Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

3:16







GetReligion.org is reporting that in the 2009 BCS Championship Game, quarterback Tim Tebow wore the verse John 3:16 on the black tape under his eyes and Tebow has said that this is his favorite Bible verse. Tebow wearing that particular verse in this all important college game caused approximately 92 million people to google [John 3:16] and eye messaging was soon afterward banned for all players. Can't have people sharing any Good News now, can we?

In last Sunday's highly improbable overtime victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers, quarterback Tim Tebow passed for 316 yards in leading the Denver Broncos to victory. Coincidence? Maybe.

Tebow completed 10 passes in accumulating 316 yards in Sunday's upset win. Not 9 passes or 11 passes, but 10. Thus in the all important important statistic of his average yards per completion, Tebow averaged 31.6 yards per completion. Coincidence? Maybe.

Apparently the the overtime period of the game drew a 31.6 televison rating. Coincidence? Awww, c'mon man!


EDIT: Now Baptist Press is reporting that Pittsburgh's time of possession for the game was 31 minutes and 6 seconds. You can't make this stuff up.

15 comments:

GentleSkeptic said...

Couldn't possibly be a coincidence.

Gregg said...

Come on... If those "stats" are accurate, they don't mean a thing. God is not on Tebow's, Bronco's, or the NFL's side nor is God causing Tebow to win or loose.

God, is however, working various traits and godliness in to Tebow's and other Christian athletes lives by the wins and losses. God is not deciding the outcome of the game nor is He in cahoots with some marketing firm enabling all the stats to come up sevens. Or in this case 3:16.

These type of reports, other than for mere reporting demonstrate how shallow and negligent "Theology" truly is in the lives of most believers.

JD Curtis said...

Skeptic or believer, it is interesting how that number keeps coming up though.

Theological Discourse said...

"Because God didn't intervene in the way I think He should or in the places I think He should intervene, therefore He didn't intervene anywhere."

Flawless logic GS, exactly what one comes to expect from an idiot like you.

GentleSkeptic said...

Unsurprising use of the insult 'idiot', TD, and precisely the Shining Light we ALL expect from you.

Stormbringer said...

Tebow has been put on a pedestal, whether he likes it or not (goes with the territory of being a celebrity). Maybe God wants him to know 1 Peter 3.16, "...keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Or not.

Theological Discourse said...


Unsurprising use of the insult 'idiot', TD, and precisely the Shining Light we ALL expect from you.

Focusing on the insult instead of the argument. Exactly the illogical stupidity I expect from an idiot like you GS.

JD Curtis said...

GS, how do you know that God did not intervene at the time of the flood that you mention?

Are you completely sure that no one was helped?

GentleSkeptic said...

Focusing on the insult instead of the argument. Exactly the illogical stupidity I expect from an idiot like you GS.

Drawing attention away from the insult and pretending to have made an 'argument'… I remain unsurprised. Did you make an argument? I certainly can't see it. Is "Flawless logic GS, exactly what one comes to expect from an idiot like you" an argument? Perhaps the insult obscures your intentions?

Are you completely sure that no one was helped?

OMG,OMG,OMG: burden of proof much? YOU are the one insinuating that God has intervened in our affairs, not I. Now it sounds like you're insinuating that he may have intervened selectively in a tornado? Of course, you'd never actually be so bold as to make that claim, just dance around it. And so long as no-one can disprove the thing you won't even assert, you're totally safe, just dancing and believing.

Theological Discourse said...


Drawing attention away from the insult and pretending to have made an 'argument'… I remain unsurprised. Did you make an argument? I certainly can't see it. Is "Flawless logic GS, exactly what one comes to expect from an idiot like you" an argument? Perhaps the insult obscures your intentions?

Trying to excuse your illogical behavior and not being able to see the argument due to your idiocy is not surprising at all. Since you're clearly ignorant and stupid, I'll break down the argument for you.

By posting that picture in a typical, intellectually shallow, snarky, sarcastic, atheist manner, you have implicitly stated that because God didn't intervene in the tornado(i.e. no intervention in a place someone thinks God should've intervened), He didn't intervene in the Broncos game.

