(08-21-2020 12:38 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your contrast left the appearance that fishermen were common people, they were not. They weren't scribes, priests or Pharisees, but their industry was a high tech industry for the time of Christ and one that required a high degree of skill, physical ability, and language skills due to trade.

I was highlighting that distinction because the way the Bible is frequently taught today loses such distinctions and the average educated people today look down upon fishermen as a lower class of people due to a perceived lack of education only prevalent in 21st societal thinking.

It is you who failed to grasp what I was saying. The disciples who were fishermen knew who Jesus was personally, were extremely well educated, and had ties to the Ancient near East that would only facilitate their missions, and when they walked away from their business they gave up lucrative incomes to do so.

I understood every word you said, its simply had nothing to do with the key point I was making.

You are going into this big defense of how educated fisherman were which totally misses the point I was making to tell people they too can read and understand the scripture if they pray and apply themselves. Too many Christians today don't do that and make up excuses not to.

Reading and understanding the Bible has nothing to do with how educated you are, if you can read and study books you can read, study and understand the Bible. I was trying hard to get that point across and you totally derailed me with a defense of a 1str century fishermen's education and NT books and all this other stuff that misses the point I was trying to make.

Are you so holy now that you are the only one allowed to make a point in a thread that isn't even your own? Jousted with humility lately brother? You left an impression of 1st century fishermen that was wholly inaccurate in that you equated them with the common folk. They were at the pinnacle of the business world at that time since they produced food and exported it all over the ancient near East.

Understanding the culture of the day is essential to understanding the nature of the message, though that message transcends mere culture understanding its original context helps to adapt appropriately to issues today.

Pharisees today are no longer those born into families who fastidiously follow the aspects of the religious law that suit them while ignoring the overall intent of the law as they relate to others. The new Pharisees are academics and scientists who pick and choose which aspects of the facts they wish to push for their own power and profit. Sadducees were business people who didn't believe in an afterlife but did believe in a God but only to fit in socially, but didn't believe so much in that God as to impair their business. That would be your virtue signaling Corporations today. By contrast the Fishermen of the 1st century would be more akin to Manufacturers of food sources, Engineers and Contract Lawyers today. The common folk are still common folk.

My point Eric, is that to equate Fishermen from the 1st century to people today it is necessary to know just how educated and advanced they were because fishermen today are quaint. When Christ called his disciples they abandoned much more than the average common person does today. That may be one reason they weren't as corrupted by money as the average poor preacher may be when the Corporate Church of today doles out the perks to those who serve their interest rather than Christ's.

I was willing to settle this with you via PM but apparently you weren't.

You made a point. I felt it could have been made more effectively. Your point while valid in that all who can read and study can seek the truth is a good one. Your use of the Fishermen however reinforced untrue stereotypes that all too many believe and use to dismiss the teachings as being quaint.

My point is not that fishermen left their nets to follow Christ, but that highly educated, technically skilled, international business men left them. I think that carries a gravity that more should identify with as opposed to the guys on Deadliest Catch and Bill Dance.

If today's world can't find relevance in the Bible, and think it quaint, it is frequently because they fail to understand the culture of the period in which it was written or to grasp the connections between the behaviors of people then and the behaviors of people today. They don't care who the Pharisees and Sadducees were because those terms mean nothing to them. They do know about those who twist facts for profit and power and what Multi-national corporations are doing. If they make the connection and see that even in the days of Jesus it was the same then the Bible becomes relevant to them. This is why business leaders and engineers today need to identify with the Fishermen as their ancient peers. If they think it all quaint it will never speak to them.

(08-20-2020 04:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first
stone!
John 8:7 NLT

In light of the latest victim of cancel culture Thom Brennan, I want to ask that when did it become ok for us as a society to banish someone for even the slightest indiscretion?

I dont really know Brennan other than he is an announcer, but as a human being its exhausting, disheartening, and frankly frightening that your whole life can be ruined by an innocent mistake, an off color joke, or even something that is wrong but doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Jesus didn't justify or condone the actions of the woman in this story but he certainly didn't give her a death sentence over it. He forgave her and told her to change, to "sin no more"

When did we as a culture lose this as part of our fabric ?

