Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[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. ??