HuffPost Editorial - Nebraska: Fire Assistant Football Coach Ron Brown

['SkersRule]

Ron Brown is a good man and although I fundamentally disagree with him regarding religion he is a nearly perfect football coach.

[Enhance]

Yay political correctness.

[Muck]

Two weeks ago I listened to him speak. He made sure this time he said he is NOT representing the University while he was speaking, and did so with a wry smile on his face. He was very serious (imagine that) and spoke about what he said and that he still believes homosexuality is a sin. He then read the passage of the Bible that stated this. He also made it clear he is not "for" discriminating or preaching any hate or aggression towards anyone. He says this is very black and white.

 

Which passage did he read? If it was Leviticus 20 it goes on to state that they (homosexuals) should be put to death.

 

Kind of hard to claim it is black & white but that you are not preaching aggression towards anyone in that context.

 

BTW was he wearing clothing woven from two kinds of materials? That is also forbidden in the same book.

[knapplc]

Which passage did he read? If it was Leviticus 20 it goes on to state that they (homosexuals) should be put to death.

 

Kind of hard to claim it is black & white but that you are not preaching aggression towards anyone in that context.

 

BTW was he wearing clothing woven from two kinds of materials? That is also forbidden in the same book.

 

An illustration of why it's particularly frustrating to see "the religious" going after homosexuals/homosexuality. Leviticus lists several hundred things which are forbidden, yet homosexuality is the one they focus on. It would be comical if there were no ramifications.

[Saunders]

Huffington Post = Foxnews.

 

Yawn.

[Landlord]

Which passage did he read? If it was Leviticus 20 it goes on to state that they (homosexuals) should be put to death.

 

Kind of hard to claim it is black & white but that you are not preaching aggression towards anyone in that context.

 

BTW was he wearing clothing woven from two kinds of materials? That is also forbidden in the same book.

 

An illustration of why it's particularly frustrating to see "the religious" going after homosexuals/homosexuality. Leviticus lists several hundred things which are forbidden, yet homosexuality is the one they focus on. It would be comical if there were no ramifications.

 

 

So what if he referenced Romans 1 instead?

[Minnesota_husker]

I have had the chance to meet Ron Brown and he spoke to one of my Journalism classes. One of the most powerful speaking men I have ever had the pleasure to meet.

 

Idont know his opinion on everything, especially involving homosexuals but i would be IRATE if they fired this great man.

[knapplc]

Which passage did he read? If it was Leviticus 20 it goes on to state that they (homosexuals) should be put to death.

 

Kind of hard to claim it is black & white but that you are not preaching aggression towards anyone in that context.

 

BTW was he wearing clothing woven from two kinds of materials? That is also forbidden in the same book.

 

An illustration of why it's particularly frustrating to see "the religious" going after homosexuals/homosexuality. Leviticus lists several hundred things which are forbidden, yet homosexuality is the one they focus on. It would be comical if there were no ramifications.

 

 

So what if he referenced Romans 1 instead?

 

How would that change the fact that he would be focusing on one part of the Bible and not the rest?

[Excel]

Which passage did he read? If it was Leviticus 20 it goes on to state that they (homosexuals) should be put to death.

 

Kind of hard to claim it is black & white but that you are not preaching aggression towards anyone in that context.

 

BTW was he wearing clothing woven from two kinds of materials? That is also forbidden in the same book.

 

An illustration of why it's particularly frustrating to see "the religious" going after homosexuals/homosexuality. Leviticus lists several hundred things which are forbidden, yet homosexuality is the one they focus on. It would be comical if there were no ramifications.

 

 

So what if he referenced Romans 1 instead?

 

How would that change the fact that he would be focusing on one part of the Bible and not the rest?

 

He'll make the argument that because it (Romans) is from the New Testament its applicable to Christians while laws and prohibitions from the Old Testament (Leviticus and the laws of which you speak) no longer apply since the coming of Jesus. That's why he's comfortable with getting tattoos and why...if we expand that logic...we should be completely ok with bestiality..you know...since its only mentioned in the Old Testament...

 

Now I agree that we're not bound by all the laws of the ancient Jews as Jesus himself said however I like to focus my faith on what Jesus actually preached. (HINT: its often the bit in red ink)

I'm a Christian, not a Paul-ian. I respect Paul and there is much to learn from him but we are not bound by his word.

 

Landlord, don't you think that if Homosexuality was such an egregiousness error in the eyes of the Lord it would be mentioned a little more often in the Bible? I dunno, I just tend to think that when something is omitted its omitted for a reason.

[Landlord]

How would that change the fact that he would be focusing on one part of the Bible and not the rest?

 

It wouldn't, but as Bucky pointed out, it would change the rationale that critics have to use to discount what he's saying. Is it always irresponsible to focus on one part of the Bible and not the rest? I was just giving a hypothetical anyways, I'm sure Coach Brown doesn't use one Bible verse as his entire platform on this issue.

