. But I can do that and still object totally to what he said. 

As do I.  But that seems to be a hard concept for some to grasp.

[Bill from NYC]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I defend his right to say it too. But I can do that and still object totally to what he said. 

Of course GB, and that is my point!

[Beck Water]

On 5/17/2024 at 7:53 PM, oldmanfan said:

I would say an N of 2 isn’t much.  Again, he can say what he wants and some may agree.  From the reaction it seems many don’t including the Order of sisters who sponsor the school, I believe.

 

No one is saying balancing career and family is easy.  What the women I have talked to about it object to is the idea that the only real identity women have are as wives and mothers.  
 

Tell you what really amazed me is his clarification where he said he’d like to go back to a time where women cared more about babies than thoughts.  That he is intimating that women should not have thoughts is simply absurd no matter your religious persuasion.

Yet here you are on social media espousing yours.

 

I think it's already been pointed out that the "time when women had more babies than thoughts" originated as satire, and not from Butker.

 

However, as was also pointed out in another post, there are some "tea leaves" indicating that Butker may be an Opus Dei supernumerary or cooperator.  And the founder of Opus Dei, St. Josemaría Escrivá, did write that "Women needn’t be scholars—it’s enough for them to be prudent." 

Good satire is effective because it's an exaggeration of the plausible

 

Also, it's one thing for women who are married or about to be married, to discuss with their partners if they together want children (for traditional Catholics, that's pretty well mandated), and how they want to handle the household finances and raising the children

 

It's another thing to tell young women who are sitting in an auditorium about to be awarded degrees they have worked towards for 4 long years, that "the majority of them" should be more excited about their marriage and the children they will bear".

EDIT:  OMG, I missed it in my first read-through of his transcript- HE ACTUALLY QUOTES ESCRIVA in his speech "St. Josemaría Escrivá states that priests are ordained to serve, and should not yield to temptation to imitate laypeople, but to be priests through and through......" (this is in the part where he's saying Catholicism has always been counter-cultural when for literally more than a thousand years, Catholicism WAS the predominant driver of culture for Western Europe, then goes on to harshly criticize parish priests, parishes, and bishoprics.)  Oh yeah, he's 100% in Opus Dei or wants to be.

 

For those who don't know what is Opus Dei

[Beck Water]

8 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

I defend his right to say what he thinks as an invited guest at a parochial school. Is there something wrong with that?

 

Bill, you and I think some others keep referring to Benedictine College as a "parochial school".

 

Why?  It is literally not a parochial school.

 

I agree with defending his right to speak his mind, and that is, after all, what he was invited to do.  But freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences arising from that speech, from editorials and social media posts objecting to it, to extra income from jersey sales (I think the players get a %?), to people who want him zapped out of the league.

 

I don't agree with the latter, but it happened with Colin Kaepernick and I have an inkling that some of the same people who wanted Kaepernick kicked to the curb permanently are the same ones objecting to anyone wanting likewise for Butker.  

[Beck Water]

10 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

I am guessing its easier to be "minted" as trans in the United States than it is in say Iran. Lots of bureaucracy and red tape over there.

 

I had no idea one could "come out" as trans or have gender-affirming therapy in Iran.  It is still a very conservative theocracy. 

I googled and officially the government does recognize transgender individuals who have undergone sex reassignment surgery, but according to my info, it's officially considered a mental disorder and there are no laws protecting trans people from discrimination or hate crimes.  As a result, assault, exclusion from education and jobs are rife.  Source:  Iranian-born and educated woman I used to work with.

[T&C]

39 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I had no idea one could "come out" as trans or have gender-affirming therapy in Iran.  It is still a very conservative theocracy. 

I googled and officially the government does recognize transgender individuals who have undergone sex reassignment surgery, but according to my info, it's officially considered a mental disorder and there are no laws protecting trans people from discrimination or hate crimes.  As a result, assault, exclusion from education and jobs are rife.  Source:  Iranian-born and educated woman I used to work with.

They weren't wrong, and here in the USA it's a money grab.