So, let's see. You (A) made your decision to come to Baylor more than 20 years ago, and (B) think that 20+ years ago Baylor was less religious and conservative (and therefore less offensive to your liberal and/or atheistic worldview) than today.PartyBear said:
I said the past 20 years. And yes you folks who want to be alums of Liberty should have gone there.
remember when Baylor was run by liberals who hated dancing. LOL at the logic of the shrimp brainbearassnekkid said:So, let's see. You (A) made your decision to come to Baylor more than 20 years ago, and (B) think that 20+ years ago Baylor was less religious and conservative (and therefore less offensive to your liberal and/or atheistic worldview) than today.PartyBear said:
I said the past 20 years. And yes you folks who want to be alums of Liberty should have gone there.
Yeah. Ok then.
Do you really not understand the time frame reference? The Polanyi fiasco? TArts? Declaring war on the school's alums? Blowing Title IX?bearassnekkid said:So, let's see. You (A) made your decision to come to Baylor more than 20 years ago, and (B) think that 20+ years ago Baylor was less religious and conservative (and therefore less offensive to your liberal and/or atheistic worldview) than today.PartyBear said:
I said the past 20 years. And yes you folks who want to be alums of Liberty should have gone there.
Yeah. Ok then.
Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
Equally disappointing. Personal attack on another poster b/c of a disagreement. Mr Bears, do you feel a comment like this to someone struggling with their faith brings them closer to God, no impact, or triggers a "this is why I don't go to church anymore" response?Quote:
LOL at the logic of the shrimp brain
Conservatives don't like to tell people what to do?Sam Lowry said:I'd say you folks who want to be alums of UC Berkeley should have gone there...but of course I know you're kidding. X has assured us that no liberal would ever come to Baylor and try to tell us what to do.PartyBear said:
I said the past 20 years. And yes you folks who want to be alums Liberty should have gone there.
I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
"He" (kind of obvious alt-nick) said Baylor has been run by idiots for 20 years and that those who think it should be a religious school should have gone to Liberty. In reality, Baylor was more like Liberty 20+ years ago than it has been for the last 20 years. But whatever.quash said:Do you really not understand the time frame reference? The Polanyi fiasco? TArts? Declaring war on the school's alums? Blowing Title IX?bearassnekkid said:So, let's see. You (A) made your decision to come to Baylor more than 20 years ago, and (B) think that 20+ years ago Baylor was less religious and conservative (and therefore less offensive to your liberal and/or atheistic worldview) than today.PartyBear said:
I said the past 20 years. And yes you folks who want to be alums of Liberty should have gone there.
Yeah. Ok then.
There's no party ideology in play unless you brought it with you.
So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
I don't disagree with this post even though a portion of it is directed at correcting me.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.Equally disappointing. Personal attack on another poster b/c of a disagreement. Mr Bears, do you feel a comment like this to someone struggling with their faith brings them closer to God, no impact, or triggers a "this is why I don't go to church anymore" response?Quote:
LOL at the logic of the shrimp brain
Look I get it, I grew up going to church 6 days a week (5 days private high school, Sunday) then went on to Baylor. I get the circle the wagons and shoot out mentality. As a Christian it gets old having to take it all the time, but this is your opportunity to WITNESS TO OTHERS! Your most important duty and instead the default action on this board is to author an epic burn and trigger that dopamine release counting your agreement blue stars. If there is a grand judgement, I think some of you are in for a surprise.
Response to other posts off the top of my head (still would like some of my questions answered as I struggle with those, but of course no obligation):
- What is "God's Economy"?
- Does it make sense to have "access to information" about the origins of the universe but NOT the sun is the center of our solar system? I don't know, maybe too small of a detail to be bothered with? I say this in a macro sense, thought the context would be obvious.
- That's awesome Newton and Pasteur had faith, how come they were not able to author new texts to the Bible given their new found knowledge about the universe and how they felt God makes things work? Would they not have more credibility than an unknown sheep herder? If I claim God is breathing through me, how come everyone doubts me but if I existed 2,000 years earlier I'd have more authority?
and I'm the source of this post so it should help with contextLIB,MR BEARS said:
A quick summation of my view.
Being gay will not send a person to hell anymore than being straight will send a person to heaven.
Sin is what will place a person in hell. The wages of sin is death. That is why WE ALL need a Savior. My sin is not homosexuality but I have plenty of other sins. Because of those other sins, I have a debt to pay but it is a debt I cannot pay. Christ paid it for me.