Of course, you being completley clueless when it comes to arguments, I am not surprised you didn't see it.

JD Curtis said...

YOU are the one insinuating that God has intervened in our affairs, not I

Actually GS, I decided to make a fun little blog post about apparent discrepencies in the highlighted events. I don't recall making any definitive statements whatsoever.

Did you mean to claim knowledge that God (if He exists) did not at any point intervene in the events surrounding the cited flood?

Feel free to clarify.

GentleSkeptic said...

I decided to make a fun little blog post about apparent discrepencies [sic] in the highlighted events.

Right. That's why I used the word "insinuating" in reference to your suggestion of God's possible role in the flood.

I don't recall making any definitive statements whatsoever.

You didn't. Which, again, is why I used the word "insinuate."

Did you mean to claim knowledge that God did not at any point intervene in the events surrounding the cited flood?

That which can be asserted (or insinuated) without evidence can be safely dismissed without evidence. Clearly I would never claim such knowledge, as there's not even a good reason to suspect that God intervened in that flood, much less claim that He really did.

TD:

You originally said, in a mocking tone, "Because God didn't intervene in the way I think He should or in the places I think He should intervene, therefore He didn't intervene anywhere" in what can only be described as a strawman rendering of what you imagine my argument to be. You then tacked on two insults for good measure.

Allow me to restate your strawman rendering of my intent in posting the juxtaposed Tebow/flood devastation: "Because God didn't apparently intervene in any meaningful or useful way in preventing a real human tragedy, it seems highly unlikely that He intervened in trivial, petty, and mysterious number-manipulating ways in the Broncos game; if He did, then we can safely question His priorities and character."

Theological Discourse said...

Allow me to restate your strawman rendering of my intent in posting the juxtaposed Tebow/flood devastation: "Because God didn't apparently intervene in any meaningful or useful way in preventing a real human tragedy, it seems highly unlikely that He intervened in trivial, petty, and mysterious number-manipulating ways in the Broncos game; if He did, then we can safely question His priorities and character."

You're so hilariously stupid. The funniest thing about it all is the fact you don't even know how stupid you are.

Here is what I said:

"Because God didn't intervene in the way I think He should or in the places I think He should intervene, therefore He didn't intervene anywhere."


Here is what you said:


Because God didn't apparently intervene in any meaningful or useful way in preventing a real human tragedy, it seems highly unlikely that He intervened in trivial, petty, and mysterious number-manipulating ways in the Broncos game; if He did, then we can safely question His priorities and character


Now lets break it down:


Because God didn't apparently intervene in any meaningful or useful way in preventing a real human tragedy,

You think God should've intervened in a certain way or a certain place, which is easily summerized as the following:

Because God didn't intervene in the way I think He should or in the places I think He should intervene


Pretty self explanatory, unless you're a complete idiot like GS. Looks like I accurately summarized your premise. Now for the next part.


it seems highly unlikely that He intervened in trivial, petty, and mysterious number-manipulating ways in the Broncos game; if He did, then we can safely question His priorities and character.


You conclude, based upon your premise, that He therefore didn't intervene in the Broncos game. This can easily be summarized as the following:

therefore He didn't intervene anywhere

The only difference here is you were talking about a specific broncos game while I said anywhere. The difference is trivial since the word 'anywhere' encompasses the broncos game. Furthermore, the word 'anywhere' was also used because no matter what conclusion you came up with, your argument would still fail. Gods non intervention in a situation is not evidence for his non intervention in another situation. Thats a non sequitur and you're a moron.

GentleSkeptic said...

It seems very odd to be taken to task for thinking that there are better ways than others for God to intervene in human affairs. Let's recall that JD's OP strongly suggested that God had intervened and manipulated events at a specific Broncos game in order to yield the number 316 several times.

My position is simply this: If God is generating magic numbers in football game stats but not preventing tornadoes from demolishing trailer parks, He's not a very good God. You have not accurately represented my premise or conclusion, you have distorted them to match yours.

But I expect that from dicks.

GentleSkeptic said...

Tim Tebow’s strange run of success has been a national exercise in blithering idiots half-heartedly attempting to conceal that their football “analysis” is rooted in their spirituality. source