 

 

He'll make the argument that because it (Romans) is from the New Testament its applicable to Christians while laws and prohibitions from the Old Testament (Leviticus and the laws of which you speak) no longer apply since the coming of Jesus. That's why he's comfortable with getting tattoos and why...if we expand that logic...we should be completely ok with bestiality..you know...since its only mentioned in the Old Testament...

 

Now I agree that we're not bound by all the laws of the ancient Jews as Jesus himself said however I like to focus my faith on what Jesus actually preached. (HINT: its often the bit in red ink)

I'm a Christian, not a Paul-ian. I respect Paul and there is much to learn from him but we are not bound by his word.

 

Landlord, don't you think that if Homosexuality was such an egregiousness error in the eyes of the Lord it would be mentioned a little more often in the Bible? I dunno, I just tend to think that when something is omitted its omitted for a reason.

 

Even though there are a number of scripture references about homosexuality itself, I think there are plenty more that support the same position; namely the dozens of times that marriage (between men and women) is illustrated or mentiond. I'm no Paul-ian either, but Jesus gave those that followed Him their authority - so what am I to do with Paul's writings and teachings? Believe them, reject them, or ignore them...I hold the belief that two of those options are incompatible with Jesus' teachings and God's word sans Paul.

 

Anyways, only following Christ's life and teachings, you can still arrive at the same conclusions regarding homosexuality. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees are asking Jesus about divorce, to which He responds:

 

"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”....Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

 

In His response, Jesus went back to God's intended plan for marriage. Male and female participants, leaving the father and mother for practicality, becoming one flesh as a purpose, the prohibition of what God has joined together and the principle of his desire for marriage to be as it was "from the beginning". This doesn't seem to leave any room for a. male-male or female-female marriages and b. male-male or female-female sexual relations, since such things outside of marriage are also sinful (at the very least, in the form of adultery and fornication, if not in the form of pre-marital affairs as well) as Jesus teaches and/or alludes to in Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:28 and Matthew 19:18 to start.

 

I'm not on some anti-gay soap box here; I hope I'm not coming across as such. It just happens to be a topic of conversation right now and I've inputted my thoughts and you guys have responded. As I've mentioned previously in another thread, I have no hatred or agenda against homosexuals - quite the opposite in fact. I cringe at the knowledge of how the church by and large has handled this issue for so long.

[Excel]

There's no debating that Jesus and other sources in the Bible do outline marriage and I agree with you, you can arrive at the same conclusion that you can with Paul's epistles. My point is that it, like many other social issues today, shouldn't be the cornerstone of one's faith. I'd expect most Christians to have very little energy to expend on them if they are really spending their time following the teachings of Christ by preaching his message and helping those in need.

 

That's why I dislike these "christian" movements you see today that spend so much time and money fighting abortion and gay marriage because it makes me wonder what they're neglecting. I think they're more political groups than they are churches and their leaders aren't Christians, they're just sheisters looking for notoriety and money and they attract followers because

 

1. Some people, especially the young people, like to feel they're apart of some kind of radical, society shaking change. The same reason you see kids join gangs or other political movements.

2. Some people, the older, less successful bitter ones, like to fight a society or groups of people they feel have cheated them or are more successful/happy than them. They also like finding something that they can lord over others.

3. A third group of people are turned off by traditional churches, entrenched in tradition and dogma, seek a new path to Christ and are simply misled.

 

So anyhow, Landlord, personally I agree with you that in the eyes of the lord, homosexuality is a sin. To what degree I don't pretend to know but to me, in relation to what else is discussed in the scriptures, it doesn't appear to warrant the amount of attention it gets from Christians today.

 

Politically I think that homosexuals have a right to marry and women to a point, have a right to seek abortions.

On a personal level I think both are wrong...I wouldn't participate in a homosexual act or give a woman an abortion...

[T_O_Bull]

I officially nominate myself to travel to where this idiot lives and sternfully fill the back of his throat with my size 14 boot.

 

Whoa Acct... Not until he puckers up and kisses both the cheeks of my a$$, although I have to think my a$$ won't let me get it within 10 feet of this jerk.

T_O_B

[Excel]

I looked into the authors background...he was an athlete alright... Ultimate frisby at Stanford

[Landlord]

There's no debating that Jesus and other sources in the Bible do outline marriage and I agree with you, you can arrive at the same conclusion that you can with Paul's epistles. My point is that it, like many other social issues today, shouldn't be the cornerstone of one's faith. I'd expect most Christians to have very little energy to expend on them if they are really spending their time following the teachings of Christ by preaching his message and helping those in need.

 

That's why I dislike these "christian" movements you see today that spend so much time and money fighting abortion and gay marriage because it makes me wonder what they're neglecting. I think they're more political groups than they are churches and their leaders aren't Christians, they're just sheisters looking for notoriety and money and they attract followers because

 

1. Some people, especially the young people, like to feel they're apart of some kind of radical, society shaking change. The same reason you see kids join gangs or other political movements.

