LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

I understand, no hard feelings thanks for taking the time to respond.

To the bulk of your post, I don't see allowing a LBT whatever group on campus as abandoning the Christian mission of the university. Homosexuals have been attending for a long time and the world is completely different now than it was 10/20/etc years ago. We will see more progress in the next 10 years than the prior 100, and it will keep exponentially increasing.
To think Baylor should be now what it exactly was 40 years ago is something I disagree with, but also understand not everyone will see it that way.

---

How far does Baylor (or Christianity in general) bend to the "progress" of society? To the point that it's core beliefs and values are obliterated?

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter. Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

I'm of the opinion that God's Word doesn't change and shouldn't be bending to the whim of culture. Nothing has been "revealed" or discovered that would change the Biblical prohibition on adultery, or lying, or greed, or homosexuality, etc.

---

Well, I'm thankful that believing the Bible is what it says and what it means has led us to a more liberating hermeneutic on the issue of slavery.

---

There will always be people who try to twist God's Word to meet their agenda. You mention slavery, but at other times it had been inter-racial marriage. Today, it is the "prosperity gospel ", redefining marriage and the roles of a man and a woman. Tomorrow, who knows.

Keeping praying and keep reading. Ask for the proper understanding and be humble enough to accept it when it is revealed.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

There will always be people who try to twist God's Word to meet their agenda. You mention slavery, but at other times it had been inter-racial marriage. Today, it is the "prosperity gospel ", redefining marriage and the roles of a man and a woman. Tomorrow, who knows.

Keeping praying and keep reading. Ask for the proper understanding and be humble enough to accept it when it is revealed.

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

After Brittany G played basketball and was the biggest lesbian in Big 12 history, the school looks decent and normal trying not to cause grief with the other 10-20 percent of our gay student population.

It's a little late to complain about gays and lesbians after BG was hyped and marketed by the school.

---

Who's Brittany G...a pop star or something?

---

Our rather well known women's basketball player. We surrendered our closet gay student population when we ran her out on the floor.

Baylor likely has a large gay population that would cause strife if known by the Baptist check writers.

---

Meh.

---

Baylor ain't no fundamentalist campground. It basically goes by the old military strategy on gays and lesbians.
"Don't ask, don't tell."

---

I don't know anyone who has a problem with that.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

If y'all were seriously sincerely rigid adherents to what ancient people thought, you would be raising issues about shrimp being served in the cafeterias. Stop picking and choosing what to ignore as to what ancient people wrote and what to rigidly adhere to.

---

This is perhaps the poorest, most uneducated, most overused argument regarding the bible that exist. Do just a little bit of reading on your own and then delete your post before others read it.

---

Why is it the "poorest, most uneducated, most overused argument regarding the Bible"? Because you don't like it nor have a good retort?

If we had a complete solar eclipse tomorrow, would you want a 500 B.C. sheep herding cave dweller to explain it to you or a current day educated astrophysicist? How do you feel naturally occurring phenomenon like that was interpreted and past down orally? Accurately?

I'm curious how questioning the judgement/context of people who knew nothing about the world/environment/science around them is "uneducated"? Willing to be educated...

Couldn't care less about LBGTQ groups or whatever at Baylor. Being a loving example will gain you more influence than a preachy moralist, IMO.

---

Those cave-dwellers birthed the civilization that produced modern astrophysics. If that civilization loses its way, don't expect an astrophysicist to be able to explain why.

---

Those cave dwellers are so far removed from today's world they couldn't explain it in any way except supernaturally.

---

It's the same world with the same rules of logic. Relying on technicians for moral insight will always be a fallacy.

---

It is a very different world.

---

God's economy hasn't changed. We have.

---

God's economy. OK.

---

When you're a smart guy, it is difficult to play dumb. Don't plead ignorance here.

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

It's not primitive to see that a$$ holes are exits and not entrances.

