knapplc

I took out most of the conversation of religion from this thread and made a new one so this stays somewhat on-topic. You can find that discussion HERE.

One for each wrist, one in each foot. The paintings we have from this period aren't just random works of art, they're sometimes important symbolic representations of the position of The Church, and the many kings and princes who derived their power from God. Symbolism was a major factor in the everyday lives of these people, and whether Jesus was pierced by three nails or four was, at one time, a hotbed issue. The depiction of crucifixion involving three nails has as much to do with Medieval sensibilities as anything, since it's far more "proper" to depict a nearly-naked Christ with His legs modestly crossed rather than splayed in an ungainly fashion.

Voting is over! Congratulations, Badgerf-- errr.... Bucky, you're our new Towel Boy.

Voting is over! Congratulations, Husker 37, you're our new Equipment Manager!

Probably. Everyone refers to God as the father. I suspect that's so bronze-age man could relate to him. Introducing the concept of a genderless god is much harder than a god that follows known parameters.

Why would it be disrespectful to a genderless god? Or, more specifically, why would it be more disrespectful than calling God "He" or "Him?" Isn't referring to God by male pronouns simply repeating dogmatically the tenets of a religion you were taught?

God has no gender. "Him," "He" and other male pronouns are derived from a patriarchal culture, not from God Himself. Or Herself.

I think some people will be happy with that. Who is going to be happy with another step back, and another year of being an also-ran? If Bo goes 8-5 his seat will be flaming hot in 2013 You answered your own question. The people who will be happy with that are the people who want Bo gone. There are many of them right here on HuskerBoard.

But what about the non-Christians? Why should they, in a free country, have to abide by religious laws? The Jews believe they worship the One True God. Why not base our laws off their religious tenets?

I have a pic of that thing from one of my trips to the Louvre. Not sure where it is, though.

Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people? Honest answer.... some people I have given up on, so I don't expect much. But I do from Carlfense, his posts are usually high quality and well thought out. And we are more often than not in agreement, which is why I questioned him on a potential double standard. That's it... the entire story. Just wondered, because you seem to ignore those of some people and not others. Thanks for the clarification.

Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people?

I think some people will be happy with that.

Not all objection is obstructionism. But this is an obstructionist Republican congress, without question.

Looks like the president has plenty of backing in his "assault on religion." LINK

Not at this level it doesn't. What do you mean? There are drug sales all over most every campus in the US. If you're saying that our football players/other athletes aren't involved, let's just hope you're right. I wouldn't want to point fingers at TCU in case one of our players got a case of the stupids and was doing this.

More info continues to come out: LINK

sigh... The majority of people who oppose homosexuality as immoral for religious reasons are religious conservatives. The majority of people who oppose abortion as murder for religious reasons are religious conservatives. Yes, I guess there are people who oppose abortion who are not religious conservatives, but they a minority in people who oppose it. In addition most religious people (Christian) who I have met who are liberal do not oppose abortion on religious grounds. But I guess that there could be a few out there. So you are correct... my arguement is a strawman because I failed to mention two small minorities. sigh... And you're getting your sizes of who believes what... where?

"Get over it?" Come on. There's a rather large difference between getting fired within a couple of years of an extension and getting fired within a calendar year of an extension - or, should be getting fired, but won't be because the long-term plan means you get one more year. There's no two ways around this. The extension was a bad idea. It was unnecessary by any stretch of the imagination.

Was anyone able to get an accurate count of the number of women on Hannity's panel? I counted zero, but I wasn't watching the original panel, just Stewart's replay.

Tanner Brock's arrest warrant affidavits. At one point Brock allegedly tells the undercover officer that the team was tested and TCU "caught them slipping." Teams should have a zero-tolerance policy toward this. Winning is not more important than having clean players.

LINK

@edsbs edsbs Poring over warrants. Brock, talking to an undercover about his urine test: "I failed that bitch for sure." @edsbs edsbs RT @FollowtheFrogs: Devin Johnson, Ty Horn, Tanner Brock and D.J. Yendrey all arrested in TCU drug sweep. @edsbs edsbs Good heavens. RT @PreSnapRead: Johnson is TCU's starting SS, Horn a backup OT, Brock an AA LB and Yendrey an all-conference DT.

I think a lot of people get their info there, but it's a waste of money. Nobody outside the program has special information that you should pay to read. As good as Sean Callahan is with his stuff, he's not going to give you better/quicker/more accurate information than the folks who post here, and nothing Rivals is able to get is information that the JournalStar, the OWH or ESPN isn't able to get. They don't have sources inside the locker room telling them who's signing where, or which recruit is best. Bottom line is, unless you absolutely have to know something within the first 30 minutes of it occurring, you're better off sticking with the folks who post here. They know their stuff. And often they know it before Rivals or any other pay service.