Could Rex become the Husker's Tebow ?

[TheCheshireCat]

1. Tim Tebow has never said you were going to hell and suffer if you don't believe what he does.

 

2. Tebow blew through his $2.5 million signing bonus on various worldwide charity organizations focusing on famine, education and home-building in 24 hours last year.

 

If you don't like Christianity that's fine you don't have to, but to say he isn't a GREAT kid that helps people and doesn't just talk about it but goes out and walks his talks --your a fool.

1.) That's inherently woven into his belief system, as his missionary work attests to. Proselytizing to "save" by influencing and persuading with an attached message of "or else."

 

2.) That's great. It would be even better if that selfless giving wasn't coupled with an omnipresent pursuit of manipulating the mindset of other human beings. Which brings under scrutiny that idea of "selfless." Was it done simply to help those in need, or to propagate what he himself holds up as his primary objective?

 

A little advice: If you're going to call someone a fool, you're going to want to make sure you articulate yourself properly. I don't own anything called "a fool." Thanks for your thoughts, though

 

(Any time anyone wants to move this discussion to the proper forum I'll be happy to take it up there. I'd let it go, but I'm not going to let a derogatory comment about my intelligence go unanswered.)

 

I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate here. First off, your rebuttals are like wading through mud. Stringing a bunch of big words together doesn't make your point any more valid or make you seem any more intelligent, especially when the writing has no flow whatsoever.

 

1. Again, you're making a broad assumption based on your perception of a certain belief system. People don't necessarily believe every single aspect of a philosophy, religion, etc. And if he hasn't come out directly and said so (as you've admitted), you're criticizing him for what exactly... thinking it? So... you essentially dislike a certain individual based on what he thinks/believes. Hm. I'll let you figure out where I'm going with that point, since you're good at reading minds.

 

2. Awkward phrase aside, this is one point I do not understand. First, I don't get the idea that Tebow is trying to manipulate anyone. He's worn his beliefs on his sleeve, that's for sure, and it gets a lot of media attention, but that means he's being manipulative? Second, if we're going to call that manipulative, show me someone who isn't manipulative? Walk into any lecture hall in any University, any board room in any business or campaign office, etc. and tell me they're not trying to "manipulate" you too. Guess what? No matter what philosophy you subscribe to, people are trying to change your mind about anything and everything, all the time. About the latest science findings, about what to buy, about who to vote for... I could list off for hours. If you were that adamant about not being persuaded or manipulated, you wouldn't be happy with anything or anyone. Everyone pushes their own agenda in one way or another, don't be naive.

 

And reading your above posts, I find it funny when people bash religion for being corrupt, for being a primary factor in the cause of millions of deaths, etc. Are these things true? Absolutely. But businesses are corrupt, politics are corrupt, and so is just about any other institution you can think of. And all of them have led to many deaths at certain times. Philosophy itself is guilty of everything you're accusing religion of. Hitler had a philosophy too, and look at how many deaths that led to (Yes, Hitler by default was Christian, but let's be honest here, he had his own twisted sense of morality, justice, and idealism and claimed Germany as the only God). So did Stalin, who claimed that religion was a drug that blinded the masses. Again, millions of deaths. Are you then proposing that we condemn philosophy because people can abuse it? Should we abandon business, government, etc. because they can be corrupted?

 

Like anything else, none of these is inherently corrupt or evil. It's the people who abuse them that are - it comes down to human nature. That same human nature can be used to do incredible acts of good. Philosophy, religion, etc. has been used by people like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and many others to do incredible and beautiful things. There are two edges to the sword, and it depends on who wields it.

 

That's my rant. So get real - the kid does his best to better his life and the lives of others and he "sticks to his guns" just like you do. When there are people like Stalin, or people who rape and murder and shoot up schools and office buildings, criticizing someone who isn't hurting anyone - whether you agree with him or not - is f'ing ridiculous. Get off your intellectual, pompous high horse and open your eyes.

[ladyhawke]

Haters gonna hate and will go to any means to defend their position.

 

Rex and Tebow are both good men and role models. Enough said.

