The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[Blackshirts007]

http://espn.go.com/ncf/conversations/_/id/7855135/nebraska-cornhuskers-aide-ron-brown-faith-demands-anti-gay-stance

[Landlord]

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.

[zoogs]

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.

 

Oh, I was wondering a little if it would be possible to accept homosexuality while still being Christian.

 

Well - that is disappointing.

[Landlord]

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.

 

Oh, I was wondering a little if it would be possible to accept homosexuality while still being Christian.

 

Well - that is disappointing.

 

 

It would be disappointing if Christians started compromising beliefs to match up with the pressure of the popular world view. Wait. That's already happening everywhere.

[Apathy]

You can call for him to step down all you want, but then he's just going to run for public office and you'll complain even more.

Very true. I think people need to take a deep breath and move on. Everybody has their own opinion and there's nothing you can say or do to change what they believe.

 

I'm gonna go to the refrigerator and grab a beer while laughing at the ones who are all hot and bothered by what Brown said.

[Hercules]

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.

 

Oh, I was wondering a little if it would be possible to accept homosexuality while still being Christian.

 

Well - that is disappointing.

 

 

It would be disappointing if Christians started compromising beliefs to match up with the pressure of the popular world view. Wait. That's already happening everywhere.

 

That has always happened, and it will continue to happen until the end of time. Any literature of any kind will always be viewed through a contemporary prism, and will be interpreted relative to the modern view of right and wrong. It was no different 2000 years ago, when a Jewish carpenter presented such a different, compelling world-view that it started a new religion. Christian morals are constantly in flux, and in about 50 years when the vast mainstream of Christianity will have accepted homosexuality, it will be no more a compromise of their beliefs than over the past few centuries when their perception of right and wrong changed to condemn slavery and racial discrimination.

[Saunders]

I think what's interesting to me is that after he prayed at Penn State last year everyone was singing his praises. He was expressing his beliefs then and he was actually representing UNL then-he was at work. So why is this different?

 

Offhand I'd say it's different because he wasn't advocating the hatred of a group of people while at Penn State. I sung his praises for his role in that Penn State game, and I'm the one who started this thread. I have no agenda against Coach Brown or against religion. I have an agenda against discrimination, which I would think Coach Brown, a Christian, would also have. But sadly, that is not the case.

 

[citation needed]

[Saunders]

If you're only way of forgiveness is by re-orientating your sexual preference from "not right (homosexual)" to "right (heterosexual)", then that is an unacceptable option in my opinion.

 

I guarantee you and would put any amount of money behind it that Ron Brown would not utter that statement. He would say the only way of forgiveness is to place your faith in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit.

 

And there are many homosexual Christians that would say they already do have their faith in Christ...so what's he complaining about? The problem with labeling homosexuality a sin and saying it's just as equal to any other sin....is that unfortunately homosexuality seems to be the only sin where you are constantly committing it 24/7, no matter what. Other sins seem to be mostly be momentary lapses in moral/ethical judgments...and then the person asks forgiveness and moves on. Homosexuals are basically sinning just sitting there not doing anything...just being who they are.

But I guess that gets into the is homosexuality an choice or not.

The only 2 openly gay people I know were both married for over a decade, and had multiple children each. One is a man (wife's uncle), the other a woman (family friend), and both are now in their 40's. IMO, it's a choice.

[carlfense]

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.

Kind of like the Christian teachings about divorce, eh?

[knapplc]

I think you're overstating a few points.

 

I'm not aware of Brown harassing anyone. He spoke out at a public meeting. Brown admitted and I agree that it was a mistake to state his address as he did. But where is he harassing anyone?

 

To say that his religion "kinda outlaws" is a pretty cheap way to try to belittle something you disagree with.

 

Saying he "ignores" basically everything else is also not the slightest bit accurate. This is just the issue that there about which there was a public meeting.

 

You're fine to state your case but you usually do a much better job of presenting it accurately.

 

1) "Harassing" depends on your point of view, I suppose. If you support equal rights for all people (that whole pesky "All men are created equal..." thing) then the advocacy of taking those inalienable rights away from a group sure could be defined as harassing. Pick a verb that suits you if you don't like "harassing" but the intent is the same - to single out a group because of a largely irrelevant basis and remove natural-born rights from them.

 

2) His religion does "kinda" outlaw homosexuality. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say I'm trying to belittle Christianity - nothing could be further from the truth. Labeling my stance as "belittling" is more demonstrative of what you claim I'm doing than what I'm actually doing.