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

What's the plan to stop the school? You guys plan to invite Westboro Baptist to Waco to protest? You guys might actually get some publicity if they show.
Otherwise, a few Baptist's might take notice. No one else will care.

---

I understand that no one cares. You've only reminded us 22 times.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Made them man and woman. Simply descriptive of gender

---

Wait. You mean it didn't describe the other 37 genders? Are you saying there's only TWO genders!!?? What gives?
Two genders but masculinity and femininity are separate concepts and the line between them is fluid.

---

---

I am literally begging you to learn how to use the quote feature on this site.

Ok, so there are two genders, and the Bible says those two genders are to marry each other. What does it say about one gender marrying the same gender? I know it speaks about how detestable it is for one gender to "lie with" the same gender, so it seems to pretty clearly disapprove of same gender relations. But maybe it carves out an exception for loving relationships and marriages. Can you point me to that verse?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Made them man and woman. Simply descriptive of gender

---

Wait. You mean it didn't describe the other 37 genders? Are you saying there's only TWO genders!!?? What gives?
Two genders but masculinity and femininity are separate concepts and the line between them is fluid.

---

---

I am literally begging you to learn how to use the quote feature on this site.

Ok, so there are two genders, and the Bible says those two genders are to marry each other. What does it say about one gender marrying the same gender? I know it speaks about how detestable it is for one gender to "lie with" the same gender, so it seems to pretty clearly disapprove of same gender relations. But maybe it carves out an exception for loving relationships and marriages. Can you point me to that verse?

---

It's says nothing. Arguments from silence go either way

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

I think quash makes an important error, when he conflates individuals who supported practices like slavery because they personally gained by it, with Christ's teachings supporting anything like slavery.

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

I think quash makes an important error, when he conflates individuals who supported practices like slavery because they personally gained by it, with Christ's teachings supporting anything like slavery.

---

The bad apple defense. I'm familiar with it.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

I think quash makes an important error, when he conflates individuals who supported practices like slavery because they personally gained by it, with Christ's teachings supporting anything like slavery.

---

The bad apple defense. I'm familiar with it.

---

If you disagree with my point quash, feel free to show me the verses where Jesus approved of Slavery.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Prairie_Bear said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

If society "progressed" to the point of accepting pedophilia, should Baylor sponsor/recognize/facilitate a Pedophile Club? If not, why not? It's taboo today, but by your reasoning what is accepted or prohibited today shouldn't matter.

Or something that is prevalent and accepted today, like porn. Should Baylor endorse a Porn Club?

---

Well, it's a fools errand imo to say "never" so I understand what you are saying. For context (I went back and re-read OP) we are talking about allowing a LBGTQish group on campus, not changing Christianity overall view of "sin", right? We are talking about consenting adults behaving/exploring/finding themselves among other adults, correct? Just want to make sure I am on target and didn't miss something.

Quote:

---

Newton, Pasteur, Aristotle, et al, apparently possessed no lasting wisdom because they weren't working with the same information we are . . . so by that logic we don't today either. Because in the future we'll have more information.

---

I don't understand this statement. Are those referenced people's work not testable and amendable upon new science? Same doesn't hold true for hardcore religious types. They will only accept new ideas if it fits with their preconceived beliefs. Those are completely different.


Lastly, to the person who claimed the Bible isn't a science book, then why does it attempt to explain the origins of the universe? How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? I bring that up to make an analogy on Biblical ideas of other aspects (homosexuality). Maybe they were ignorant about other things, too? To say "religion is there to check/balance" sounds great, but in reality it was created by primitive people to attempt to explain what they couldn't explain without tools/science/testable observation. Doesn't mean everything contained is nonsense, I just don't personally believe strict adherence (from interpretation) to primitive ideas is a great way to go in 2019.

---

The origin of the universe has been the subject of poems, plays, oratorios, films, etc. Not all treatments of the subject are scientific.

