Mr. Yost

July 30th, 2015 at 6:03 PM ^

...especially when there is an incentive to go for it rather than kick XP's. He could be an asset.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think Geno Smith or Josh McCown or Matt Cassel is head and shoulders better than Tebow IN an offense tailored to Tebow.

The Eagles offense is tailored to Tebow (and the other QBs)...so it makes sense to me.

Thad_Castle

July 30th, 2015 at 6:09 PM ^

Met Tebow on a flight from Japan to Detroit before my Freshman year at Michigan. This is a few months removed from our bowl game victory over Florida, dude was coming back from a mission in Indonesia. He couldn't have been nicer, even when I told him I was attending Michigan he said it was a hell of a game and was impressed with how hard we played. What I'm trying to say is that Tebow is a nice person, never understood all the hate, and I hope he makes the team and is a solid contributor.

EGD

July 30th, 2015 at 6:39 PM ^

I don't care about any of that.  But I dislike Tebow because he is celebrated for his supposed good works with Pacific Islanders, when in fact he was part of an organization devoted to using medical care as a coercive means of converting them to Christianity.

CorkyCole

July 30th, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^

I understand the whole no spiritual crap, but I do have to make one comment. If you don't believe in Christianity or what it's founded on, that's your deal and that's fine. But your comment tells me you completely misinterpret the reasoning behind the "mission." The act of "converting" someone to Christianity is a completely selfless act of service that is only attempted because of a general care for people; it has everything to do with the belief of what happens to those who don't follow Christianity - an act of love for people. And the "medical missions" are done for people regardless if they convert or not - it is not a requirement to sign on the dotted line seal it with blood in order to receive care. It is an act of service, again because of a care for the well being of others.

There are bad apples in every social/spiritual group (even among Michigan fans), so don't assume every Christian or Christian act of service is littered in selfishness. Again, I respect your beliefs or lack of Christian belief, but you don't have to be a Christian to appreciate what Tebow did there in Indonesia.

Mods, I apologize for the addition to the "no religion" policy. But I ask if you remove my comment then please remove his as well.

MichiganTeacher

July 30th, 2015 at 9:42 PM ^

I totally agree that there is a selfish, psychologically gratifying piece to missionary work. But I also think that by the missionary's own definition, what he is doing is in large part selfless.

I also don't get the Tebow hate. I'm an atheist, and I think Tebow seems like a swell guy.

Magnus

July 30th, 2015 at 8:55 PM ^

You know, if I was receiving medical care unavailable otherwise, and the only thing I had to deal with was someone saying, "I hope you welcome the Lord Jesus into your heart" or something like that, I think that's a small price to pay.

I don't like listening to sales pitches from people trying to sell me time shares, but if I got a blood transfusion or someone removed a cyst while telling me about how I should check into a vacation in St. Lucia, how am I hurt by that?

EGD

July 31st, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^

That's a fair point, Magnus.  But here's how I look at it.

Christian missionaries come to a remote island and offer medical care to the villagers.  The native islanders already have their own indigenous culture and generally want to raise their children in that same culture.  But some kid gets sick and requires treatment beyond what the locals can provide.  So they go to the missionaries and ask for help.  The missionaries use modern western equipment and techniques to treat the child and he recovers; in the meantime, the missionaries impress upon the family how they should abandon their indigenous culture and embrace Christianity.  Maybe some members of the family let that go in one ear and out the other (especially the adults).  But maybe other members, particularly the more impressionable children, are awed by the missionaries' technology and skills, or wooed by their carefully refined sales pitch, and "choose" to be converted.  Christianity gains a foothold, and over time replaces the indigenous culture.

Can I deny that providing medical care to people who otherwise wouldn't receive it is a good thing?  Certainly not.  Are all indigenous cultural practices worth preserving?  No.  So I grant this isn't a black & white issue.  But the overarching notion for which Tebow's work stands: that these indigenous peoples are ignorant and in need of saving, that their cultures and beliefs are unworthy of respect, and that it's fine to exploit informational and technological advantages to penetrate and ultimately replace those societies with Christianity, is something I personally find profoundly offensive and wrong. 

 

pescadero

July 31st, 2015 at 3:51 PM ^

As long as it is "listen to our spiel and get medical care" as opposed to "convert to christianity to get medical care" I largely agree.

 

Some of these organizations (Salvation Army) have been caught REQUIRING prayer/conversion to obtain the service... THAT is bad.

SC Wolverine

July 30th, 2015 at 9:09 PM ^

Well, Tim Tebow is persuaded that Christianity is true.  Even if you disagree about that, the fact is that he is an awesome person doing good to persuade people of something that he believes brings eternal benefits.  It is the sign of an open mind when you can respect principled and good people even when you disagree.

Magnus

July 30th, 2015 at 9:16 PM ^

The truth is, Christians - and people of many faiths - are asked to spread their faith. So saying Tebow should be hated on because he's following his faith sounds pretty intolerant to me. I hear people trying to convince others that God doesn't exist all the time, spreading their lack of belief in a higher power. Why should atheists and agnostics be allowed to spread their spiritual beliefs when Christians/Jews/Muslims can't?

EGD

July 31st, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^

I'm for free speech.  People can say what they want.  If people want to encourage others to adopt some irrational belief system, that's fine.  I just have a problem with coercion.

Also, "athiesm" is by definition a lack of spiritual beliefs.  So a person who urges others to abandon some religion is not spreading a "spiritual belief" in athiesm.  A person arguing that the Book of Genesis is flawed because the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000, and that the universe was created in a "big bang" that occurred about 13.5 billion years ago, is advacing a rational, scientifically-based viewpoint.  I suppose you can call that a "religon" if you want, but that kind of nullifies the utility of the term.

