Jump to content

Brooks post finals interview


BuckyBadger

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

What if the religion he's responding to has core doctrines that inherently insult the religion of another religion with even more adherents, in addition to other religions or those without a religion?

LOL that you keep saying he's "responding" to something.  

I really don't care what people talk about at church or with their family or friends.  But when you're on national TV, I think a little more decency is expected in terms of talking about other people's faiths.  And honestly I don't really care all that much that Brooks said it.  The bigger issue IMO is the NCAA tweeting it out (especially since they didn't even tweet out all the post-match interviews)

Edited by 1032004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

LOL that you keep saying he's "responding" to something.  

I really don't care what people talk about at church or with their family or friends.  But when you're on national TV, I think a little more decency is expected in terms of talking about other people's faiths.  And honestly I don't really care all that much that Brooks said it.  The bigger issue IMO is the NCAA tweeting it out (especially since they didn't even tweet out all the post-match interviews)

He is responding to something. He's directly responding to the claims of the prophet of Islam's claims about his own religion. It appears that you aren't educated on certain aspects of Islam and it's own claims about other religions that came before it or existed alongside it. Religions did not materialize out of thin air, religious figures made various claims about many different things that they came across during their lives. Just as you can respond to a claim that was made about your worldview yesterday, you can respond to a claim made a year ago or even 1000 plus years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

He is responding to something. He's directly responding to the claims of the prophet of Islam's claims about his own religion. It appears that you aren't educated on certain aspects of Islam and its own claims about other religions that came before it or existed alongside it. Religions did not materialize out of thin air, religious figures made various claims about many different things that they came across during their lives. Just as you can respond to a claim that was made about your worldview yesterday, you can respond to a claim made a year ago or even 1000 plus years ago.

He was asked about his faith in general. He was not responding to a question about another view.

He decided to comment on false prophets to proselytize and push his beliefs on others.

What you point out about what’s wrong with other religions is not wrong, but it misses the point.

Edited by BuckyBadger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mykidsucks said:

He was wrong to say what he did, he will not understand this until he wrestles overseas.   Very stupid, never talk shit about another religion. 

All major 'abrahamic religions" make claims that other faith systems find offensive. It's baked into the cake of the religions.  That said, you bring up a very true point. He has to understand that his statements can get him into big trouble overseas. Big trouble. Even if he is willing to take the backlash which can literally get him killed, I don't think he would want that for his teammates that travel with him. I'm sure USA wrestling will speak with him about this before he travels to any future tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

He is responding to something. He's directly responding to the claims of the prophet of Islam's claims about his own religion. It appears that you aren't educated on certain aspects of Islam and it's own claims about other religions that came before it or existed alongside it. Religions did not materialize out of thin air, religious figures made various claims about many different things that they came across during their lives. Just as you can respond to a claim that was made about your worldview yesterday, you can respond to a claim made a year ago or even 1000 plus years ago.

I'm not doubting that people of various religions have said some stuff over the last few hundred years.  But no one was saying them to Brooks on Saturday night.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

I'm not doubting that people of various religions have said some stuff over the last few hundred years.  But no one was saying them to Brooks on Saturday night.

Well, some of these things were intended to be addressed to people of certain religions for perpetuity, not just at the time. That said, perhaps I'm getting too precise. I understand why it rubbed some people the wrong way, the issue for me is I think people aren't articulating the reason *why* properly. His comments went to the next level of direct. "Lord and savior" is less direct than "only Lord and savior" which is less direct than "Only Lord and savior for all people whether they acknowledge it or not", but all are implied in the religion. I just hope he understands that very direct statements can have disastrous consequences in other parts of the world even if he thinks that they shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TylerDurden said:

The real question is why Supreme Technique decided to make an account to post on this topic and behave in such an intentionally obtuse manner. Is that you, Mr. Brooks? 

No, but this situation brought me to this board. I don't know Mr. Brooks personally. Please, I'm not being obtuse. It's just the "don't disrespect anyone's religion" can't be the standard, especially when the religion(s) itself would violate the very standards of respect that many are pushing for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch the tournament on my DVR with an hour delay so I can ff through the commercials and the wrestler interviews.  I have NO interest in any thing a wrestler just off the mat.  I believe it is dumb to interview them because most of them are trained to say nothing or say something which is not well thought out, but most of it is just BORING and I have better things to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

The real question is why Supreme Technique decided to make an account to post on this topic and behave in such an intentionally obtuse manner. Is that you, Mr. Brooks? 

Please see my 3rd from last comment on page 6 to understand where I'm coming from and why the "don't disrespect religion" comment, without nuance, is not the always the way to go. Disrespecting religion or religious sensibilities is how many things that you appreciate today were allowed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Supreme Technique said:

Please see my 3rd from last comment on page 6 to understand where I'm coming from and why the "don't disrespect religion" comment, without nuance, is not the always the way to go. Disrespecting religion or religious sensibilities is how many things that you appreciate today were allowed to be.

Give it a rest. You're trolling. We all see it. I'm guessing this is one of multiple accounts you have on this site. 

No one believes that this situation brought you to this board. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TylerDurden said:

Give it a rest. You're trolling. We all see it. I'm guessing this is one of multiple accounts you have on this site. 

No one believes that this situation brought you to this board. 

This situation in fact brought me to this board. I had 0 previous accounts. I'm simply explaining my perspective. I didn't want to put myself at the center, but many people like me exist whether that makes people uncomfortable or not. Just because that may make the conversation more difficult that doesn't mean it should be ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MarkGA said:

I watch the tournament on my DVR with an hour delay so I can ff through the commercials and the wrestler interviews.  I have NO interest in any thing a wrestler just off the mat.  I believe it is dumb to interview them because most of them are trained to say nothing or say something which is not well thought out, but most of it is just BORING and I have better things to do. 

