The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[Landlord]

lo country, I'm pretty sure Christianity takes a lot of heat because they dish out a lot. How many other religions have had millions of death done in it's name? How many other religions went on crusades? How many other religions have had so much hate and vitriol spread around in the name of Christ and 'God's will'?

 

I'm not a theological expert, but my basic of understanding of world history and historical religious history is that Christianity is by far and away completely responsible for the criticism it gets.

 

What history witnessed with the crusades was not Christianity. I will not argue theologies or doctrine as to what was the cause, but rest assured it was not Christianity.

What exactly is the Catholic Church then?

 

 

The answer is nuts.

[knapplc]

lo country, I'm pretty sure Christianity takes a lot of heat because they dish out a lot. How many other religions have had millions of death done in it's name? How many other religions went on crusades? How many other religions have had so much hate and vitriol spread around in the name of Christ and 'God's will'?

 

I'm not a theological expert, but my basic of understanding of world history and historical religious history is that Christianity is by far and away completely responsible for the criticism it gets.

 

What history witnessed with the crusades was not Christianity. I will not argue theologies or doctrine as to what was the cause, but rest assured it was not Christianity.

But the people on the crusade said it was, and many of the crusades were ordered by the pope at the time. So by definition it was Christianity, regardless of what some modern people want to think and rewrite history.

 

And the crusades are hardly the only case in which Christians have been guilty of hate, violence or other sorts of evil in the name of god. We can go through some major points over the last several hundred years if you really like.

 

That depends. If I wear OU shirts, cheer when OU scores a TD and beats Nebraska, yet call myself a Husker fan, would you really believe I'm a Husker fan?

 

In much the same way, a religion whose VAST majority of teachings focus on peace, understanding, love for your neighbor, etc, being used as an excuse for the Crusades doesn't mean that religion is to blame. MAN is to blame.

 

I said much the same thing in this debate when I identified as a Christian. If I walk up to you and punch you in the jaw and say, "I did this in the name of lo country," are you going to be pissed at lo country, or are you going to be pissed at knapplc? I sure as heck hope you'd hold me accountable - lo doesn't advocate punching people for no good reason.

 

Christianity can't be held responsible for the wrongs committed in its name any more than America can be held responsible for the mass murder inflicted in Afghanistan a month ago by one of our servicemen. It's anathema to us - we abhor such crimes, and have laws against them. It is unfair for Afghanis to blame all of us for the wrongs of one of us. But they will, just like Christians will be blamed - wrongly - for the Crusades, or for the Inquisition, or whatever other evil was done in the name of their god.

 

Islam doesn't condone flying planes full of innocent victims into buildings. Christianity doesn't condone rounding up Muslims and gunning them down into ditches. Let's be better than to fall into the trap of believing the worst of our neighbor because someone put a label on behavior THEY should own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And tangentially, Atheists/Agnostics cannot help but blame MANKIND for any wrong, perpetuated by any man, anywhere. All religions are an invention of Man. You cannot blame the pacifist Christian or Muslim for the wrongs of all men. All men are to blame for "wrongs." We are the ones - we, the humans - who come up with this stuff. What does it matter what label we put on it?

[knapplc]

What exactly is the Catholic Church then?

 

 

The answer is nuts.

 

 

[walksalone]

arguments over religion = who has the best imaginary friend

[It'sNotAFakeID]

What exactly is the Catholic Church then?

 

 

The answer is nuts.

 

 

 

Wrong nuts

 

[bhamHusker]

[Enhance]

lo country, I'm pretty sure Christianity takes a lot of heat because they dish out a lot. How many other religions have had millions of death done in it's name? How many other religions went on crusades? How many other religions have had so much hate and vitriol spread around in the name of Christ and 'God's will'?

 

I'm not a theological expert, but my basic of understanding of world history and historical religious history is that Christianity is by far and away completely responsible for the criticism it gets.

 

What history witnessed with the crusades was not Christianity. I will not argue theologies or doctrine as to what was the cause, but rest assured it was not Christianity.

People did those things in the name of God, Jesus Christ, etc., though, which is a direct reflection on Christianity. Christianity obviously isn't about spreading hate, but people at the time used their positions of power with the church to advance what can't really be called anything other than politics. Often, these things were blessed by the Pope himself.

 

I'm not saying every person who calls himself Christian is responsible for the death of millions, no more than I'm saying every Muslim is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. However, there's quite literally no way of debating the historical facts - those atrocities were done in the name of "God", as in the Christian God. I don't hold this against Christians, however, because those things were done by man, not by a God or an ideal. An ideal doesn't do anything - only the people who take it and run with it do.