Firing someone and stoning them to death aren't the same thing

That said, Media like many industries is driven by 'customers'. If 'whatever an employee did', even if it were 100% legal drives customers away, that CAN (but doesn't have to) contribute to a case for firing, up to the point of being immediately actionable... i.e. an executive of an aggressive animal rights group going hunting.

My problem with cancel culture is that it doesn't depend merely on people doing things that ACTUALLY drive away business... but on actions by others intended to also drive away business, like blockading a drive through... which can make people simply decide that it's not worth it. They are therefore NOT declining to frequent that store because of what was said, but because they simply didn't want to go through the hassle. Social media has made this an almost certainty... where if nothing else, people may be subject to online ridicule and even death threats because people can take a picture of them entering the store and others can doxx them by cross referencing it through facebook or whatever.... and let's be honest, lots of people seem to have lots of time to try and make themselves feel better by sometimes perhaps literally irl attacking people they don't know, nor have any reason to care, often over situations where they also don't know enough to draw conclusions.

"That was the point I was making. Some people try to use the excuse that the Pharisees and scribes deeply studied the scriptures more than anyone but still could not understand who Jesus was. Thus they will not understand them either. That is not remotely what Jesus said about them and their rejection of HIM and a terrible excuse not to study the Bible."

Catholics as far back as the 11th century were afraid of the power of the church, even the monarchy. With the threat of ex-communication the people were scared into submission. They believed that the church was the only way into heaven because it was ingrained into their psyche. The people in those days and even up to the 20th century believed that only priests could tell them about God and the Bible not realizing that not even the priests knew about the Bible. They focused more on the Catholic Cathechism which in many ways is blasphemous and heretic. One main blasphemous point of it is the belief that the Pope is God's representative on earth which the Bible refutes very easily where it states that Jesus is our ONLY mediator between God and men. If Jesus had the power to create heaven and earth why would he need the help of a human that he created, i.e., the Pope.

That is why until many years into the twentieth century it was a big no-no for anyone to own or to read a Bible as a Catholic. They did not want anyone to know the truth about their lies. I was awakened when I left the church and started reading the Bible myself. My sister for instance, a strong Catholic, did not even know that Jesus had step brothers and sisters. LOL, before I converted, neither did I.

I urge anyone who is interested in a small sampling of this subject to read Father Chiniquy's e-book autobiography. It's long and very, very interesting. The only thing I didn't like about it is that he cries a lot. LOL It's free...

http://www.biblebelievers.com/chiniquy/index.html

(08-21-2020 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Are you so holy now that you are the only one allowed to make a point in a thread that isn't even your own? Jousted with humility lately brother? You left an impression of 1st century fishermen that was wholly inaccurate in that you equated them with the common folk. They were at the pinnacle of the business world at that time since they produced food and exported it all over the ancient near East.

Understanding the culture of the day is essential to understanding the nature of the message, though that message transcends mere culture understanding its original context helps to adapt appropriately to issues today.

Pharisees today are no longer those born into families who fastidiously follow the aspects of the religious law that suit them while ignoring the overall intent of the law as they relate to others. The new Pharisees are academics and scientists who pick and choose which aspects of the facts they wish to push for their own power and profit. Sadducees were business people who didn't believe in an afterlife but did believe in a God but only to fit in socially, but didn't believe so much in that God as to impair their business. That would be your virtue signaling Corporations today. By contrast the Fishermen of the 1st century would be more akin to Manufacturers of food sources, Engineers and Contract Lawyers today. The common folk are still common folk.

My point Eric, is that to equate Fishermen from the 1st century to people today it is necessary to know just how educated and advanced they were because fishermen today are quaint. When Christ called his disciples they abandoned much more than the average common person does today. That may be one reason they weren't as corrupted by money as the average poor preacher may be when the Corporate Church of today doles out the perks to those who serve their interest rather than Christ's.

I was willing to settle this with you via PM but apparently you weren't.

You made a point. I felt it could have been made more effectively. Your point while valid in that all who can read and study can seek the truth is a good one. Your use of the Fishermen however reinforced untrue stereotypes that all too many believe and use to dismiss the teachings as being quaint.