What the Bible tells us is that God created the world. This was not testable by observation when the text was written, and it never will be. The question has nothing to do with how primitive or advanced we imagine ourselves to be. There were schools of philosophy in the ancient world that saw the universe and its origins in basically the same way materialists see it today.

Our laws and morals are largely based on what you call primitive ideas, particularly those expressed in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. If I say "thou shalt not steal," it makes little sense to argue that the rule is invalid because it comes from a culture that didn't understand quantum physics.

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

I think quash makes an important error, when he conflates individuals who supported practices like slavery because they personally gained by it, with Christ's teachings supporting anything like slavery.

---

The bad apple defense. I'm familiar with it.

---

If you disagree with my point quash, feel free to show me the verses where Jesus approved of Slavery.

---

OK.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

I think quash makes an important error, when he conflates individuals who supported practices like slavery because they personally gained by it, with Christ's teachings supporting anything like slavery.

---

The bad apple defense. I'm familiar with it.

---

If you disagree with my point quash, feel free to show me the verses where Jesus approved of Slavery.

---

OK.

---

Since you never followed up with any such verses, quash, I'm gonna take your 'OK' as an admission Jesus never spoke with approval toward Slavery.

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Morals didn't stop evolving 2000 years ago. I recommend Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc.

---

Then make your case. That's where the debate begins, not where it ends.

---

My case for what?

---

For the merits of whatever moral development you're advocating, if any. The same goes for Prairie Bear et al.

---

I think the merits of moral advancement are self evident. Or would it Make the World Great Again to go back to when the church supported slavery, etc.?

---

I think quash makes an important error, when he conflates individuals who supported practices like slavery because they personally gained by it, with Christ's teachings supporting anything like slavery.

---

The bad apple defense. I'm familiar with it.

---

If you disagree with my point quash, feel free to show me the verses where Jesus approved of Slavery.

---

OK.

---

Since you never followed up with any such verses, quash, I'm gonna take your 'OK' as an admission Jesus never spoke with approval toward Slavery.

---

Your conditional statement, if p then q. But p wasn't true: I never disagreed with your point. Bad Apple defense still applies.

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

We are talking about Baylor formally recognizing and facilitating a group that practices and celebrates what Christianity (universally until recently, and certainly still the southern baptist denomination) believes to be sin. That would be "changing the overall view of sin." And "consenting adults exploring among other adults" has absolutely nothing to do with it. That qualifier would apply to a "premarital sex" club, or an adultery club, or a Porn Club. Do you believe those things should not be considered sin? Or that Baylor should condone them? It goes back to my question "How far should Christianity (or Baylor) bend to culture's acceptance of sin?"

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be dismissing the authority of the Bible because the people to whom God revealed Himself were "primitive" or "ignorant." But that claim would be equally valid if His revelations were made to you right now. Or to the most brilliant person alive today. Because people become "primitive" over time. If God selected his chosen people today and revealed his plan of salvation etc, we would be deemed primitive and ignorant by the humans who walk the earth a thousand years from now. Would that make His creative and salvific purposes any less true? The fact that he chose to deliver His word and provide the propitiation of Christ etc at the particular point in human history He did does not make that word less reliable merely because the people of that time were working with less scientific knowledge than the people of today (or because the people of today have less information than the people of a thousand years from now).

---

Quote:

---

How can you know how the universe was created but not know where the sun went at night? Perhaps because God chose to reveal the former and not the latter? His revelations were not meant to be an explanation of the cosmos, or atomic structure, or quantum physics. The only "explanation of the origins of the universe" were that "God created."

If you hold that people were "ignorant" and therefore we can't take what the Bible says as authoritative as to God's will and design . . . and don't believe "adherence to 'primitive' ideas is a great way to go in 2019" then you are essentially saying you want to create a religion of your own or throw out religion altogether. Neither of those is in any way congruent with Baylor's core beliefs/mission/purpose. Hence my comment that perhaps it turns out you chose the wrong school.

---