For the record, I am 100% behind Coach Brown...

[Huskers57]

Yeah, they didn't just crack a skull open to get what they needed...and rape? What rape? Stronger person gets what they want...nothing wrong with that.

how do you know about this if it occurred? did you take a time machine into the past?

[BasilLongfellow]

Something has got to give, here. You can't both be right.

We can. And we are.

1. My post was in reference to the OP and RB's personal beliefs, i.e.: Sin A is bad and cannot be tolerated, but we can look past Sin B in our society.
2. Chi's posts concerns legislation in the context of Constitutional frame of reference.

One post concerns the teachings of Christianity; one post concerns the framework of government.

[The Impaler]

Even a secularist might advocate for issues they believed for or against based on the personal convictions...that's perfectly understandable to me.

As for your other point, you seem to be suggesting that secularism will always result in a moral decision superior to that of the faithful. I don't necessarily think so.

First off, never said it will result in a morally superior decision, and secondly, I guess you missed this point:

Regarding your last paragraph, I posted in one of the other threads that I think a society can come to the same conclusions secularly as with religion.

Secular scholars advocated eugenics as a valid approach to societal ills. It was part of many countries public health policies. Only after the atrocities of WW II and the Nazi use of American eugenics studies as rationale did the field begin to die out.

So, while I believe secular moralism is important to creating acceptance of values and behaviors beneficial to society, I don't trust it to be the sole decision maker on right and wrong. I believe faith forces us to look at deeper meaning and purpose absent from a strictly secular viewpoint.

Never said that scularism will always arrive at the best decision, or won't make mistakes or that attitudes/opinions on things won't change. That's clearly been demonstrated throughout the history of man of all ilks (Chritian, Muslim, secular, etc). As far as "right", "wrong", "moral", "immoral" I don't really believe in those concepts in the biblical sense I guess. Not on a cosmic level anyway. There are certainly behaviors that I see as beneficial to mankind and those that aren't, so in that sense I believe in those terms.

[SealBeachHusker]

Even a secularist might advocate for issues they believed for or against based on the personal convictions...that's perfectly understandable to me.

As for your other point, you seem to be suggesting that secularism will always result in a moral decision superior to that of the faithful. I don't necessarily think so.

First off, never said it will result in a morally superior decision, and secondly, I guess you missed this point:

Regarding your last paragraph, I posted in one of the other threads that I think a society can come to the same conclusions secularly as with religion.

Secular scholars advocated eugenics as a valid approach to societal ills. It was part of many countries public health policies. Only after the atrocities of WW II and the Nazi use of American eugenics studies as rationale did the field begin to die out.

So, while I believe secular moralism is important to creating acceptance of values and behaviors beneficial to society, I don't trust it to be the sole decision maker on right and wrong. I believe faith forces us to look at deeper meaning and purpose absent from a strictly secular viewpoint.

Never said that scularism will always arrive at the best decision, or won't make mistakes or that attitudes/opinions on things won't change. That's clearly been demonstrated throughout the history of man of all ilks (Chritian, Muslim, secular, etc). As far as "right", "wrong", "moral", "immoral" I don't really believe in those concepts in the biblical sense I guess. Not on a cosmic level anyway. There are certainly behaviors that I see as beneficial to mankind and those that aren't, so in that sense I believe in those terms.

Semantics at that point. It's agreeing on what those are that usually result in disagreement or conflict....at least when you remove the crazies, zealots and extremists.

[ChitownHusker]

the homoerectus species did just fine without religion although they died out but I'll bet it was much more peaceful back then, sure the struggles to live were tougher but at least they didn't have the verbal jousts about who had the better God.

Please don't ever leave HuskerMax.

[ChitownHusker]

how do you know about this if it occurred? did you take a time machine into the past?

Clearly, SBH didn't have access to the time machine that you took to see the homoerectus (I can't even type that without snickering) species living in an idyllic atheist paradise.

[ChitownHusker]

We can. And we are.

1. My post was in reference to the OP and RB's personal beliefs, i.e.: Sin A is bad and cannot be tolerated, but we can look past Sin B in our society.
2. Chi's posts concerns legislation in the context of Constitutional frame of reference.

One post concerns the teachings of Christianity; one post concerns the framework of government.

You'll have to forgive Cardinal. He got his law degree, I believe, at Stanford, which is a nice school and all, but it's no Nebraska.

[Huskers57]

Clearly, SBH didn't have access to the time machine that you took to see the homoerectus (I can't even type that without snickering) species living in an idyllic atheist paradise.

glad to provide the entertainment for the day.