My point is not that fishermen left their nets to follow Christ, but that highly educated, technically skilled, international business men left them. I think that carries a gravity that more should identify with as opposed to the guys on Deadliest Catch and Bill Dance.

If today's world can't find relevance in the Bible, and think it quaint, it is frequently because they fail to understand the culture of the period in which it was written or to grasp the connections between the behaviors of people then and the behaviors of people today. They don't care who the Pharisees and Sadducees were because those terms mean nothing to them. They do know about those who twist facts for profit and power and what Multi-national corporations are doing. If they make the connection and see that even in the days of Jesus it was the same then the Bible becomes relevant to them. This is why business leaders and engineers today need to identify with the Fishermen as their ancient peers. If they think it all quaint it will never speak to them.

I was trying to type a PM repsnse to you, I just needed time to finish it. My apologies for being so slow, though I did not realize I was.

Here it is:

Quote:I honestly have no clue why you are getting upset with me.

I was simply trying to encourage people to read their bible and not fool themselves with excuses that they themselves cannot read and understand it.

Somehow we are suddenly here with you attacking me and calling me arrogant and defensive and clearly very upset with me.

I'm speechless and can't for the life of me understand how that escalated so instantaneously.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the apostles and fisherman were well educated. I said that in the thread. I tried to make clear that that was not even remotely what I was trying to say and I think you mistook my post suggesting such.

I was saying they were not perceived then or now as the people who were the most well read and studied on the OT scriptures themselves. The pharisees and scribes were. That is not intended as a knock on how educated fishermen were, its just pointing out who was perceived as the most studied on the scriptures.

How ever I offend or upset you, I am sorry form the bottom of my heart. I was simply trying to get what I think is an important point across that some here need to hear. You quoted my post and took issue with it, so I explained that I thought you mistook my meaning. And then suddenly we are here.

If I did something wrong then I truly am sorry.

God Bless.

(08-21-2020 01:08 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Are you so holy now that you are the only one allowed to make a point in a thread that isn't even your own? Jousted with humility lately brother? You left an impression of 1st century fishermen that was wholly inaccurate in that you equated them with the common folk. They were at the pinnacle of the business world at that time since they produced food and exported it all over the ancient near East.

Understanding the culture of the day is essential to understanding the nature of the message, though that message transcends mere culture understanding its original context helps to adapt appropriately to issues today.

Pharisees today are no longer those born into families who fastidiously follow the aspects of the religious law that suit them while ignoring the overall intent of the law as they relate to others. The new Pharisees are academics and scientists who pick and choose which aspects of the facts they wish to push for their own power and profit. Sadducees were business people who didn't believe in an afterlife but did believe in a God but only to fit in socially, but didn't believe so much in that God as to impair their business. That would be your virtue signaling Corporations today. By contrast the Fishermen of the 1st century would be more akin to Manufacturers of food sources, Engineers and Contract Lawyers today. The common folk are still common folk.

My point Eric, is that to equate Fishermen from the 1st century to people today it is necessary to know just how educated and advanced they were because fishermen today are quaint. When Christ called his disciples they abandoned much more than the average common person does today. That may be one reason they weren't as corrupted by money as the average poor preacher may be when the Corporate Church of today doles out the perks to those who serve their interest rather than Christ's.

I was willing to settle this with you via PM but apparently you weren't.

You made a point. I felt it could have been made more effectively. Your point while valid in that all who can read and study can seek the truth is a good one. Your use of the Fishermen however reinforced untrue stereotypes that all too many believe and use to dismiss the teachings as being quaint.

My point is not that fishermen left their nets to follow Christ, but that highly educated, technically skilled, international business men left them. I think that carries a gravity that more should identify with as opposed to the guys on Deadliest Catch and Bill Dance.

If today's world can't find relevance in the Bible, and think it quaint, it is frequently because they fail to understand the culture of the period in which it was written or to grasp the connections between the behaviors of people then and the behaviors of people today. They don't care who the Pharisees and Sadducees were because those terms mean nothing to them. They do know about those who twist facts for profit and power and what Multi-national corporations are doing. If they make the connection and see that even in the days of Jesus it was the same then the Bible becomes relevant to them. This is why business leaders and engineers today need to identify with the Fishermen as their ancient peers. If they think it all quaint it will never speak to them.

