huskerjack23

I thought Russell was perfect for the assignment. He always seems to mellow Matt out when he gets on his rants by making an absurd observation that brings it all back to earth. Jeff gets just as fired up as Matt does if not more so. I believe it was the right move to stay level headed because any kind of aggression will be seen as attacking and thrown back in their faces. Normal people don't get that consideration because they don't have as a big of an audience as Comfort.

Did you watch the Ray Comfort episode? Man that episode was very very active and fun.

Coming as an experienced introvert, I noticed that he kept swallowing and fidgeting. Also, if you notice that when the reporters that we're behind him left, he loosened up and answered questions a tad more comfortably than he had been. Shy and awkward. Oh I'm rooting for this kid until the day he steps off campus for more reasons than being an awesome athlete.

I think he's saying that you both read from the same book. But you both get (and preach) completely different things out of it. They choose to pick verses that fit their lifestyle as you choose verses that fit yours. You just happen interpret the Bible as containing a god that loves everyone. You focus on the Christ story and not on the vengeful god of the Old Testament. That you should thy neighbor and treat everyone as you would want to be treated...rather than kill those who don't obey god. Westboro (and many other people...the Topeka clan just is more vocal about it) pick the parts of the Bible to help support their view. "God hates gay people because in Leviticus 20:13..." You both believe in the same god. You both agree the Bible is god's word. But why don't you interpret the hate in the same way they do? And vice versa. Who's interpretation is right? While it's a legitimate point, to an extent, the differences between Westboro and Christians are obvious, and based on common sense. Logic and reason have a role here, although people like to argue that you can't use them because they aren't definable. Reason tells me that Westboro Baptist members have an agenda of their own rather than of the Lord's, that their lives are nothing even remotely close to the way Jesus lived and commanded others to live, and seek to justify and explain away all of their actions, tailoring the Bible to themselves rather than tailoring their lives around the Bible (which isn't to say that most Christians don't do this). You're making a claim to also know the Lord's will and that they don't, that's as arrogant as Westboro. You may say that they are wrong and tailoring it to themselves but I would believe that they hold to a more literal interpretation of the bible than you do, making them more valid just by keeping with its tenets. Logic and reason can be used in this area but you're not going far enough. You didn't apply it to your own beliefs. Seriously, the last sentence you typed, is what you just did in regards to interpreting the bible. You might live your life as close to Jesus' philosophies as you can, but if you disregard the slavery of the OT, the killing of disobedient children and adulterers, then you are cherry picking as much as anybody else is. Going from one extreme to the other, left to right, up to down, flipping pascal's wager on you, not only who is right but what if you're wrong? In the case of the OT specifically, you would first have to establish what was recorded historically (not encouraged or accepted), what the culture influenced, what was demanded and what was done by God separate from what the law said for humans. I realize, even then, there is a lot of OT junk that would possibly support some generally frowned upon positions, but then you would also have to take into consideration Jesus' fulfillment of the law and NT scripture explaining how Christians are free from it. I realize I'm equally as guilty of interpreting the Bible in my own way, just as everyone is, but the difference is that my deepest desire is to follow God's plan and standards, and Jesus' teachings. From a Biblical standpoint, if you want to reach you can use it to support what Westboro does, but from an obvious observational standpoint, that's not their deepest desire. Tell me again how the OT is fulfilled again? Also, if the death and resurrection is why it has been fulfilled, are you just free to whatever just as long as you believe that Jesus is your savior? I submit that you have no knowledge if either option is correct and to preach one as correct BASED ON LOGIC AND REASON, is disingenuous and arrogant. You can preach on faith. But only faith. You have no evidence. Only conjecture based on your own moral subset. I would counter to say that it's not obvious. Clearly they protest in front of funerals in order to troll sensible people into a lawsuit that they will inevitably win. But to say that they truly don't believe in their theology is misguided.

I think he's saying that you both read from the same book. But you both get (and preach) completely different things out of it. They choose to pick verses that fit their lifestyle as you choose verses that fit yours. You just happen interpret the Bible as containing a god that loves everyone. You focus on the Christ story and not on the vengeful god of the Old Testament. That you should thy neighbor and treat everyone as you would want to be treated...rather than kill those who don't obey god. Westboro (and many other people...the Topeka clan just is more vocal about it) pick the parts of the Bible to help support their view. "God hates gay people because in Leviticus 20:13..." You both believe in the same god. You both agree the Bible is god's word. But why don't you interpret the hate in the same way they do? And vice versa. Who's interpretation is right? While it's a legitimate point, to an extent, the differences between Westboro and Christians are obvious, and based on common sense. Logic and reason have a role here, although people like to argue that you can't use them because they aren't definable. Reason tells me that Westboro Baptist members have an agenda of their own rather than of the Lord's, that their lives are nothing even remotely close to the way Jesus lived and commanded others to live, and seek to justify and explain away all of their actions, tailoring the Bible to themselves rather than tailoring their lives around the Bible (which isn't to say that most Christians don't do this). You're making a claim to also know the Lord's will and that they don't, that's as arrogant as Westboro. You may say that they are wrong and tailoring it to themselves but I would believe that they hold to a more literal interpretation of the bible than you do, making them more valid just by keeping with its tenets. Logic and reason can be used in this area but you're not going far enough. You didn't apply it to your own beliefs. Seriously, the last sentence you typed, is what you just did in regards to interpreting the bible. You might live your life as close to Jesus' philosophies as you can, but if you disregard the slavery of the OT, the killing of disobedient children and adulterers, then you are cherry picking as much as anybody else is. Going from one extreme to the other, left to right, up to down, flipping pascal's wager on you, not only who is right but what if you're wrong?

