- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nebraska assistant football coach really really really does not like gay people
Posted on 4/27/12 at 9:15 pm to TigerBait1127
Posted on 4/27/12 at 9:15 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
if the bible is written by God why does his character change throughout? why are there so many contradictions?
Where in the Bible do you see these, i.e., that God changes His character or contradictions?
quote:
do you consider women to be equal to men? the bible doesn't
IMO, the Bible teaches a complimentarian view, i.e., men and women are equally created in the image of God but have different social roles/functions in God's design.
1
Posted on 4/27/12 at 9:18 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
Where in the Bible do you see these, i.e., that God changes His character or contradictions?
LINK
quote:
IMO, the Bible teaches a complimentarian view, i.e., men and women are equally created in the image of God but have different social roles/functions in God's design.
quote:
, men and women are equally created in the image of God but have different social roles/functions in God's design.
quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
This post was edited on 4/27/12 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 4/27/12 at 9:21 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
This coach publicly said something homophobic,
What? So if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin, they are homophobic?
Posted on 4/27/12 at 10:04 pm to Festus
not always - but usually
Posted on 4/27/12 at 10:31 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
This coach publicly said something homophobic, and he'll probably be canned for it. Just like if a coach had sex with a man in public, he'd be canned for it, too.
You're not serious are you?
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:21 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:He didn't cite a specific passage, which lends itself to my theory that his sexual issues have little or nothing to do with God and the Bible and a lot to do with his own insecurities, or else he would be comfortable enough in his faith not to intentionally cause a stir at work.
You interjected the statement about scripture so I was just asking what specific scripture do you think Coach Brown is misinterpreting?
quote:And what verse calls homosexuality a "sexual perversion?"
The Bible is consistent in its view on homsexuality (it is sexual perversion).
quote:You're deflecting, and it's weak. There was a hearing that involved NU implementing a "no beating up gay people because you're secretly gay yourself" rule, and Brown, overly eager to prove his manhood by letting us all know that he has a huge problem with homosexuality, but not man enough to take credit for his own prejudice, showed up, took the mic, and let us know that hundreds of NU's students are committing an abomination for being attracted to people with genitals that match theirs, and then in case we had a problem with the way he espoused his hateful views, he made sure to let us know that they're not his views, but God's. What a coward.
So did he initiate the hearing or did he respond to what others initiated (I don't know the whole story but as I undertood the article it was others who did so).
Per statics, there every force has an equal and opposing force, so if Coach Brown is "imposing" his views, isn't it the case that someone eles is also imposing their views?
In other words, Brown created a stir not by believing that homosexuality is an abomination, but by being an a-hole about it.
quote:Why isn't it being answered? It's a simple question, and you're deflecting again.
Why is this even being asked? Jihad is an Islamic concept and totally foreign to Biblical Christianity that Coach Brown confesses.
Simple question, and your reluctance to answer should be answer enough: If a Muslim coach publicly said that Christians will burn for not abiding by the laws of the Koran, would you defend him the same way that you defend Brown?
quote:There are many acts of God in the Bible that are described as vile, hateful, and even evil. Echoing God's view is sometimes hateful, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. God is no Care Bear.
Echoing God's view isn't hateful.
This post was edited on 4/27/12 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:22 pm to Festus
quote:Of course.
What? So if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin, they are homophobic?
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:22 pm to lsu223
quote:I stand by my statement that if a coach boned down with a man in public, he'd probably be fired.
quote:
This coach publicly said something homophobic, and he'll probably be canned for it. Just like if a coach had sex with a man in public, he'd be canned for it, too.
You're not serious are you?
Posted on 4/27/12 at 11:41 pm to M Le Rip
Haha, well I guess we can agree on one thing.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 12:54 am to TigerBait1127
Impressive list of "contradictions" in the link. No way to respond to each. But there are typically ready explanations for these. For example, one is shown below:
There are a couple of explanations: 1) the differnt writers (Mark & John) are using two different referents (one Roman and one Jewish?)and/or 2) the days were divided into three-hour periods and references to time were given in approximations.
When a text is read due consideration must be given to authorial intention, literary/historical/textual context.
For example, where did Katrina make landfall? If one says Buras, LA and another says the mouth of the Pearl River who would be correct? One needs the bigger picture to understand that they do not contradict.
This verse supports my view. God made us male and female but assigned different roles. Doesn't mean inferiority, just difference.
quote:
And it was in the third hour, and they crucified him.
- Mark 15:3-4
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, behold your king... Shall I crucify your king?
- John 19:14-15
There are a couple of explanations: 1) the differnt writers (Mark & John) are using two different referents (one Roman and one Jewish?)and/or 2) the days were divided into three-hour periods and references to time were given in approximations.
When a text is read due consideration must be given to authorial intention, literary/historical/textual context.