I was trying to type a PM repsnse to you, I just needed time to finish it. My apologies for being so slow.

Here it is:

Quote:I honestly have no clue why you are getting upset with me.

I was simply trying to encourage people to read their bible and not fool themselves with excuses that they themselves cannot read and understand it.

Somehow we are suddenly here with you attacking me and calling me arrogant and defensive and clearly very upset with me.

I'm speechless and can't for the life of me understand how that escalated so instantaneously.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the apostles and fisherman were well educated. I said that in the thread. I tried to make clear that that was not even remotely what I was trying to say and I think you mistook my post suggesting such.

I was saying they were not perceived then or now as the people who were the most well read and studied on the OT scriptures themselves. The pharisees and scribes were. That is not intended as a knock on how educated fishermen were, its just pointing out who was perceived as the most studied on the scriptures.

How ever I offend or up set you, I am sorry form the bottom of my heart. I was imply trying to get what I think is an important point across that some here need to hear. You quoted my post and took issue with it, so I explained that I thought you mistook my meaning.

If I did something wrong then I truly am sorry.

God Bless.

And you got my response to this one via PM. Patience is a virtue not a vice.

I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

(08-21-2020 01:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  "That was the point I was making. Some people try to use the excuse that the Pharisees and scribes deeply studied the scriptures more than anyone but still could not understand who Jesus was. Thus they will not understand them either. That is not remotely what Jesus said about them and their rejection of HIM and a terrible excuse not to study the Bible."

Catholics as far back as the 11th century were afraid of the power of the church, even the monarchy. With the threat of ex-communication the people were scared into submission. They believed that the church was the only way into heaven because it was ingrained into their psyche. The people in those days and even up to the 20th century believed that only priests could tell them about God and the Bible not realizing that not even the priests knew about the Bible. They focused more on the Catholic Cathechism which in many ways is blasphemous and heretic. One main blasphemous point of it is the belief that the Pope is God's representative on earth which the Bible refutes very easily where it states that Jesus is our ONLY mediator between God and men. If Jesus had the power to create heaven and earth why would he need the help of a human that he created, i.e., the Pope.

That is why until many years into the twentieth century it was a big no-no for anyone to own or to read a Bible as a Catholic. They did not want anyone to know the truth about their lies. I was awakened when I left the church and started reading the Bible myself. My sister for instance, a strong Catholic, did not even know that Jesus had step brothers and sisters. LOL, before I converted, neither did I.

I urge anyone who is interested in a small sampling of this subject to read Father Chiniquy's e-book autobiography. It's long and very, very interesting. The only thing I didn't like about it is that he cries a lot. LOL It's free...

http://www.biblebelievers.com/chiniquy/index.html

The world had me brainwashed that I could not read and understand the Bible as well. Its took me 40 years and serious health issues and being stuck at home to finally really get serious and try. Its seems even harder for a lifelong Catholic.

Praise God He opened your eyes and put in in your heart to seek out His Word. Same with me.

(08-21-2020 01:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 04:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first
stone!
John 8:7 NLT

In light of the latest victim of cancel culture Thom Brennan, I want to ask that when did it become ok for us as a society to banish someone for even the slightest indiscretion?

I dont really know Brennan other than he is an announcer, but as a human being its exhausting, disheartening, and frankly frightening that your whole life can be ruined by an innocent mistake, an off color joke, or even something that is wrong but doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Jesus didn't justify or condone the actions of the woman in this story but he certainly didn't give her a death sentence over it. He forgave her and told her to change, to "sin no more"

When did we as a culture lose this as part of our fabric ?

Firing someone and stoning them to death aren't the same thing

That said, Media like many industries is driven by 'customers'. If 'whatever an employee did', even if it were 100% legal drives customers away, that CAN (but doesn't have to) contribute to a case for firing, up to the point of being immediately actionable... i.e. an executive of an aggressive animal rights group going hunting.