[ChitownHusker]

Not quite as catchy as John Lennon's, but equally valid IMO:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the homoerectus living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the homoerectus living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join the homoerectus
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of homoerectus males
Imagine all the homoerectus sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join the homoerectus
And the world will live as one

http://www.lyrics007.com/John%20Lenn...%20Lyrics.html

[Pops]

So I have to keep my opinions to myself because they differ from others? Ron Brown's opinions are based on the Bible and what he believes and as a citizen, he has the right to say them without fear of false claims of something he isn't. Podium or not, people are entitled to their beliefs. Sure, he may get shouted down or debated, but a bigot, he most certainly is not. To me, being a bigot is a person who forms his/her opinion with hatred as a key component. As much as people really want to believe RB hates homosexuals, that just isn't the case. If given the right situation, I too would take the podium and speak about my beliefs and opinions based on my faith. Granted, I might pick my battles and choice of address a little better.

COrrect me if I am wrong, Pops, but you seems you are labeling RB based on the fact that he tells others how he believes and tries to give guidance based on those beliefs. You don't have to agree with him, but again, I think the "bigot" label is a pretty weighty thing to slap on someone who happens to be a very caring and compassionate person.

Good talk Pops!

.
It is a good talk and like other times I have been shown the errors of my ways this may be one of those times where I jump the gun. I just have a hard time when we are told how to think and or act. RB may be a great guy... Yes he says he loves all but is against a certain lifestyle... Being a human as we all are and not liking a certain lifestyle would he not treat them differently without even thinking or noticing. I am very much a bigot when it comes to a certain race... I try not to be but I know I come across different with that population. I try to correct it have even been to counciling to help. End of the day the hate or dislike of it shines through
Peace and thanks for having the discussion without making it personal
You're fool folk

[Pops]

Lmao you fool folk?
I meant you're good folk

[Huskers57]

.
You're fool folk

love it.

[RedPhoenix]

Lmao you fool folk?
I meant you're good folk

Potato, potahto.

[Cardinal]

We can. And we are.

1. My post was in reference to the OP and RB's personal beliefs, i.e.: Sin A is bad and cannot be tolerated, but we can look past Sin B in our society.
2. Chi's posts concerns legislation in the context of Constitutional frame of reference.

One post concerns the teachings of Christianity; one post concerns the framework of government.

But both posts involve discrimination by Christians and whether or not it is acceptable. You say the teachings say it isn't. But the government framework says they can (and do, I presume).

[SealBeachHusker]

Yeah, they didn't just crack a skull open to get what they needed...and rape? What rape? Stronger person gets what they want...nothing wrong with that.

how do you know about this if it occurred? did you take a time machine into the past?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1023834/Prehistoric-man-clubbed-love-rivals-death-new-research-shows.html

"Prehistoric remains indicate men executed love rivals in order to steal women from neighbouring tribes, new research suggests."

http://delamagente.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/homo-habilis-vs-homo-erectus/

Specifically, in regard to erectus:

"The cranial bone was thicker than earlier hominids. Remnants show damage from being hit in the head by something like clubs or heavy rocks. Their arms and legs were also robust, with thicker bones and clear evidence of being heavily muscled. The suspicion is they were a more violent species than habilis. Is that why habilis disappeared? The tougher group survived and bred offspring with their thicker, more protective skulls."

[Cardinal]

You'll have to forgive Cardinal. He got his law degree, I believe, at Stanford, which is a nice school and all, but it's no Nebraska.

Understanding the law on this issue is child's play. What is difficult is trying to understand how Christian teaching, per Basil, prohibits discrimination, but yet Christians vehemently protect and defend their right to discriminate under a legal exception.

Maybe that's why that issue has been danced around.

[SealBeachHusker]

You'll have to forgive Cardinal. He got his law degree, I believe, at Stanford, which is a nice school and all, but it's no Nebraska.

Understanding the law on this issue is child's play. What is difficult is trying to understand how Christian teaching, per Basil, prohibits discrimination, but yet Christians vehemently protect and defend their right to discriminate under a legal exception.

Maybe that's why that issue has been danced around.

Discriminating against behavior is what the law is all about isn't it?

[Cardinal]

Discriminating against behavior is what the law is all about isn't it?

Injurious behavior, yes.

[SealBeachHusker]

Discriminating against behavior is what the law is all about isn't it?

Injurious behavior, yes.

Like prostitution, or drug use?

[huskernut]

Can one actually go on the record via an anonymous post?

No. And you can quote me on that.