 

I'm merely pointing this out to say this is why Christianity takes a lot more heat than other religions. Couple this with the fact that it's the most popular religion in this country, and the one most integrated into our society, it makes it an easy target. Is it fair? Of course not.

[Vuren]

If every Christian religion approached it like this, there wouldn't be any problems.

 

Well, except where you view one man living a wonderful, godly life in wedlock with a woman and another man marrying another man as sinning in every loving moment they share.

 

You don't have to accept it, of course, just pointing out a problem with your portrayal of that approach as an end-all, be-all approach for Christians.

 

I suppose what I am saying is a Christian religion that teaches the act of homosexuality is not a sin and not to be viewed in the same light as adultery or drunkenness, then there wouldn't be a problem here.

 

A Christian religion that teaches the act of homosexuality is not a sin is a compromise and conformity to a world-view not found in scripture - it might seem nice but it would be a heretical teaching. At any rate, he is right, there wouldn't be any problems. Reason being, the Christians would still have the same beliefs about homosexuality, but based on scriptural precedent would not impose laws or restrictions to try and prevent sin but would leave people to be self-controlled and would only self-regulate within the church. The homosexuals can go on living their lives as they see fit, as can the Christians.

 

 

I personally DON'T believe there is a difference between any two different sins - homosexuality included.  

 

So are you saying that committing homicide and working on the Sabbath are equally immoral?

 

Working on the Sabbath is not a sin - otherwise Jesus would be sinful. The sin lies in being too busy to allot time for rest and focus on your relationship with Jesus.

 

Anyways, as far as your question, there are two answers. Both are acts of disobedience towards God, considered sin and equally as damning - the penalty for sin is death, not just a measure of death depending on how bad it is. However, scripture consistently paints a picture that some sins, particularly those committed against other people, are to be dealt with more severely and taken more seriously than others.

4th commandment Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[walksalone]

Jesus, not a fan of the butt sex...

[Landlord]

4th commandment Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

 

Are you aware of the difference between new and old covenants? And Jesus' teachings about the Sabbath?

[zoogs]

I'm for sure not and would appreciate any enlightenment you could offer in that area.

[knapplc]

Jesus was the New Covenant between God and man. Jesus' point in coming was to embody the covenant, take on the role of man, and fulfill man's obligation to that covenant, since man could not. He then became the "perfect sacrifice" after completing a life and ministry in concordance with that covenant, thus absolving those who believe of their sins. - that's the elevator-pitch version.

 

Specifically regarding the Sabbath, as the "New Covenant," Jesus changed the laws regarding six-on/one-off.

 

 

 

Mark 2: 23 - Mark 3: 5

 

Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath

 

²³ One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. ²⁴ The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

²⁵ He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? ²⁶ In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

²⁷ Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. ²⁸ So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Jesus Heals on the Sabbath

 

3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. ² Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. ³ Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

⁴ Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

⁵ He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. ⁶ Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

[Saunders]

What exactly is the Catholic Church then?

 

 

The answer is nuts.

 

 

I think this is what he meant...

 

 

GeneralAnthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe (July 2, 1898 – August 11, 1975) was the United States Army general who commanded the101st Airborne Division troops defending Bastogne, Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. He is famous for his single-word reply to a German surrender ultimatum: "Nuts!"

 

http://en.wikipedia....thony_McAuliffe

[knapplc]

Love that story about McAuliffe.

 

MORE

[da skers]

Forgive me if this has been covered. I started to read this thread after linking from the locked thread in the football area. I got to page five and saw it was ten pages long and since it was mostly regarding the debate on Gays vs. the bible and not really Ron Brown I skipped to the last two pages and they were clean.

 

To the poster from the football section. Yes there is a rumor going around that seems to have some pretty good teeth that Harvey Pearlman has indicated if Ron Brown speaks at the Lincoln city council he will be fired. Tom and Bo have both stated that Brown should be allowed to express his views as long as its clear he doesn't represent UNL the football team or anyone else but himself. They have based this on how he's been allowed to give speeches, hold men's assemblies, and his multiple TV and Radio shows regarding his faith with zero issue from anyone at UNL.

 

Though I have not personally seen the email or chat logs there seems to be some indications that after Pearlman discussed this with TO and they differed in opinions that Pearlman has sent out feelers to several booster to see how "popular" it would be to fire Brown.

 

The last two days there has been much discussion about this with several of the boosters I have communications with and while HP has not contacted anyone of them, they seem to be very upset about this with several holding back donations until they can make sure Brown does still have a job. Of course the camp I usually communicate with doesn't exactly hold Harvey in high regard which I would gage as been about 3/4 of the major boosters. One very upset booster stated if RB was fired by Pearlman that the board of regents would be encouraged to part ways with him now instead of the 2 years they believe he will remain.