I really don't understand how anyone can, in good conscience, describe God's will to another person. If I interpret it the way that I interpret it, how can I possibly be wrong about it? How the hell do you know what's the correct one? The tenets and the doctrines of christianity have been interpreted thousands of times and redone another thousand. The original canon didn't even include all the books written on the subject. What's the difference between your interpretation of the bible and the Westboro idiots? A whole hell of a lot surely. But what's the similarities between your interpretation of the bible and the Westboro idiots? The holy bible. You can't tell me in the same breath that the Westboro church are evil bigots and the bible isn't full of evil and bigotry when it's all the same book.

Weren't all the gospels written like 60 years after the death of christ? Is it possible that the writers were writing from a biased agenda that benefited from christ fulfilling these prophecies? You can't be the messiah without doing so, right?

I think the criticism comes from him being as amazing as he is athletically. The athletic QB's that the Huskers have had over the last 20 years were either the benefit of a favorable play caller (Crouch) or great field generals as well (Frazier and Frost). We expect him to be these guys but we can only expect him to be T-Magic. A favorable system should help and hopefully the light turns on for him in the leadership/awareness department, but I for one am rooting for this guy. I certainly wasn't fond of him during the last quarter of the season, but I see great things in that kid. 80 yard runs are nothing to sneeze at.

Is the media not allowed to talk to the new coaches?

Did you send Colorado to the Big 10/11 then?

Multiple =/= jack of all trades, master of none. Multiple gets a bad rap because Shawn Watson was a stubborn guy who puts square pegs into round holes and not being able to even coach the round holes in the first place. You could look at the 95 orange bowl to the 98 orange bowl to see how multiple Tom Osborne was.

Tom Osborne isn't walking downstairs to coach the offense. Touchdown Tommie, Lawrence, Ahman, and the Pipeline aren't walking through those doors. All offensive philosophies are capable of putting up huge points and laying complete eggs. What it comes down to is, do you trust the coaches? They haven't done anything yet, but I sure as hell like what I see so far, at least in Pelini. You also have to have the athletes to run any offense successfully. Also just like what was said above two teams can run the exact same supposed offense and look nothing a like. That's why all of this Oregon talk is so nauseating. This is going to be Tim Beck's offense for the most part and I don't think anyone knows just exactly what he's going to do and moreso who is going to be the guy running said offense. It's just a professional's way of giving the lay person a reference point of where the offense is headed.

Tom Osborne isn't walking downstairs to coach the offense. Touchdown Tommie, Lawrence, Ahman, and the Pipeline aren't walking through those doors. All offensive philosophies are capable of putting up huge points and laying complete eggs. What it comes down to is, do you trust the coaches? They haven't done anything yet, but I sure as hell like what I see so far, at least in Pelini.

Richard Dawkins saw this video when it was posted on richarddawkins.net forums and he's now been in contact with the AE crew. Who knows what will come of it but it'd be awesome if it got Dillahunty more exposure like we were talking about before.

By murdering it? Let's be realistic here. Apparently you read my post as pro-abortion when I was trying to express a point of the importance of child REARING as an essential service, not abortion as the service. Planned Parenthood does other things to insure that parents and their prospective reproduction choices are as educated as possible. This is, I find, the essential part of Planned Parenthood. Also, if you wanted to be realistic about budget deficits and drains on entitlemnent programs, abortion is a great option. (Modest Proposal style satire)

Agreed, but the reality of the situation says that they will be having sex regardless. Also, regarding the bold, I'd much rather our tax dollars be subsidizing condoms than subsidizing children. One is certainly cheaper than the other. Helping people make cost-effective decisions should be an essential priority, especially with something as important as child rearing. If you are pro-life, make sure that the life lives as well it possibly can. Planned Parenthood helps provide that service.

The Free Market will solve this! Gotta love a good staircase. (Oh man I'm going to the hell I don't believe in)

They might have a had a breath of fresh air because of simplification but Callahan did coach up that line. Slauson and Nicks both start on NFL teams. Who could you say on this team has that kind of ability?

I'd say every team from 6 to 18 could be maneuvered in any kind of fashion and it wouldn't surprise me.

You've piqued my interest, what job fits this description? I would say law enforcement or military

This one time, at band camp...

I like how after all is said and done, Pelini will have walked through fire like a damn Chuck Norris, unscathed. Bad ass hands down.

If he's coaching a position, fundamentals and execution wouldn't change from WCO to spread. Responsibilities should be an easy study, especially from a coach with that kind of potential.

Is that why Leach always called plays from a cocktail napkin?

I'll say that he could handle the stress of these "antagonizing" questions a bit better. Although it'd be awesome if he just eviscerated somebody, Dr. Cox from Scrubs style.