Do I still sin? Yes. Do I advocate for a sin and try to say it is not sin? I sure hope not. Do I still have sins of omission? Yep. Do I tell the world my omissions are not sin? I sure hope not.
bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
Newton and Pasteur didn't add to the Bible because the Bible isn't a science book.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.Equally disappointing. Personal attack on another poster b/c of a disagreement. Mr Bears, do you feel a comment like this to someone struggling with their faith brings them closer to God, no impact, or triggers a "this is why I don't go to church anymore" response?Quote:
LOL at the logic of the shrimp brain
Look I get it, I grew up going to church 6 days a week (5 days private high school, Sunday) then went on to Baylor. I get the circle the wagons and shoot out mentality. As a Christian it gets old having to take it all the time, but this is your opportunity to WITNESS TO OTHERS! Your most important duty and instead the default action on this board is to author an epic burn and trigger that dopamine release counting your agreement blue stars. If there is a grand judgement, I think some of you are in for a surprise.
Response to other posts off the top of my head (still would like some of my questions answered as I struggle with those, but of course no obligation):
- What is "God's Economy"?
- Does it make sense to have "access to information" about the origins of the universe but NOT the sun is the center of our solar system? I don't know, maybe too small of a detail to be bothered with? I say this in a macro sense, thought the context would be obvious.
- That's awesome Newton and Pasteur had faith, how come they were not able to author new texts to the Bible given their new found knowledge about the universe and how they felt God makes things work? Would they not have more credibility than an unknown sheep herder? If I claim God is breathing through me, how come everyone doubts me but if I existed 2,000 years earlier I'd have more authority?
When you're a smart guy, it is difficult to play dumb. Don't plead ignorance here.quash said:God's economy. OK.Edmond Bear said:quash said:It is a very different world.Sam Lowry said:It's the same world with the same rules of logic. Relying on technicians for moral insight will always be a fallacy.quash said:Sam Lowry said: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.Prairie_Bear said:Why is it the "poorest, most uneducated, most overused argument regarding the Bible"? Because you don't like it nor have a good retort?LIB,MR BEARS said: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.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.
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 are so far removed from today's world they couldn't explain it in any way except supernaturally.
God's economy hasn't changed. We have.
Chuckle, I see why you're a con. You just make up stuff. Baylor is better in a myriad of ways because it made the change to integrate, football being one of them. Stop being such a con snowflakebearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
Sprite-worshipers didn't have an advanced science because they lacked the concept of an ordered universe. The point is that there are plenty of foolish people who can tell you where the sun goes at night, and you won't be any better off if you let them tell you how to live. The Bible tells us how to live, not how the solar system works.quash said:Newton is (a) not fifth century BC and (b) not a sprite worshipper. Was he right to reject the Trinity? To point out that passages had been added to scripture?Sam Lowry said:Isaac Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."quash said:If you don't know where the sun goes at night there's a lot of the world you will never understand. As Sagan called it, the demon haunted world. A genius who worships river sprite will never use his genius to define gravity. Or germ theory. Or hydrofracking.Sam Lowry said:Knowing where the sun goes at night doesn't make you any wiser or more intelligent. It just means you've had access to information on that particular topic.Prairie_Bear said:LIB,MR BEARS said:sacrificial laws do not apply as Jesus was the last sacrifice.Prairie_Bear said:Why is it the "poorest, most uneducated, most overused argument regarding the Bible"? Because you don't like it nor have a good retort?LIB,MR BEARS said: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.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.
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.
Thanks for sharing, not an easy watch but I did. Still don't understand your strong hyperbole when you are just replacing one ancient text script with a newer one then making a loud "how dumb are you!" statement.
Why did the direct line to God stop for authoring texts back when we didn't know anything? Shouldn't we be updating texts as a dynamic book like you just did to eschew OT commandments? We want to advance in literally every aspect of life except organized religion. Seems odd to me and alot of trust put in people who couldn't tell ya where the sun went at night but knew how to get to a magical afterlife!
Christians can't even agree on what makes a Christian (denominations), not thrilled to use scripture as some litmus test on what we should be doing with campus groups in 2019.
Louis Pasteur: "Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory."
Can't find any quotes from George P. Mitchell, but evidently he was a member and generous supporter of Trinity Episcopal Church in Galveston.