My problem with cancel culture is that it doesn't depend merely on people doing things that ACTUALLY drive away business... but on actions by others intended to also drive away business, like blockading a drive through... which can make people simply decide that it's not worth it. They are therefore NOT declining to frequent that store because of what was said, but because they simply didn't want to go through the hassle. Social media has made this an almost certainty... where if nothing else, people may be subject to online ridicule and even death threats because people can take a picture of them entering the store and others can doxx them by cross referencing it through facebook or whatever.... and let's be honest, lots of people seem to have lots of time to try and make themselves feel better by sometimes perhaps literally irl attacking people they don't know, nor have any reason to care, often over situations where they also don't know enough to draw conclusions.

Cancel culture is simply a more civilized lynch mob.

(08-21-2020 01:24 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

By today's standards no. There are a lot of worse examples.

But there is a holier than thou intolerance. There is no understanding of "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." It is a beautiful story.

What happens to people today is not beautiful.

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 01:24 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

By today's standards no. There are a lot of worse examples.

But there is a holier than thou intolerance. There is no understanding of "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." It is a beautiful story.

What happens to people today is not beautiful.

Correct. There is no empathy, there is no contriteness, there is no reason, and there is no true love of God or humanity. There is only "It's our way or we will destroy you and your thoughts on the issue don't matter, only ours!" This is why we are moving headlong toward a Hellish experience in whatever they call the new Amerika!

(08-21-2020 01:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  "That was the point I was making. Some people try to use the excuse that the Pharisees and scribes deeply studied the scriptures more than anyone but still could not understand who Jesus was. Thus they will not understand them either. That is not remotely what Jesus said about them and their rejection of HIM and a terrible excuse not to study the Bible."

Catholics as far back as the 11th century were afraid of the power of the church, even the monarchy. With the threat of ex-communication the people were scared into submission. They believed that the church was the only way into heaven because it was ingrained into their psyche. The people in those days and even up to the 20th century believed that only priests could tell them about God and the Bible not realizing that not even the priests knew about the Bible. They focused more on the Catholic Cathechism which in many ways is blasphemous and heretic. One main blasphemous point of it is the belief that the Pope is God's representative on earth which the Bible refutes very easily where it states that Jesus is our ONLY mediator between God and men. If Jesus had the power to create heaven and earth why would he need the help of a human that he created, i.e., the Pope.

That is why until many years into the twentieth century it was a big no-no for anyone to own or to read a Bible as a Catholic. They did not want anyone to know the truth about their lies. I was awakened when I left the church and started reading the Bible myself. My sister for instance, a strong Catholic, did not even know that Jesus had step brothers and sisters. LOL, before I converted, neither did I.

I urge anyone who is interested in a small sampling of this subject to read Father Chiniquy's e-book autobiography. It's long and very, very interesting. The only thing I didn't like about it is that he cries a lot. LOL It's free...

http://www.biblebelievers.com/chiniquy/index.html

Jesus did not have biological brothers or sisters. He almost certainly did not have step brothers or step sisters either.

Many people who think He did are misinterpreting ancient Semitic words that use the word "brother" more as a way to describe anyone your age that you have a close kinship with. In some cases it even described people in the same religious sect.

This is what happens when a layperson relies only on their own education to interpret a historical text that's been translated several times from its original language over 2,000 years: they get a lot of historical facts wrong. It also causes misinterpretations of a lot of Jesus' parables (but that's another topic).

(08-21-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 01:05 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  "That was the point I was making. Some people try to use the excuse that the Pharisees and scribes deeply studied the scriptures more than anyone but still could not understand who Jesus was. Thus they will not understand them either. That is not remotely what Jesus said about them and their rejection of HIM and a terrible excuse not to study the Bible."

Catholics as far back as the 11th century were afraid of the power of the church, even the monarchy. With the threat of ex-communication the people were scared into submission. They believed that the church was the only way into heaven because it was ingrained into their psyche. The people in those days and even up to the 20th century believed that only priests could tell them about God and the Bible not realizing that not even the priests knew about the Bible. They focused more on the Catholic Cathechism which in many ways is blasphemous and heretic. One main blasphemous point of it is the belief that the Pope is God's representative on earth which the Bible refutes very easily where it states that Jesus is our ONLY mediator between God and men. If Jesus had the power to create heaven and earth why would he need the help of a human that he created, i.e., the Pope.

That is why until many years into the twentieth century it was a big no-no for anyone to own or to read a Bible as a Catholic. They did not want anyone to know the truth about their lies. I was awakened when I left the church and started reading the Bible myself. My sister for instance, a strong Catholic, did not even know that Jesus had step brothers and sisters. LOL, before I converted, neither did I.