 

Now, does Christianity outlaw homosexuality? Kinda. It's expressly forbidden in Leviticus - but that's the Old Testament. Jesus represented the New Covenant, a covenant created by God, to be fulfilled by God, taking the "work" out of the hands of man, who could not keep any of the other covenants God tried to make with man. So Leviticus is kinda left by the wayside - but still cited by many contemporary Christians as a basis for their anti-gay stance. Jesus himself never addressed homosexuality - and that's a huge clue to Christians about how much time should be spent worrying about homosexuals. If more Christians followed Jesus' example, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

There are only three passages in the New Testament that even remotely refer to homosexuality - I Corinthians 6:9-10, I Timothy 1: 8-11 and Romans 1: 26-27. Not one of these passages specifically cites homosexuality as a sin - instead, words used in a laundry list of "bad behavior" are provided, and it's possible, depending on how you translate the Greek, that they refer to homosexuality. But it's not 100% clear, and they may not refer to homosexuality at all. Further, both the I Corinthians and I Timothy passages may simply be rhetorical lists, common in extant literature from the period, used as talking points in much the same way we rattle off "every Tom, Dick & Harry" to illustrate a group of people about whom we're talking. We're not specifically referring to people named Tom, Dick and/or Harry - and writers of the day may not have actually been talking about the specific things listed. Rather, they may have simply been describing types of behavior in which believers should not engage.

 

Regardless, these lists discuss many types of behavior, including: the "wicked," the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, & homosexual offenders (I Corinthians 6:9-10); lawbreakers, rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers. (I Timothy 1: 8-11) NOTE - both of these lists come from the NIV. The strange part of this whole debate is, I don't see even remotely the same kind of Christian angst dedicated to those who commit adultery as I do to homosexuals. Nobody seems to care much about the liars among us, the perjurers, the idolators.

 

The Romans text does speak specifically about homosexuality - but again, this is one passage in a book of 27 other books. But even the Romans passage doesn't single out homosexuality the way modern Christians do. Again, it is presented in a laundry list of "bad," and it's all based on prior turning from God:

 

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

Here we have yet another laundry list of nearly 30 "wrongs" that those who turned away from God have done. Homosexuality isn't the focus here, it's one of literally dozens of "bad" things that man is warned not to do, or become. But there's a huge problem with verses 26 and 27: The Greek isn't clear that these passages even speak about homosexuality - these are modern translations for a concept that didn't exist at the time these books were written. One cannot entirely dismiss the idea that the current translation is incorrect, casting a huge cloud over the entire concept of Bible-based anti-homosexual thought. The word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until 1892, and wasn't used routinely until the first decade of the 1900s. Certainly the behavior the word describes existed prior to this, as far back as human history records, but the stigma attached to it was not the same then as it is today.

 

This is why I say Brown's religion "kinda" outlaws homosexuality. It is not a specific prohibition, and the translation cannot speak specifically about our modern concept of homosexuality because the definitions didn't exist then as they do now. It is not even something his god even addressed - again, Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality, or banned the practice. Granted, there are uncountable things that Jesus did not specifically address, but the point of bringing Jesus up is that, again, for all the time today's Christians spend worrying about homosexuals and fighting to prevent them from taking full advantage of their inalienable rights as granted in our Declaration of Independence, they should be spending an equal time denouncing the fornicators, adulterers, liars and thieves among us - but they don't. Why? Where is the outrage over adultery? Where is the outrage over lying? These sins receive greater billing in the New Testament than homosexuality, yet we're not talking about them. Is that, perhaps, because the vast majority of Christians today commit these sins? I'm gonna go with yes. And that's where I say Coach Brown - and the rest of Christians railing about this - ignore these other sins.

 

I would love to have a conversation with Coach Brown about Romans 14. There are far too many Christians who overlook this passage. It's not as popular as the bite-sized morsel about the log in your own eye, but it's far more intricate in its meaning to the modern Christian, and directly relates to what Coach Brown is doing.

Are you talking about any specific passage or the entire chapter in general. The whole is really not talking about anything that has to do with this discussion. It's mainly talking about issues where this is doubt about what is accepted and what isn't - what can or can't be eaten, if some days are better than others, etc. This issue of this topic does not fall into that category.

 

Seriously?

 

Romans 14 talks about what can or can't be eaten in much the same way that Matthew 7:3 talks about carpentry. These are metaphors, and quite obviously so.

 

Jesus wasn't referring to specks of dust or logs in his remonstrance in Matthew 7:3, he was talking about the sins of your neighbor, and why you focus on those while hypocritically ignoring your own far greater sins.

 

Romans 14 discusses the many and varied types of man. It discusses the fact that some men are greater in their faith and some are weaker. It discusses the fact that you should not, in your position of greater faith, persecute those who have weaker faith, or no faith. It's a great passage for those Christians who feel the need, as Coach Brown did, to actively attempt to keep rights from his fellow man:

 

The Weak and the Strong

 

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

 

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

 

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:

 

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

 

‘every knee will bow before me;

 

every tongue will confess to God.’”