Go watch Vito's post-match interview:  it's great.  He and his dad (the former word champion and Olympic bronze medalist) have digs at each other, and show true affection.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigRedFan said:

Go watch Vito's post-match interview:  it's great.  He and his dad (the former word champion and Olympic bronze medalist) have digs at each other, and show true affection.

Yes, Vito was great coming off the mat AND in his press conference. Yianni is also really good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Supreme Technique said:

Overly simplistic. Ultimately a lot of these debates/discussions center on the nature of reality and whether or not the worldview or religion put forth is true or not.  If Brooks' religion is true (or at least certain facts about it), then you would be asking him to respect a religion that first disrespected his own. Put it this way, would you say it's wrong to defend your religion if it is attacked? If yes, then one could say that Brooks was doing that if, in fact, Muhammad's religion started with attacking that which came before it. The unfortunate, controversial yet true case is many religions insult others by simply existing. Thanking Jesus as the only Lord and savior would offend other religious sensibilities even without making an explicit reference to any other religion.  Even those condemning Brooks statements are offending adherents of other religions or no religions (as several popular religions use what would be considered offensive language about those who do not believe in God(s)) even if they don't realize it. I could tease this out and prove that but would prefer those to really think on this before responding. In short, there are no religiously neutral statements, and there are likely none that would offend exactly zero people.

Also, disagreeing with something does not imply disdain. I disagree that Spencer Lee was better than Kyle Dake at any point in his career, that doesn't mean that I have disdain for those who disagree with me.

 

3 hours ago, BigRedFan said:

Brooks insulted the religion of almost two billion people.  On national TV.  Are you and others defending that?  In what world is that okay?

Whether any particular religion is "true" is utterly irrelevant:  no religion can be shown to be "true," by definition.  Isn't that why they call it "faith?"

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard P. Feynman

I'm not even sure Charles Dodgson could keep up with the level of whataboutism here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BerniePragle said:

 

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard P. Feynman

I'm not even sure Charles Dodgson could keep up with the level of whataboutism here.

It's not simply "whatabouttism" when the real life effects of this are seen every day. Please see me 3rd from last post on page 6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

Well, some of these things were intended to be addressed to people of certain religions for perpetuity, not just at the time. That said, perhaps I'm getting too precise. I understand why it rubbed some people the wrong way, the issue for me is I think people aren't articulating the reason *why* properly. His comments went to the next level of direct. "Lord and savior" is less direct than "only Lord and savior" which is less direct than "Only Lord and savior for all people whether they acknowledge it or not", but all are implied in the religion. I just hope he understands that very direct statements can have disastrous consequences in other parts of the world even if he thinks that they shouldn't.

...which is far less direct than "no false prophets, no Muhammed no anyone else."

 

Actually since you are the expert, can you explain what his quote even means? 

“Christ resurrections everything.  Not just his life, but his death and resurrection.  You can only get that though him, the Holy Spirit only through him, no false prophets, no Muhammad, no anyone else, only Jesus Christ himself.”

First of all is “resurrections” even a verb?  He resurrections resurrection?  What does that even mean? He resurrections death?  That seems like an oxymoron. You can only be resurrected by Jesus?  Do people believe they will be resurrected instead of going to Heaven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, jackwebster said:

Aaron spoke his truth and the truth of about 2.8 billion Christians worldwide. His comments were NOT disparaging to the 1.9 billion Muslims around the world. I have several Muslim friends and none of them were offended by his comments. He stated the basic difference in religions that almost every person on earth already knows. America was founded on religious freedom; we have freedom of speech and freedom of religious beliefs. If a Muslim stated Jesus Christ never existed and Allah is the true God on TV (which i have seen many times over). I, as a Christian do not take offense to their believe. Like one of my Muslim friends said, "It's not like he said death to Islam, he pointed out the difference, he said nothing derogatory to Islamic belief". As American's everyone who is judging, condemning and throwing daggers needs to look in the mirror.   Much respect to Aaron and any other person who stands up and proclaims their faith. I'm sorry you are offended by that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Supreme Technique said:

It's not simply "whatabouttism" when the real life effects of this are seen every day. Please see me 3rd from last post on page 6. 

Whether there is/was a Jesus, a Muhammad, whatever happened, I'm always astounded that people argue about what nonsense occured 2000, 3000 years ago and hold grudges based on heresay and documents that have been copied and translated umpteen times, believed as fact.  Makes the Bloods and the Crips seem like best buddies.

“One man doesn't believe in God at all, while the other believes in him so thoroughly that he prays as he murders men!”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Whether there is/was a Jesus, a Muhammad, whatever happened, I'm always astounded that people argue about what nonsense occured 2000, 3000 years ago and hold grudges based on heresay and documents that have been copied and translated umpteen times, believed as fact.  Makes the Bloods and the Crips seem like best buddies.

“One man doesn't believe in God at all, while the other believes in him so thoroughly that he prays as he murders men!”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot

yeah, the number of replies on twitter saying "but what Brooks said is the truth!" is pretty hilarious

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Griffin Lundeen

    Thief River Falls, Minnesota
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern State
    Projected Weight: 165

    Cyler Ruhoff

    Foley, Minnesota
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Sioux Falls
    Projected Weight: 125

    Seth Weaver

    Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Maryland
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Franklin & Marshall
    Projected Weight: 157

    Tee Ward

    Fremont, Michigan
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Illinois
    Projected Weight: 141

    Vinnie Abbey

    Hartland, Michigan
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Indiana Tech
    Projected Weight: 157
×
×
  • Create New...