The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[Hoosker]

 

Jesus hates Giraffes?

 

I think the answer to that question is obvious.

[Landlord]

Landlord, I don't see how you can argue out of this - that faith is by definition blind. A surrender of critical examination of let's say, the Bible, or Jesus's teachings. It isn't as if you can cherry pick what you consider truth from his words, or the words of the new Testament?

 

 

My faith has not caused me to surrender any critical examination of the Bible or Jesus' teachings. In fact it's only heightened as I've grown. The only difference is that I do so deductively rather than inductively.

[tschu]

Faith = blind belief with no evidence, by definition

 

 

 

 

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another'sability.

 

 

 

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

 

 

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: thefirm faith of the Pilgrims.

 

 

 

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

 

 

 

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewishfaith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh... you were trying to be funny?

speechless

[Landlord]

Faith = blind belief with no evidence, by definition

 

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another'sability.

 

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: thefirm faith of the Pilgrims.

 

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

 

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewishfaith.

 

 

 

 

Oh... you were trying to be funny?

 

The two bold are what you're looking for, right? One definition may be more palatable, but the differences are quite slight.

 

 

 

The difference is dramatic. Science requires just as much faith as anything else, spiritual or not. Our lives are permeated by faith that we don't even acknowledge it's presence in most areas.

[johnnyrodgers20]

My question is how does he do it and only represent himself? If everyone didn't know him before this blew up they sure do now. He can tell me all he wants that his views don't represent the school but at the end of the day he's still an outspoken person in a position of leadership at the university.

 

And that's the rub. If he speaks against the Lincoln ordnance he drags the UNL name through the mud again. Now that this story has gone national he can't show up and claim to be "just Ron Brown, Citizen."

 

I have no problem with Ron Brown thinking what he thinks. But now that he's put himself out there as "Ron Brown of One Memorial Drive" he cannot continue to protest as he sees fit without disassociating himself from UNL first.

 

I hope Coach Brown has a WWJD bracelet. Because Jesus would not speak at this city council meeting against gays.

 

And how do you know what Jesus would do? Most thought at the time that he would help the pharisees and was preaching in the temples. Little did they know he would denounce them the most. Most people were shocked when he ate with prostitues and tax collectors. Who knows what Jesus would do in this situation, let alone someone who does not believe in him. You love to bring him into a discussion when it suites you, don't you.

[johnnyrodgers20]

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?

The difference is what one man does and what a very large group does reflect differently. The crusades were blessed by the popes across about two hundred years. And at the time (around 1100 AD) there were no denominations, so yeah, if the leader of your religion says its how things are... When one person behaves badly, it reflects on the man. When hundreds, thousands or millions of members of a group behave a certain way, you better believe that is a part of that group's belief system.

 

Silent members of a group who do nothing while watching others in the group preform acts against the way they think it should be, are just as guilty. Like the quote "All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."

 

The same works for Islam. When you have various clerics calling for killing people, it has the same effect.

 

Weather or not you want to say Christianity preaches hate, many, many priests and preachers do. I've seen it first hand. And this is even without all the thinly veiled threats that are listed in the bible. Hell, there is a bill board off highway 75 sb from I80 that says ""You can run but you can't hide from Me" -God" Sounds like a threat to me.

 

Just about ever religion(Buddhists get a pass here, and I don't know enough about Shinto) over the last two thousand years or so acts exactly the same when they are the dominant power in a region. Non-believers are persecuted, discriminated against, or even killed. Christian ruled lands from the middle ages to the early settlers in North America were tyrannical about enforcing religious dogma. The Middle East still is like this is many to most countries.

 

Its a sad truth of the monotheistic religions.

 

 

So you are saying all the non violent muslim who say they want peace are responsible for 9/11?

[knapplc]

I hope Coach Brown has a WWJD bracelet. Because Jesus would not speak at this city council meeting against gays.

 

And how do you know what Jesus would do? Most thought at the time that he would help the pharisees and was preaching in the temples. Little did they know he would denounce them the most. Most people were shocked when he ate with prostitues and tax collectors. Who knows what Jesus would do in this situation, let alone someone who does not believe in him. You love to bring him into a discussion when it suites you, don't you.