For example, where did Katrina make landfall? If one says Buras, LA and another says the mouth of the Pearl River who would be correct? One needs the bigger picture to understand that they do not contradict.
quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
This verse supports my view. God made us male and female but assigned different roles. Doesn't mean inferiority, just difference.
This post was edited on 4/28/12 at 12:58 am
Posted on 4/28/12 at 1:02 am to M Le Rip
Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In 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.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They 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, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although 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.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In 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.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They 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, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although 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.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 1:28 am to Athanasius
quote:The sin mentioned here is lust, which is uncontrollable sexual urge. Homosexuality and uncontrollable sexual urge are not the same thing.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In 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.
None of the verses you cite say that homosexuality is a sexual perversion.
Moot, though. Whether or not Brown is wrong or right in his beliefs, that doesn't excuse being an a-hole about it. Hopefully he's fired, not for believing that homosexuality is sin, but for being an a-hole.
This post was edited on 4/28/12 at 1:29 am
Posted on 4/28/12 at 1:50 am to M Le Rip
quote:
He didn't cite a specific passage, which lends itself to my theory that his sexual issues have little or nothing to do with God and the Bible
Suppose he had, would that have changed your assessment?
quote:
And what verse calls homosexuality a "sexual perversion?"
Rom. 1:26-27 speaks of homosexual practices as being “unnatural” (Gk. para phusin). It is behavior contrary to God’s design as male and female. I guess we could debate semantic domains but IMO it is not unfair to speak of something that deviates from what God deemed natural as perversion.
quote:
You're deflecting, and it's weak . . . Brown created a stir not by believing that homosexuality is an abomination, but by being an a-hole about it.
I only had the OP linked article to go by (is there more to the story?) and the manner by which you refer to it does not seem consistent with the tenor of the article. So in your view, what is an acceptable way for one to take issue with homosexuality in a public forum? Nothing in the article even hints that Coach Brown was being a horse’s rear.
quote:
Simple question, and your reluctance to answer should be answer enough: If a Muslim coach publicly said that Christians will burn for not abiding by the laws of the Koran, would you defend him the same way that you defend Brown?
If you’re asking if such statements from a Muslim are consistent with Islam (since I assert that Coach Brown’s statements are consistent with Biblical Christianity), then a Muslim would need to respond to afterlife views. If on the other hand you’re asking would I defend someone’s Constitutional freedom to denounce Christianity, then yes.
BTW, I don’t see speaking of the immorality of homosexuality and its consequences in a public forum as a moral equivalent to the Islamic concept of jihad. For you to introduce this is seems like a blatant mischaracterization of his actions. Did Coach Brown threaten anyone? What Muslims say will happen to Christians after death means nothing to us. What they do in this life is another matter.
quote:
There are many acts of God in the Bible that are described as vile, hateful, and even evil.
Nope.
This post was edited on 4/28/12 at 8:24 am
Posted on 4/28/12 at 2:11 am to M Le Rip
quote:
The sin mentioned here is lust, which is uncontrollable sexual urge. Homosexuality and uncontrollable sexual urge are not the same thing.
None of the verses you cite say that homosexuality is a sexual perversion.
You are most incredibly incorrect. Your attempts to spin God's Truth in His word are obvious.
The Context of those verses is not general lust such as a man for a woman. It is homosexual lust. We know that because the context explains that to us clearly. God gave them over to their lust, then he goes on to explain what that lust was; first lesbian lusts, then male homosexual lusts as the males the text says abandoned natural relations with women. And it does indeed describe those homosexual "indecent acts" as a "perversion". Anyone with a 1st grade reading level can see that the passage indeed equates the word perversion with Homosexuality. And anyone with even a basic Biblical Comprehension level knows how often and forceful and the abundance that scripture condemns homosexuality. And anyone who says otherwise will just display their folly of the Bible and look like a fool.
Such is no shock as earlier in the Old Testament it calls Homosexuality a Abomination. "18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The biblical word abomination is the strongest word one can use. That is how God see's it. Suck acts are a Abomination to His eye-site. It goes against his created natural Holy ways and perverts it.
I can list passage after passage about Gods views recorded in His word against Homosexuality if you like. And if you want to try to play the game of lets see if I can spin and lie about it, go right ahead. But you will lose each single time doing so. And you will look like a fool. Your choice.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 2:22 am to AlwysATgr
quote:Not at all. But my assessment doesn't matter. I can't fire him.
Suppose he had, would that have changed your assessment?
quote:You show far more courage than Brown in that you admit that it is possibly a situation of semantics.