 

12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

 

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

 

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

 

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

(NIV translation)

 

Romans 14 tells you to accept the differences in your fellow man. It tells you that you're going to find people who don't worship God the way you worship God, who don't live their lives the way you live your life. It tells you that you should not persecute these men - rather, accept them for belonging to God, and let them be.

 

It's not even ambiguous - "Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way." How much more clear can that be?

 

But Romans 14 goes even further than this - it specifically tells you to stop persecuting your brother who lives his life differently from you: "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died."

 

Paul then goes on to explain the metaphor, so it's not unclear: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." Paul wants you to know that, while he's using food as a metaphor, he's really speaking about your life in the Holy Spirit, and he's telling you NOT to, by your actions, cause your brother to leave the faith.

 

There are a lot of gay Christians out there. Lots. You cannot honestly say that Coach Brown's stance is "making every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." He's doing exactly the opposite of that.

[carlfense]

Well, I know that Coach Brown doesn't hate people. He does hate homosexuality as a lifestyle.

On the discrimination count: is this actually happening in Omaha? Is there any research that supports this law? I'm just asking from a research point of view. Was this law necessary? Where does one draw the line? (e.g. If another special interest group felt they were being discriminated against, would they be able to have this law ammended?)

This is from a 30 second google search. I'm sure that you can find better sources if you put in the effort. http://www.omaha.com/article/20101025/NEWS01/710259919/10261015

 

 

Does this law go both ways? (e.g. If I as a straight individual went to work in a business that was composed only of homosexual individuals, they could not fire me based on my sexual orientation-Right?)

I don't know the exact language of this law but that would be quite easy. Something along the lines of "Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited." (Now just add about 300 pages of specifics and exceptions and it will be good to go.)

[MLB 51]

This is a double edge sword argument. The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished. The bible also teaches or preaches tolerence. It's a no win situation in my opinion.

[Saunders]

IMO, i'm indifferent to the issue. On one hand, we don't need another "anti-discrimination" law. They're a joke. It results in less qualified candidates getting hired. My wife had to fill a position at her work, and was forced to hire a less qualified candidate, because she was a minority. Such is life with the government.

 

RB has every right to speak his mind, as protected by the constitution. I didn't read where he "hates gays", or called for death to "homosexuals or anything" of the sort. He stated that he didn't agree with the law, because it was an anti-discrimination law that was being applied to a person's choice (that he feels is immoral), not gender or race. The mistake RB made, was listing Memorial Stadium as his address.

 

I had a professor in college who would openly talk about how religion would be the downfall of humanity and go on and on about christianity being the root of the worlds problems. Nobody complained or called for him to be fired. I can guarantee this happens at just about every university in the nation, including Nebraska. But it's not made a big deal, because it's not a "pop culture" issue like "gay rights."

 

Voltaire said it best: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

That's the concept that this nation was truly founded on, but it's sad that it only appears to apply to certain things.

[knapplc]

I think what's interesting to me is that after he prayed at Penn State last year everyone was singing his praises. He was expressing his beliefs then and he was actually representing UNL then-he was at work. So why is this different?

 

Offhand I'd say it's different because he wasn't advocating the hatred of a group of people while at Penn State. I sung his praises for his role in that Penn State game, and I'm the one who started this thread. I have no agenda against Coach Brown or against religion. I have an agenda against discrimination, which I would think Coach Brown, a Christian, would also have. But sadly, that is not the case.

 

[citation needed]

 

I can see this will be a discussion where every word is parsed. Fair enough. Did Ron Brown "advocate hatred" against gays? I'm willing to accept that this definition may be a bit hyperbolic. However, he did state:

 

When I called him this week, Brown reiterated that he apologizes for not making it clear he was speaking only for himself. But as for the ordinance: "I'm not apologizing for my stance."

 

 

He said the Bible clearly calls homosexuality a sin. And although most gay people say they were born that way, Brown maintains it is a lifestyle that they choose.

 

He told council members last week that if they are Christians, they will be held accountable for their votes. Did he mean, as some critics said, eternal damnation?

 

"Not at all," he said. "Accountability means you have a responsibility as a Christian to live a life that honors God. When you don't, you will be disciplined by your Father in heaven."

 

LINK

 

Is that "hatred." I'm willing to concede it's not. It is, however, a thinly-veiled threat against gays and the City Council.

[knapplc]

IMO, i'm indifferent to the issue. On one hand, we don't need another "anti-discrimination" law. They're a joke. It results in less qualified candidates getting hired. My wife had to fill a position at her work, and was forced to hire a less qualified candidate, because she was a minority. Such is life with the government.

 

[citation needed]