I urge anyone who is interested in a small sampling of this subject to read Father Chiniquy's e-book autobiography. It's long and very, very interesting. The only thing I didn't like about it is that he cries a lot. LOL It's free...

http://www.biblebelievers.com/chiniquy/index.html

Jesus did not have biological brothers or sisters. He almost certainly did not have step brothers or step sisters either.

Many people who think He did are misinterpreting ancient Semitic words that use the word "brother" more as a way to describe anyone your age that you have a close kinship with. In some cases it even described people in the same religious sect.

This is what happens when a layperson relies only on their own education to interpret a historical text that's been translated several times from its original language over 2,000 years: they get a lot of historical facts wrong. It also causes misinterpretations of a lot of Jesus' parables (but that's another topic).

Getting off topic, but if you have evidence of "almost certainly did not," it flies in the face of both the words in the Bible and the tradition of large families of the time.

(08-21-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Jesus did not have biological brothers or sisters. He almost certainly did not have step brothers or step sisters either.

Many people who think He did are misinterpreting ancient Semitic words that use the word "brother" more as a way to describe anyone your age that you have a close kinship with. In some cases it even described people in the same religious sect.

This is what happens when a layperson relies only on their own education to interpret a historical text that's been translated several times from its original language over 2,000 years: they get a lot of historical facts wrong. It also causes misinterpretations of a lot of Jesus' parables (but that's another topic).

With all due respect you are just flat out wrong here. We have all of these texts in their orignal written language of Greek (NOT Semitic) and can translate them directly from Greek to English, its NOT filtered through multiple languages and translations.

Both the Greek and the English translation from the Greek identify that Jesus had brothers. Any view that these were not his brothers is pure conjecture and contradicts both the Greek and the English here.

Its not just the translation, but the context of some of the verses that make clear these were actual brothers.

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-...-have.html

(08-20-2020 04:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first
stone!
John 8:7 NLT

In light of the latest victim of cancel culture Thom Brennan, I want to ask that when did it become ok for us as a society to banish someone for even the slightest indiscretion?

I dont really know Brennan other than he is an announcer, but as a human being its exhausting, disheartening, and frankly frightening that your whole life can be ruined by an innocent mistake, an off color joke, or even something that is wrong but doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Jesus didn't justify or condone the actions of the woman in this story but he certainly didn't give her a death sentence over it. He forgave her and told her to change, to "sin no more"

When did we as a culture lose this as part of our fabric ?

I would argue that it has always been ok to “cancel” someone. It has just been really difficult to get enough people to do it.

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 01:24 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

By today's standards no. There are a lot of worse examples.

But there is a holier than thou intolerance. There is no understanding of "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." It is a beautiful story.

What happens to people today is not beautiful.

What is the correct response by his employer? Frankly, nobody is expecting Thom Brennaman to be a perfect person. I'm sure on his own time, he is very much imperfect like all of us. But his employer has every right to expect a basic decency while he represents them on-air. What he said falls very short of that.

If I were caught dropping slurs in front of passengers, I doubt my employer would forgive it because I didn't mean for them to hear it, or because "hey, nobody's perfect". And that wouldn't even be a national embarrassment like this.

(08-21-2020 05:37 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 01:24 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

By today's standards no. There are a lot of worse examples.

But there is a holier than thou intolerance. There is no understanding of "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." It is a beautiful story.

What happens to people today is not beautiful.

What is the correct response by his employer? Frankly, nobody is expecting Thom Brennaman to be a perfect person. I'm sure on his own time, he is very much imperfect like all of us. But his employer has every right to expect a basic decency while he represents them on-air. What he said falls very short of that.

If I were caught dropping slurs in front of passengers, I doubt my employer would forgive it because I didn't mean for them to hear it, or because "hey, nobody's perfect". And that wouldn't even be a national embarrassment like this.

I'll use an example from my work. I had a clerical employee who was a compulsive liar (won't distract from the topic by giving examples). Average or little below average worker, nothing special. She said she had to take a day off to take a firefighter's test, that it was the only day in her area. That was her dream, to be a firefighter (in reality it was her boyfriend's dream). So I let her take the day off. Later I checked up and discovered the test could be taken many days in many different places. And it wasn't offered in the place she claimed on the day she took off.