Rom. 1:26-27 speaks of homosexual practices as being “unnatural” (Gk. para fusin). It is behavior contrary to God’s design as male and female. I guess we could debate semantic domains but IMO it is not unfair to speak of something that deviates from what God deemed natural as perversion.
quote:His way was perfectly acceptable; the Constitution defends him. The Constitution also defends NU if they decide to can him on the basis of doing something that contradicts the school's mission/purpose. Telling 1000 NU students that their sexual preference is perverted is fine, but maybe the person who proclaims that publicly doesn't belong there as an employee.
I only had the OP linked article to go by (is there more to the story?) and the manner by which you refer to it does not seem consistent with the tenor of the article. So in your view, what is an acceptable way for one to take issue with homosexuality in a public forum? Nothing in the article even hints that Coach Brown was being a horse’s rear.
quote:I think you're being difficult and avoiding seeing my obvious point. I'll try again:
If you’re asking if such statements from a Muslim are consistent with Islam (since I assert that Coach Brown’s statements are consistent with Biblical Christianity), then a Muslim would need to respond to afterlife views. If on the other hand you’re asking would I defend someone’s Constitutional freedom to denounce Christianity, then yes. BTW, I don’t see speaking of the immorality of homosexuality and its consequences in a public forum as a moral equivalent to the Islamic concept of jihad. For you to introduce this is seems like a blatant mischaracterization of his actions. Did Coach Brown threaten anyone? What Muslims say will happen to Christians after death means nothing to us. What they do in this life is another matter.
"There is no god. Those who believe in god are sadly misguided, and I believe that they are fools."
I would expect a coach who said that to be fired. Why? Because only an a-hole would think it appropriate to use his coaching platform to preach the atheist gospel. All the same, only an a-hole would use a coaching platform to broadcast his homophobic message.
And that's why I'd can Brown if I had the chance. Believe what you want, but there's no sense in being an a-hole about it.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 2:25 am to Athanasius
quote:There's something really important that you don't know. But it's past my bedtime. We can continue tomorrow on the OT in a new thread if you like. I'll own you, brother.
I can list passage after passage about Gods views recorded in His word against Homosexuality if you like. And if you want to try to play the game of lets see if I can spin and lie about it, go right ahead. But you will lose each single time doing so. And you will look like a fool. Your choice.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 2:44 am to M Le Rip
quote:
Whether or not Brown is wrong or right in his beliefs, that doesn't excuse being an a-hole about it. Hopefully he's fired, not for believing that homosexuality is sin, but for being an a-hole.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he speak his opinions on the matter, in response to an interviewers question no less. Would he be an a-hole if he had spoken out in favor of gay rights?
Posted on 4/28/12 at 4:58 am to Athanasius
Who gives a shite about what was written by ignorant men thousands of years ago? frick, they thought epileptic events were caused by demonic possession!!
Hatred and intolerance is wrong. In fact,it's evil.
If Brown believes in the inerrancy or the literal word of scripture than he is ignorant. Regardless, the "bible" is not relevant in such civil matters of a free society. If he wants to exclude gays then he can do so in his "loving, faith community" of other like minded, dim witted, hateful people.
Hatred and intolerance is wrong. In fact,it's evil.
If Brown believes in the inerrancy or the literal word of scripture than he is ignorant. Regardless, the "bible" is not relevant in such civil matters of a free society. If he wants to exclude gays then he can do so in his "loving, faith community" of other like minded, dim witted, hateful people.
Posted on 4/28/12 at 7:22 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
It was written much longer ago than that by Someone with perfect understanding of human sexuality and He "made them male and female."
hmm
quote:
When a text is read due consideration must be given to authorial intention, literary/historical/textual context.
and your little explanation is cute and all, but that is the easiest one in the entire group to defend. Some are much more egregious than that
quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
This verse supports my view. God made us male and female but assigned different roles. Doesn't mean inferiority, just difference.
you don't think saying a women must be silent makes her inferior?
Posted on 4/28/12 at 8:41 am to M Le Rip
quote:
You show far more courage than Brown in that you admit that it is possibly a situation of semantics
It's semantics on the receptor side language (English), not the donor side language (Greek). Something that deviates from a moral standard is _______ (you fill in the blank).
quote:
His way was perfectly acceptable . . . Telling 1000 NU students that their sexual preference is perverted is fine, but maybe the person who proclaims that publicly doesn't belong there as an employee.
You don't really believe the first part of your quote do you? There are professors (and my guess some at NU) that regularly denounce Christianity's truth claims and trumpet atheism (with such claims as "There is no god. Those who believe in god are sadly misguided, and I believe that they are fools"), evolution, etc AS employees! Coach Brown's way was "perfectly acceptable" - end of story.
quote:
only an @*%$# would use a coaching platform to broadcast his homophobic message
Everyone has a worldview that cannot be masked whatever their vocation. Some in fact choose coaching so that they can influence others. Again, his way was perfectly acceptable. And to suggest someone is afraid of something because they confront it in a public arena is illogical.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News