MLB 51 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Deuteronomy: Homosexuality "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." 22:5 God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18 Link to comment
The Dude Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 He's an embarrassment. He needs to do the right thing and just walk away. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 Deuteronomy: Homosexuality "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." 22:5 God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18 Old Testament. Jesus is the New Covenant. Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 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] We've got two first hand accounts in this thread. I'm sure I could pull up many more, but you don't really care. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 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] We've got two first hand accounts in this thread. I'm sure I could pull up many more, but you don't really care. Anecdotal evidence. I can supply the opposite. Doesn't mean a thing. Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 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. I fail to see the "threat" factor towards gays. RB's position is this, according to the bible, homosexuality is a sin. By supporting this law, you're condoning something that's considered immoral, and therefore, you're going against God. By his interpretation, if homosexuality is considered a sin, such as robbery or murder, then it's hypocritical to "protect" one, and punish the others. Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 King James 2000 Bible (©2003) If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. American King James Version If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 I think the line "You will be disciplined by your Father in Heaven" is quite clearly a threat. And as I showed above, Romans 14 shows that Ron Brown's stance against homosexuals isn't supported by biblical teaching. Link to comment
robsker Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 This statement, to me, is the most troubling. "to be fired for my faith would be a greater honor than to be fired because we didn't win enough games." This shows pride that is really not at all what a Christian should possess. Christians should be transparent --- in the sense that attention should not be upon them, but rather upon the glory of God. A Christian should be see-through that in all they do, the focal point is not on them but on the Lord. If Ron Brown is fired, it will not be for his faith --- it will be for his sinful obnoxious use of his secular position to pound his own personal agenda. He might feel proud that his dismissal (if such is forthcoming) is for "his faith" as if he were some sort of martyr... but he will be fooling himself if he thinks that. Again, the proper way to live in the world but not be of the world --- the proper way to live as a believer in an unbelieving world --- is to do so with humility pointing others to God, not self. Coach Brown may be a great guy, and... at a certain level somewhat properly motivated... but his statement about being fired belies his holding a prideful perspective that I wish he will reconsider. 1 Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 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] We've got two first hand accounts in this thread. I'm sure I could pull up many more, but you don't really care. Anecdotal evidence. I can supply the opposite. Doesn't mean a thing. I'm not going to go down this troll rabbit trail with you knappic. You responded the way you did, because you were incorrect about stating that Brown calls for the hatred of gays. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 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] We've got two first hand accounts in this thread. I'm sure I could pull up many more, but you don't really care. Anecdotal evidence. I can supply the opposite. Doesn't mean a thing. I'm not going to go down this troll rabbit trail with you knappic. You responded the way you did, because you were incorrect about stating that Brown calls for the hatred of gays. Suit yourself. I acknowledged that I misspoke. I don't know what else you're looking for. But I will say this - Discrimination laws are set up to do exactly the opposite of what I bolded above. If you have evidence that such is not the case, and didn't take action, that's on you. The law is the law, but it only works if people like you (or your wife) file charges. If you don't... that's your fault. Not the law's. 1 Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Although I do believe we all should be tolerant of other peoples choices I also believe homosexuality is morally and spiritualy wrong. But who am I to decide what others choose. Link to comment
krill Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I really wish someone on the team would sit down with coach Brown and ask him why he has chosen to skip over all the other arcane commands and statements in Dueteronomy. He's either willfully choosing to be selective in his reading of the bible, which seems to be quite popular when it comes to contemporary arguments on social issues, or masking bigotry with religious belief, which is just as pathetic. 2 Link to comment
Saunders Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Suit yourself. I acknowledged that I misspoke. I don't know what else you're looking for. I'm not looking for anything. I pointed out two specific instances in this thread where my claim was substantiated. I'm sure I could call my MIL who has worked for the city school system for over 3 decades (teacher, principal, and board), and come up with countless other examples. You claim "anectodal" but that word is so overused (like hipster) that it's lost it's meaning. It's very definition and application is in the eye of the beholder. The difference between evidence and anecdote is if you care. Back on topic, the point I was making, is that anti-discrimination laws are by nature, discriminatory, and in my opinion, a waste. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 Back on topic, the point I was making, is that anti-discrimination laws are by nature, discriminatory, and in my opinion, a waste. This is patently untrue. The law states that you cannot hire someone (or fail to hire someone) because of the color of their skin. How in the world is that discriminatory? If some company interprets that to say, "We have to hire non-White people" then that is a clear violation of the law. You cannot base your hiring decision on skin color - no matter what that color is. Whites have the exact same protection under this law as any other color. In Nebraska, the VAST majority of discrimination charges filed are filed by White people. Link to comment
Recommended Posts