Ok..where DID that steak picture come from!!! Is it a restaurant photo? If so tell me where I can get that delicious looking beef! lol

Omaha Steaks--Flatiron cut

Thanks!

[Hammerhead]

Not until Rex has eye black with "REX 3:16" painted in white over the top.

[JJ Husker]

Seems the name Tebow IS polarizing even when you stipulate.....

[Nebula]

I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate here. First off, your rebuttals are like wading through mud. Stringing a bunch of big words together doesn't make your point any more valid or make you seem any more intelligent, especially when the writing has no flow whatsoever.

 

1. Again, you're making a broad assumption based on your perception of a certain belief system. People don't necessarily believe every single aspect of a philosophy, religion, etc. And if he hasn't come out directly and said so (as you've admitted), you're criticizing him for what exactly... thinking it? So... you essentially dislike a certain individual based on what he thinks/believes. Hm. I'll let you figure out where I'm going with that point, since you're good at reading minds.

 

2. Awkward phrase aside, this is one point I do not understand. First, I don't get the idea that Tebow is trying to manipulate anyone. He's worn his beliefs on his sleeve, that's for sure, and it gets a lot of media attention, but that means he's being manipulative? Second, if we're going to call that manipulative, show me someone who isn't manipulative? Walk into any lecture hall in any University, any board room in any business or campaign office, etc. and tell me they're not trying to "manipulate" you too. Guess what? No matter what philosophy you subscribe to, people are trying to change your mind about anything and everything, all the time. About the latest science findings, about what to buy, about who to vote for... I could list off for hours. If you were that adamant about not being persuaded or manipulated, you wouldn't be happy with anything or anyone. Everyone pushes their own agenda in one way or another, don't be naive.

 

And reading your above posts, I find it funny when people bash religion for being corrupt, for being a primary factor in the cause of millions of deaths, etc. Are these things true? Absolutely. But businesses are corrupt, politics are corrupt, and so is just about any other institution you can think of. And all of them have led to many deaths at certain times. Philosophy itself is guilty of everything you're accusing religion of. Hitler had a philosophy too, and look at how many deaths that led to (Yes, Hitler by default was Christian, but let's be honest here, he had his own twisted sense of morality, justice, and idealism and claimed Germany as the only God). So did Stalin, who claimed that religion was a drug that blinded the masses. Again, millions of deaths. Are you then proposing that we condemn philosophy because people can abuse it? "if you Should we abandon business, government, etc. because they can be corrupted?

 

Like anything else, none of these is inherently corrupt or evil. It's the people who abuse them that are - it comes down to human nature. That same human nature can be used to do incredible acts of good. Philosophy, religion, etc. has been used by people like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and many others to do incredible and beautiful things. There are two edges to the sword, and it depends on who wields it.

 

That's my rant. So get real - the kid does his best to better his life and the lives of others and he "sticks to his guns" just like you do. When there are people like Stalin, or people who rape and murder and shoot up schools and office buildings, criticizing someone who isn't hurting anyone - whether you agree with him or not - is f'ing ridiculous. Get off your intellectual, pompous high horse and open your eyes.

 

First of all, I've got to say that reading your words is like experiencing a warm gentle massage with fifty delicate yet strong fingers deftly running across my spine with an orgasmic, almost transcendental effect. I stand humbled and almost liberated by your majesty. Kudos! (In all seriousness though, where are all these "big words" you're referencing? I'm starting to grow pretty concerned about the state of our educational system...)

 

The main gist of your post, as far as I understand it, is that, "sure, religion has been at the epicenter of certain tragic events throughout human history but so has everything else." Everything else being...every institution ever constructed by mankind. So you seem to be encouraging me to merely accept that, and refrain from dissenting because it's an exercise in futility. I refuse to do that. I believe humanity is capable of more, regardless of whether human history offers multiple examples to the contrary. We have evolved in many ways. I think we are capable of moving further. And one of the key ways that we may arrive at that evolution is to actively combat those things which divide us, separate us, cordon us off and lead us into conflict. You can say whatever you want in your pursuit of being a "Devil's Advocate," but there is irrefutable evidence that religion has been one of the primary engines that run the machinery of war. When you have Islamic parents actively strapping up their own children with explosive devices and shuttling them out the door to maim and kill innocent people, it's pretty evident what religion can be capable of. I think, just maybe, it's time for humanity to acknowledge that and combat that.