Why dont you let me explain. My shell fish comment was also intended as a humorous way of showing you folks who accuse everyone you disagree with of treating scriptures with a cafeteria approach, that you have the same cafeteria approach practices and that you are no more dedicated to what "scripture" says than anyone else despite how piously you declare otherwise. Let me share with you neither Paul nor anyone else in the 1st century knew jack shzt about genes and DNA. As someone pointed out they didnt even understand what the sun was or what was happening at sunrise or sunset.LIB,MR BEARS said:I don't disagree with this post even though a portion of it is directed at correcting me.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.Equally disappointing. Personal attack on another poster b/c of a disagreement. Mr Bears, do you feel a comment like this to someone struggling with their faith brings them closer to God, no impact, or triggers a "this is why I don't go to church anymore" response?Quote:
LOL at the logic of the shrimp brain
Look I get it, I grew up going to church 6 days a week (5 days private high school, Sunday) then went on to Baylor. I get the circle the wagons and shoot out mentality. As a Christian it gets old having to take it all the time, but this is your opportunity to WITNESS TO OTHERS! Your most important duty and instead the default action on this board is to author an epic burn and trigger that dopamine release counting your agreement blue stars. If there is a grand judgement, I think some of you are in for a surprise.
Response to other posts off the top of my head (still would like some of my questions answered as I struggle with those, but of course no obligation):
- What is "God's Economy"?
- Does it make sense to have "access to information" about the origins of the universe but NOT the sun is the center of our solar system? I don't know, maybe too small of a detail to be bothered with? I say this in a macro sense, thought the context would be obvious.
- That's awesome Newton and Pasteur had faith, how come they were not able to author new texts to the Bible given their new found knowledge about the universe and how they felt God makes things work? Would they not have more credibility than an unknown sheep herder? If I claim God is breathing through me, how come everyone doubts me but if I existed 2,000 years earlier I'd have more authority?
Let me explain. The poster made a really weak argument involving Old Testament law and shellfish, specifically shrimp. He then makes another argument that references no-dancing, don't ask/don't tell BU as being a better BU than today but coming from a liberal point of view. That certainly sounds crazy (yes, I know you can view it as Quash has but that changes the direction and topic of the thread) . Putting those two things together, shrimp and brain (thought process). It is/was intended as humor. Does humor always translate when there is no voice inflection or timing? No it doesn't. But, that is how the comment was intended. Context and source matters
this will require a much longer answer than I can provide while working. I'll revisit this evening.PartyBear said:Why dont you let me explain. My shell fish comment was also intended as a humorous way of showing you folks who accuse everyone you disagree with of treating scriptures with a cafeteria approach, that you have the same cafeteria approach practices and that you are no more dedicated to what "scripture" says than anyone else despite how piously you declare otherwise. Let me share with you neither Paul nor anyone else in the 1st century knew jack shzt about genes and DNA. As someone pointed out they didnt even understand what the sun was or what was happening at sunrise or sunset.LIB,MR BEARS said:I don't disagree with this post even though a portion of it is directed at correcting me.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.Equally disappointing. Personal attack on another poster b/c of a disagreement. Mr Bears, do you feel a comment like this to someone struggling with their faith brings them closer to God, no impact, or triggers a "this is why I don't go to church anymore" response?Quote:
LOL at the logic of the shrimp brain
Look I get it, I grew up going to church 6 days a week (5 days private high school, Sunday) then went on to Baylor. I get the circle the wagons and shoot out mentality. As a Christian it gets old having to take it all the time, but this is your opportunity to WITNESS TO OTHERS! Your most important duty and instead the default action on this board is to author an epic burn and trigger that dopamine release counting your agreement blue stars. If there is a grand judgement, I think some of you are in for a surprise.
Response to other posts off the top of my head (still would like some of my questions answered as I struggle with those, but of course no obligation):
- What is "God's Economy"?
- Does it make sense to have "access to information" about the origins of the universe but NOT the sun is the center of our solar system? I don't know, maybe too small of a detail to be bothered with? I say this in a macro sense, thought the context would be obvious.
- That's awesome Newton and Pasteur had faith, how come they were not able to author new texts to the Bible given their new found knowledge about the universe and how they felt God makes things work? Would they not have more credibility than an unknown sheep herder? If I claim God is breathing through me, how come everyone doubts me but if I existed 2,000 years earlier I'd have more authority?