 

I know because I have read the Bible, extensively. I suggest you do the same. Jesus would not go to some third-party meeting and speak in favor of exclusionary laws. Jesus would sit down with LGBT and speak directly to them. He would break bread with them, he would love them, and he would call them his brothers and sisters.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I hope Coach Brown has a WWJD bracelet. Because Jesus would not speak at this city council meeting against gays.

 

And how do you know what Jesus would do? Most thought at the time that he would help the pharisees and was preaching in the temples. Little did they know he would denounce them the most. Most people were shocked when he ate with prostitues and tax collectors. Who knows what Jesus would do in this situation, let alone someone who does not believe in him. You love to bring him into a discussion when it suites you, don't you.

 

I know because I have read the Bible, extensively. I suggest you do the same. Jesus would not go to some third-party meeting and speak in favor of exclusionary laws. Jesus would sit down with LGBT and speak directly to them. He would break bread with them, he would love them, and he would call them his brothers and sisters.

 

 

I have read the bible and I believe in Jesus as the Son of God can you claim the same. And you should ask your friend Carly how well saying what you think another person would say or do would work in court.

 

I believe he would do that but he would also say go and sin no more like he did with the prostitutes, correct? I would not have a problem with your statement had it been worded I believe but to say you know is incorrect. No one can know what exactly Jesus would do on a subject like this.

[bennychico11]

 

The difference is dramatic. Science requires just as much faith as anything else, spiritual or not. Our lives are permeated by faith that we don't even acknowledge it's presence in most areas.

 

I disagree. Give me an example of something I take on faith? That I take on without evidential support. I have reasonable expectations on why I accept something. But give me something I believe in without evidence...and I'll stop believing it.

In your above definition of faith, I don't think any scientist would say "I have faith that my hypothesis will be substantiated by fact." First of all...I would say scientists look for substantiated evidence...NOT fact. Secondly, especially if you're defining faith in this context as something not based on proof (which, I think even in the scientific world they would have issues with the use of 'proof' in this sentence)...a reasonable scientist would say that he has reasonable confidence in his hypothesis because of his scientific background. Because of how he sees the scientific method/model work every day. He has his past experiences that allows him to conclude he has a good chance of getting his hypothesis supported by evidence. There's a big difference between that...and believing without evidence.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Faith = blind belief with no evidence, by definition

 

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another'sability.

 

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: thefirm faith of the Pilgrims.

 

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

 

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewishfaith.

 

 

 

 

Oh... you were trying to be funny?

 

The two bold are what you're looking for, right? One definition may be more palatable, but the differences are quite slight.

 

 

 

The difference is dramatic. Science requires just as much faith as anything else, spiritual or not. Our lives are permeated by faith that we don't even acknowledge it's presence in most areas.

 

To a certain extent it does. You hope that what you had hypothesized will be correct and in the end you usually find out if it was or not. Whenever you make a hypothesis, and really hope that that hypothesis is correct, sometimes you do things (not in the results, but in sample size and procedure and et cetera to obtain what you hoped to obtain. Does that make for good science? Nope, when you do things like that you've removed all causal interpretability from your results because you've introduced numerous confounds into your experiment.

 

That faith that drives some experiments into bad science is (in a smaller magnitude) the same faith that drives religiosity into bad places--because they are doing whatever they think is right to please their God who they believe without cause exists.

[HuskerShark]

 

Totally not true. Haven't you seen the Madagascar movies?

[EZ-E]

Ron Brown is a great coach,and entitled to his opinion.If people can't deal with it,maybe They should move on.You can't get rid of coach's everytime they have an opinion you don't like.

 

Wrong-minded on many levels. Let's review:

 

Nobody is saying he's not entitled to his opinion. In fact, in the OP, I supported Coach Brown's right to voice his opinion. The clear difference is that he - HE - continually thrusts UNL into the conversation. He did it again in his statement that he would be more proud to be fired because of his religious beliefs than because of his performance. Wait a second - why are we suddenly talking about employment? This is Ron Brown discussing his opinion on gays. Why is his employment coming into play? Because - and solely because - he put it there.