 

You flatter me, but I must confess that I am not capable of reading minds. And I don't have to. The pursuit of missionary work is to spread a philosophy, a belief system, and a direct result of that endeavor is to alter the mindsets of people, to change (manipulate) what they believe. That in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. If you are encouraging people to drop misogynistic tendencies or to no longer discriminate (and massacre) based upon, say, a Tutsi lineage, than I am all for that. What I am not supportive of is the fear aspect. When you couple your message with the idea that "if you don't believe this your soul is doomed," I've got a problem with that. Particularly in regards to the manner in which that ideology further acts as a separating device. When you embrace that ideology a direct consequence is that you also demonize those who do not fall lockstep in line with that belief you now champion. And history shows that when you separate into those opposing camps, conflict follows. I'd like to move past that. I don't know if it's possible, but I believe the pursuit is worthy.

 

You reference Stalin more than once. I'm not sure how the atrocities committed by someone displaying the symptoms of a paranoid schizophrenic helps you make your point.

 

Are you then proposing that we condemn philosophy because people can abuse it? "if you Should we abandon business, government, etc. because they can be corrupted?

 

Well said. But yes, I am proposing that we condemn the philosophies which divide us, and embrace schools of thought that unify humanity under one banner in the aim of making this world better for everyone, not just those who share your religious predilections. And there is nothing you could offer me that would dissuade me from believing in the merit of that goal.

[nebraskaart]

Puke!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEaItTzvDUA&feature=relmfu

 

[BIG ERN]

Tebow now 6-1 as a starter. Haters gonna hate.

 

Nebula can't get over the fact that he clothes kids, feeds kids, educates kids, and shelters kids. All bad things according to him because Tebow is a Christian. AHAHA what an argument!

[Captain Hindsight]

Best Halloween costume ever!

 

 

LOFL

[Marf]

Nebraska will never have a Tebow.

 

Tebow is a Suh-like anomaly. A disturbance in the force, if you will. He does nothing but win games and eat babies. Usually in that order, but not always.

[huzkerbob]

No it's Suh who eats babies, Tebow is the one saving them. Haven't you been watching ESPN?

 

Tebow = Suh =

[TheCheshireCat]

experiencing a warm gentle massage with fifty delicate yet strong fingers deftly running across my spine with an orgasmic, almost transcendental effect.

 

Case in point about no flow.

 

 

irrefutable evidence that religion has been one of the primary engines that run the machinery of war

 

Agreed. However, I could make the same argument for money or holding a position of power. Do you have a moral stance against money as well?

 

And further, the death toll for WWII was around 49 million. Cause: one man's personal philosophy and us-vs.-them ideology. Since you mentioned the crusades, the estimated death toll for the first crusade on Jerusalem was 40,000. Hm. I agree fully that religion can lead to large death tolls, but so can a non-religious philosophy. So can greed for money or power. If you have a moral stance against high death tolls, get some perspective and see that religion is just one slice of the pie.

 

 

I am proposing that we condemn the philosophies which divide us, and embrace schools of thought that unify humanity under one banner in the aim of making this world better for everyone, not just those who share your religious predilections

So you're criticizing religions for only caring for just those "who share...religious predilections" and yet you would like to condemn those philosophies that "divide us." Said differently, you want to get rid of any form of thought that opposes yours... wow. And you also propose we embrace schools of thought that unify humanity under one banner. Okay Hitler. Whose banner? Yours? The people who think like you do? Your propositions are laughable. You are no different than the zealous religious people you criticize. You despise someone who doesn't think like you do, you propose that we get rid of any mode of thought that doesn't fit your definition of unity. That is the exact same thing, just at the other end of the spectrum. Congratulations.

 

open mind in terms of legitimately considering another perspective outside of the one you rigidly subscribe to

you don't even see the other side of the argument. Your coin has one face, your perception one narrow tunnel of light through which a limited number of ideas may be illuminated for your appraisal.

 

followed by:

 

And there is nothing you could offer me that would dissuade me from believing in the merit of that goal.