Magnus

July 31st, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^

The point is that arguing against having a spiritual belief (a.k.a. atheism) is just as "damaging" to some people as arguing for one. Ultimately, whether the world was created 13.5 billion years ago or 6,000 years ago does not matter much to you or me. Both of us were born in the late 20th century (I presume), and we will probably die in the middle of the 21st century. When Tim Tebow dies, his "spirit" will do one of two things - it will disappear forever, or it will live on in some form or fashion. Either way, it doesn't affect you or me.

But nobody's being coerced. "Coercion" involves force or threats. 

pescadero

July 31st, 2015 at 4:08 PM ^

I would argue against equating anti-theism with atheism.

 

Atheism is not an explicit disbelief in religion, merely a lack of belief.

 

"Ultimately, whether the world was created 13.5 billion years ago or 6,000 years ago does not matter much to you or me."



I guess it's good you do football and a blog and aren't a physicist, chemist, biologist, atronomer, astrophysicist, geologist, pteroleum engineer, or member of many many other engineering/science professions.

 

Large parts of the economy depend on scientists being right about either the age of the Universe/Earth or the laws of the Universe that allow scientists to determine its age.

Magnus

July 31st, 2015 at 8:50 PM ^

I would say the average person is not a physicist, chemist, biologist, astronomer, astrophysicist, geologist, petroleum engineer, etc. I am none of those things, so on a daily basis, it matters not whether the ground I'm walking on was created 6,000 or 13.5 billion years ago. I think it's pretty safe to say that the age of the earth does not affect the majority of us any more than knowing the exact scientific process in which oxygen is produced by plant life. Is the Earth here for me to live on? Yes. Are the plants producing enough oxygen for me to breathe? Yes. Okay, thanks, I think we're ready to watch "The Bachelor" or do some laundry now.

pescadero

August 1st, 2015 at 7:52 AM ^

The age of the earth effects all of us massively.

 

It's fine to say you don't use the KNOWLEDGE of the age of the earth, but if the ground you were walking on was 6,000 years old - there would be a LOT of scary things to worry about.

 

...like the fact that apparently radioactive decay CHANGES rates - meaning at any moment nuclear reactors and stockpiles around the country could suddenly become massive hazards... and things like GPS (dependent on the age of the universe) might just suddenly quit working at any time... never mind that every scientific discovery involving light and it's speed would be suspect.

Magnus

August 1st, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^

A lot of things affect us "massively." Photosynthesis affects me massively. Farming affects me massively. Taxes affect me massively. Sunlight affects me massively. The internet affects me massively. Water purification affects me massively. So on and so on and so on.

The average person does not need to understand photosynthesis, farming, taxes, sunlight, the internet, and water purification processes in order to use them in their daily lives.

The Earth is here. It has been since the day I was born, and it will be on the day that I die.

I am done with this conversation. It's being taken in directions that it does not need to go.

EGD

July 31st, 2015 at 4:34 PM ^

"Coercion involves force or threats."  

No, you're thinking of duress.  Coercion means exploiting a power imbalance to force a desired choice.  For instance, State X may not want to lower it's permissible blood alcohol level to 0.8--but if they don't, then they won't qualify for federal highway dollars.  So, State X lowers its BAL to 0.8.  Was it a free choice?  No.  But the government didn't have to send in federal troops to make it happen.

EGD

July 31st, 2015 at 10:45 PM ^

Okay, Magnus. How many dictionary websites did you have to go through to find one that defined coercion that way? Because I just googled the word and had numerous hits that defined coercion much more broadly.

Anyway.

Hill Street Blue

July 31st, 2015 at 1:36 AM ^

the preponderance of universities and hospitals in the USA were founded by Christians.  Why, because that's what Christians do, try to make things better.  You are free to receive an education and medical care at these institutions without being forced, or "coerced" to become a Christian.  In fact, Christianity is about exercising the free will you were given, not coercion.

East German Judge

July 30th, 2015 at 6:10 PM ^

Even though he has won more playoff games than Matthew Stafford, for his own sake, he should consider a move to TE, where he could be an even bigger version of Gronk, with the occasional ability to throw a pass.  Don't know why he is so stubborn to still want to play QB, good luck with the Eagles. 

Thanks for the great Michigan memory.

Mr. Yost

July 30th, 2015 at 8:18 PM ^

He took his team to an AFC Championship as a QB.

He's never gotten another shot to be a QB in an offense tailored to his skillset.

And do you know how hard it is to be an elite TE? You don't just change and be great...you have to catch, you have to block...how do you know he can do either?

Lastly. I'm not sure you know how big Gronk is. I pretty much disagree with everything you just said.

drewro02

July 31st, 2015 at 4:44 AM ^

They beat Pittsburgh, then lost to NE in the Divisional game. NE beat Baltimore in the AFC title game that year.. Agree with you on the Gronk comment, though:



Tebow- 6'3" 245 lbs.

Gronk- 6'6" 265 lbs.



Not sure how Tebow could be a bigger version of Gronk.

xtramelanin

July 30th, 2015 at 6:14 PM ^

is not the general recipe for success.  interesting that graham apparently volunteered that comment, meaning it wasn't in response to a direct question. 

The Dirty Nil

July 30th, 2015 at 6:19 PM ^

I like Tebow. I feel he's a genuinely good person and means well. Of course I'd like to see him succeed. The only issue was the media coverage that surrounded all things Tebow when he was in the league.