 

Next, nobody wants to get rid of a coach because we disagree with his opinion. I'm certain there are people for whom I cheer loudly, both players and coaches, who have wildly disparate religious and political views. Those views are wholly irrelevant to why I'm a fan, and I don't care what their views are or how they express them. The ONLY difference is if they wrap themselves in the cloak of UNL to espouse those views. If John Cook suddenly comes out in favor of widgets, and I'm anti-widget to the core, I'm still gonna cheer for him on game day. But if John Cook uses his position as volleyball coach to promote his widget agenda, we have a problem.

 

Ron Brown IS a great coach.

 

Ron Brown IS entitled to his opinion.

 

I SUPPORT Ron Brown's right to not only hold the opinion he holds, but to voice that opinion.

 

I DO NOT and WILL NOT support Ron Brown's choice to promote his opinion under the auspices of UNL. That is not negotiable.

 

Appreciate the wording of the post Knapp.

 

Only thing I am thinking is that this was blown way out of proportion. I didn't see anything than would classify him in the bigot or hateful category.

 

Last, question for everyone:

 

If he argues the opposite way, is there an uproar?

[Husker_x]

Ron Brown is a great coach,and entitled to his opinion.If people can't deal with it,maybe They should move on.You can't get rid of coach's everytime they have an opinion you don't like.

 

Wrong-minded on many levels. Let's review:

 

Nobody is saying he's not entitled to his opinion. In fact, in the OP, I supported Coach Brown's right to voice his opinion. The clear difference is that he - HE - continually thrusts UNL into the conversation. He did it again in his statement that he would be more proud to be fired because of his religious beliefs than because of his performance. Wait a second - why are we suddenly talking about employment? This is Ron Brown discussing his opinion on gays. Why is his employment coming into play? Because - and solely because - he put it there.

 

Next, nobody wants to get rid of a coach because we disagree with his opinion. I'm certain there are people for whom I cheer loudly, both players and coaches, who have wildly disparate religious and political views. Those views are wholly irrelevant to why I'm a fan, and I don't care what their views are or how they express them. The ONLY difference is if they wrap themselves in the cloak of UNL to espouse those views. If John Cook suddenly comes out in favor of widgets, and I'm anti-widget to the core, I'm still gonna cheer for him on game day. But if John Cook uses his position as volleyball coach to promote his widget agenda, we have a problem.

 

Ron Brown IS a great coach.

 

Ron Brown IS entitled to his opinion.

 

I SUPPORT Ron Brown's right to not only hold the opinion he holds, but to voice that opinion.

 

I DO NOT and WILL NOT support Ron Brown's choice to promote his opinion under the auspices of UNL. That is not negotiable.

 

Appreciate the wording of the post Knapp.

 

Only thing I am thinking is that this was blown way out of proportion. I didn't see anything than would classify him in the bigot or hateful category.

 

Last, question for everyone:

 

If he argues the opposite way, is there an uproar?

 

The difference is if Ron Brown made the statement: "I fully respect and accept that right of gay men and women to pursue happiness. Their civil and human rights should not be threatened under any circumstances. They should be given equal treatment in our culture, government, and even our football program" he would have made a wholly moral, wholly respectable statement. What he has done is the opposite of that. Aside from simply being morally incorrect in his assessment of homosexuality, he goes further and uses his position as coach thrust himself--and by association, the University--into a battle against civil liberties.

 

If he came out and said that all people should be gay and only gays should be allowed to get married, that would also be a problem.

 

What he needs to do is keep his yap shut and worry about his running backs. It's not that complicated.

[Landlord]

All of my Christian friends defend Ron Brown because "we don't have any rights except the right to hell".

 

 

 

I'm not even going to give that the honor of a facepalm.

[knapplc]

All of my Christian friends defend Ron Brown because "we don't have any rights except the right to hell".

 

Wow, I am dense. I am not seeing where this was alluded to.