 

 

The icing on the cake, and just another example of how you are no different from other narrow-minded fanatics, religious or otherwise.

[Nebula]

Case in point about no flow.

 

Some people like my writing style, others don't. I certainly won't lose any sleep knowing you're in the latter camp. Continue to harp on it if you like, just know that you're not hurting my feelings if that's your intent.

 

Agreed. However, I could make the same argument for money or holding a position of power. Do you have a moral stance against money as well?

 

Currency is what is. The world is deeply wrapped in economic influence, and that much seems inescapable. If decisions are made with the bottom line as a focal point and the resulting consequences involve situations like the Union Carbide disaster and the widespread kill off of the ocean floor off the Atlanatic then yeah, morally I wish our priorities were in a different place. I don't have any solutions to that, but I find it regrettable that money seems held high as the primary focus of so much of what we do as a species. Any chance of that changing? Probably not.

 

So you're criticizing religions for only caring for just those "who share...religious predilections" and yet you would like to condemn those philosophies that "divide us." Said differently, you want to get rid of any form of thought that opposes yours... wow. And you also propose we embrace schools of thought that unify humanity under one banner. Okay Hitler. Whose banner? Yours? The people who think like you do? Your propositions are laughable. You are no different than the zealous religious people you criticize. You despise someone who doesn't think like you do, you propose that we get rid of any mode of thought that doesn't fit your definition of unity. That is the exact same thing, just at the other end of the spectrum. Congratulations.

 

I enjoyed when you called me Hitler, truly. But yes, again, I find fault with any philosophy that involves an aspect of "either you're with us, or you're the enemy, the infidel." Considering that humanity has been at war since basically the dawn of civilization I think it would be wise, in the interest of self-preservation, to try and make a break from the things that continue to divide us as a species and lead us to devote vast percentages of resources, time, and intellect towards creating newer and more effective means of killing as many people as possible. This spans beyond religion. We do this through violence stemming from differences in racial lineage, cultural backrounds, yes, religion, ect. My form of thought is, "is it possible to break away from the things have led us to a world in which submersibles sit off of coasts with payloads capable of destroying the planet many times over?" Call it naive, call it a pipedream, call it whatever. I'm certainly not so egotistical as to think I have any grand solution ready to set forth. That would be asinine and incredibly self-absorbed. I'd sure like to hope that maybe we can avoid a future in which the violence never ends. I'm not going to apologize for that. I hope we can defy the odds and somehow make that happen. I won't hold my breath, but I also won't stop dreaming of a world in which that becomes possible.

 

But yes, I am proposing that we condemn the philosophies which divide us, and embrace schools of thought that unify humanity under one banner in the aim of making this world better for everyone, not just those who share your religious predilections. And there is nothing you could offer me that would dissuade me from believing in the merit of that goal.

 

I never said I have the answer to what that school of thought may be, but were it constructed by people smarter than I, and the result of which created a world where we actually made strides in fighting famine, fighting the subjugation of women in parts of the world, made it so that we could somehow craft a world in which Sunnis didn't look to slaugher Kurds, ethnic cleansing didn't take place in Bosnia and Rwanda and Germany (and on and on and on) then I would most certainly embrace it. I might be getting into the realm of unshowered hippie talk here, but if it were in any way possible to craft a workable universal sort of pro-SPECIES philosophy, I'd throw the full weight of my support behind it, and most certainly would view it as a pursuit with merit.

 

ALL of that said...yeah, the way I phrased things had a definite tinge of hypocrisy to it. By criticizing those who "demonize," I demonized. Could have been articulated better, rather than rallying behind a pulpit of righteous indignation (ha!), and that's something I should pay heed to when wading down these waters. Thank you for helping me acknowledge that, even if it was phrased acidically. (Legitimately. I always hope to improve myself. It would behoove me to take note of the vitriol I seem to have towards religion. Perhaps I need to ponder that further, to form a better more reasoned opinon on the matter as a whole.)

 

And it has to be said: Tebow wins again. It's getting hard to deny that the kid has an uncanny knack of rallying his team and making plays when they need them most. I might not like some things about him but dammit...he is stating his case pretty loudly that he belongs out there.