2. Some people, the older, less successful bitter ones, like to fight a society or groups of people they feel have cheated them or are more successful/happy than them. They also like finding something that they can lord over others.

3. A third group of people are turned off by traditional churches, entrenched in tradition and dogma, seek a new path to Christ and are simply misled.

 

So anyhow, Landlord, personally I agree with you that in the eyes of the lord, homosexuality is a sin. To what degree I don't pretend to know but to me, in relation to what else is discussed in the scriptures, it doesn't appear to warrant the amount of attention it gets from Christians today.

 

Politically I think that homosexuals have a right to marry and women to a point, have a right to seek abortions.

On a personal level I think both are wrong...I wouldn't participate in a homosexual act or give a woman an abortion...

 

 

I appreciate you going into that in-depth. As usual, it seems we agree completely. You're very observant and cognizant of the different, non-Christ centered reasons that people get involved in these things, but I would ask you where the line is supposed to be drawn? While there are certainly no shortage of groups and people who put too much of an emphasis on topics such as these, they are still important things to address, are they not? If abortion is murder, I'd think that we definitely need to speak and act against it. Couldn't you take your same "don't sweat the small stuff" mentality to the extreme and not worry about feeding the starving or housing the homeless as well, all in the name of focusing on Christ more? If the primary purpose of an organization is a minor issue, yeah I have a problem, but if a church or other organization who's primary capacity is the gospel is trying to represent the truth of Christ through these issues...well, I think that's just being responsible.

 

I agree entirely with your second bolded statement, and have often said something nearly identical myself. I don't broadcast it much, though, because my brothers and sisters at this conservative campus don't seem to react very well to it.

[Excel]

There's no debating that Jesus and other sources in the Bible do outline marriage and I agree with you, you can arrive at the same conclusion that you can with Paul's epistles. My point is that it, like many other social issues today, shouldn't be the cornerstone of one's faith. I'd expect most Christians to have very little energy to expend on them if they are really spending their time following the teachings of Christ by preaching his message and helping those in need.

 

That's why I dislike these "christian" movements you see today that spend so much time and money fighting abortion and gay marriage because it makes me wonder what they're neglecting. I think they're more political groups than they are churches and their leaders aren't Christians, they're just sheisters looking for notoriety and money and they attract followers because

 

1. Some people, especially the young people, like to feel they're apart of some kind of radical, society shaking change. The same reason you see kids join gangs or other political movements.

2. Some people, the older, less successful bitter ones, like to fight a society or groups of people they feel have cheated them or are more successful/happy than them. They also like finding something that they can lord over others.

3. A third group of people are turned off by traditional churches, entrenched in tradition and dogma, seek a new path to Christ and are simply misled.

 

So anyhow, Landlord, personally I agree with you that in the eyes of the lord, homosexuality is a sin. To what degree I don't pretend to know but to me, in relation to what else is discussed in the scriptures, it doesn't appear to warrant the amount of attention it gets from Christians today.

 

Politically I think that homosexuals have a right to marry and women to a point, have a right to seek abortions.

On a personal level I think both are wrong...I wouldn't participate in a homosexual act or give a woman an abortion...

 

 

I appreciate you going into that in-depth. As usual, it seems we agree completely. You're very observant and cognizant of the different, non-Christ centered reasons that people get involved in these things, but I would ask you where the line is supposed to be drawn? While there are certainly no shortage of groups and people who put too much of an emphasis on topics such as these, they are still important things to address, are they not?² If abortion is murder, I'd think that we definitely need to speak and act against it. Couldn't you take your same "don't sweat the small stuff" mentality to the extreme and not worry about feeding the starving or housing the homeless as well, all in the name of focusing on Christ more?¹ If the primary purpose of an organization is a minor issue, yeah I have a problem, but if a church or other organization who's primary capacity is the gospel is trying to represent the truth of Christ through these issues...well, I think that's just being responsible.

 

I agree entirely with your second bolded statement, and have often said something nearly identical myself. I don't broadcast it much, though, because my brothers and sisters at this conservative campus don't seem to react very well to it.

 

1. Errr short answer, no. At least not for me. People do it sure but I still think its wrong, for whatever reason.

2. Yes they are important to address and when people ask me my personal opinion I tell them as much but I'm not going to spend my time and money on it. There are many more important things to expend my resources on and I personally believe that the goals of many religious groups that work on them, if they were to be reached, would conflict pretty directly with Constitutional rights. I won't get started on abortion...it's a complicated issue and I could fill an entire thread. To be brief I think that it should be legal in certain cases, and that it, along with several other avenues of contraception, play an important part in our Society. Theologically yea, I get it, onanism, murder and all that but realistically things would not be bueno if they were completely done away with.