I confronted her. I expected her to say, ok, I got caught. I won't do it again. And that would have been that. Instead, she attacked me for checking up on her. So at that point, I started the process to fire her.

It wasn't the mistake that got her fired. It was lying about it and refusing to take responsibility for it and correct the problem.

It should be something really extreme to take someone's job from them.

(08-21-2020 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 05:37 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 01:24 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

By today's standards no. There are a lot of worse examples.

But there is a holier than thou intolerance. There is no understanding of "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." It is a beautiful story.

What happens to people today is not beautiful.

What is the correct response by his employer? Frankly, nobody is expecting Thom Brennaman to be a perfect person. I'm sure on his own time, he is very much imperfect like all of us. But his employer has every right to expect a basic decency while he represents them on-air. What he said falls very short of that.

If I were caught dropping slurs in front of passengers, I doubt my employer would forgive it because I didn't mean for them to hear it, or because "hey, nobody's perfect". And that wouldn't even be a national embarrassment like this.

I'll use an example from my work. I had a clerical employee who was a compulsive liar (won't distract from the topic by giving examples). Average or little below average worker, nothing special. She said she had to take a day off to take a firefighter's test, that it was the only day in her area. That was her dream, to be a firefighter (in reality it was her boyfriend's dream). So I let her take the day off. Later I checked up and discovered the test could be taken many days in many different places. And it wasn't offered in the place she claimed on the day she took off.

I confronted her. I expected her to say, ok, I got caught. I won't do it again. And that would have been that. Instead, she attacked me for checking up on her. So at that point, I started the process to fire her.

It wasn't the mistake that got her fired. It was lying about it and refusing to take responsibility for it and correct the problem.

It should be something really extreme to take someone's job from them.

I would argue that embarrassing your employer all over national news by using a slur on live TV is much more extreme than your example.

"Many people who think He did are misinterpreting ancient Semitic words that use the word "brother" more as a way to describe anyone your age that you have a close kinship with. In some cases it even described people in the same religious sect."


So everyone is wrong except you? Thanks, but I have the prerogative of believing what I believe. You saying it ain't so isn't enough. I've heard from others what I just posted about Him having brothers and sisters.

(08-21-2020 06:03 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 05:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 05:37 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 01:24 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I don't think this is the example to use of "cancel culture" going too far.

By today's standards no. There are a lot of worse examples.

But there is a holier than thou intolerance. There is no understanding of "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." It is a beautiful story.

What happens to people today is not beautiful.

What is the correct response by his employer? Frankly, nobody is expecting Thom Brennaman to be a perfect person. I'm sure on his own time, he is very much imperfect like all of us. But his employer has every right to expect a basic decency while he represents them on-air. What he said falls very short of that.

If I were caught dropping slurs in front of passengers, I doubt my employer would forgive it because I didn't mean for them to hear it, or because "hey, nobody's perfect". And that wouldn't even be a national embarrassment like this.

I'll use an example from my work. I had a clerical employee who was a compulsive liar (won't distract from the topic by giving examples). Average or little below average worker, nothing special. She said she had to take a day off to take a firefighter's test, that it was the only day in her area. That was her dream, to be a firefighter (in reality it was her boyfriend's dream). So I let her take the day off. Later I checked up and discovered the test could be taken many days in many different places. And it wasn't offered in the place she claimed on the day she took off.

I confronted her. I expected her to say, ok, I got caught. I won't do it again. And that would have been that. Instead, she attacked me for checking up on her. So at that point, I started the process to fire her.

It wasn't the mistake that got her fired. It was lying about it and refusing to take responsibility for it and correct the problem.

It should be something really extreme to take someone's job from them.

I would argue that embarrassing your employer all over national news by using a slur on live TV is much more extreme than your example.

Something extreme is theft or violence where they are a continuing problem. Saying something stupid is correctable. Saying it again-that's a different issue.

And its not nearly as extreme as doing a young intern under your office desk at work.

And then he lied about it and viciously verbally attacked her and encouraged many others to do the same.