Let me explain. The poster made a really weak argument involving Old Testament law and shellfish, specifically shrimp. He then makes another argument that references no-dancing, don't ask/don't tell BU as being a better BU than today but coming from a liberal point of view. That certainly sounds crazy (yes, I know you can view it as Quash has but that changes the direction and topic of the thread) . Putting those two things together, shrimp and brain (thought process). It is/was intended as humor. Does humor always translate when there is no voice inflection or timing? No it doesn't. But, that is how the comment was intended. Context and source matters
I specifically spoke about how Baylor's leaders (BOR and most Presidents of Baylor) have been bad over the past 20 years bad to the point of being embarrassing at times actually. Remember Franklin Graham's sister was a Regent during this time and didnt even have a high school diploma. It appears Baylor is turning a corner in that regard and has a good number of new Regents who could also be the type of person who would be a Regent at Vandy, Stanford or University of Texas. It appears due to this Baylor is getting serious about stepping up its game in the academic world and enhancing its reputation. This also helps us maintain our current athletic status btw.
Neither do the people who are telling you homosexuality is genetically determined.PartyBear said:Let me share with you neither Paul nor anyone else in the 1st century knew jack shzt about genes and DNA.LIB,MR BEARS said:I don't disagree with this post even though a portion of it is directed at correcting me.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.Equally disappointing. Personal attack on another poster b/c of a disagreement. Mr Bears, do you feel a comment like this to someone struggling with their faith brings them closer to God, no impact, or triggers a "this is why I don't go to church anymore" response?Quote:
LOL at the logic of the shrimp brain
Look I get it, I grew up going to church 6 days a week (5 days private high school, Sunday) then went on to Baylor. I get the circle the wagons and shoot out mentality. As a Christian it gets old having to take it all the time, but this is your opportunity to WITNESS TO OTHERS! Your most important duty and instead the default action on this board is to author an epic burn and trigger that dopamine release counting your agreement blue stars. If there is a grand judgement, I think some of you are in for a surprise.
Response to other posts off the top of my head (still would like some of my questions answered as I struggle with those, but of course no obligation):
- What is "God's Economy"?
- Does it make sense to have "access to information" about the origins of the universe but NOT the sun is the center of our solar system? I don't know, maybe too small of a detail to be bothered with? I say this in a macro sense, thought the context would be obvious.
- That's awesome Newton and Pasteur had faith, how come they were not able to author new texts to the Bible given their new found knowledge about the universe and how they felt God makes things work? Would they not have more credibility than an unknown sheep herder? If I claim God is breathing through me, how come everyone doubts me but if I existed 2,000 years earlier I'd have more authority?
Let me explain. The poster made a really weak argument involving Old Testament law and shellfish, specifically shrimp. He then makes another argument that references no-dancing, don't ask/don't tell BU as being a better BU than today but coming from a liberal point of view. That certainly sounds crazy (yes, I know you can view it as Quash has but that changes the direction and topic of the thread) . Putting those two things together, shrimp and brain (thought process). It is/was intended as humor. Does humor always translate when there is no voice inflection or timing? No it doesn't. But, that is how the comment was intended. Context and source matters
Dude. If you think you can win without the best players, regardless of race, go for it. cinque is not saying black athletes are better, he's saying BU once ignored the best black athletes.bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
No, that's not what he said. And if it's what he meant, at that time schools like Texas and OU were not exactly setting the bar for inclusion, so it's hardly a legitimate comment by any reasonable standard.quash said:Dude. If you think you can win without the best players, regardless of race, go for it. cinque is not saying black athletes are better, he's saying BU once ignored the best black athletes.bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
I said what I meant. Baylor is better in a myriad of ways (football being one of them) because people challenged it to change and integrate. This is hardly a controversial statement, at least it shouldn't be.Oldbear83 said:No, that's not what he said. And if it's what he meant, at that time schools like Texas and OU were not exactly setting the bar for inclusion, so it's hardly a legitimate comment by any reasonable standard.quash said:Dude. If you think you can win without the best players, regardless of race, go for it. cinque is not saying black athletes are better, he's saying BU once ignored the best black athletes.bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
Integration was not about football. And you cheapen the matter by such suggestion.cinque said:I said what I meant. Baylor is better in a myriad of ways (football being one of them) because people challenged it to change and integrate. This is hardly a controversial statement, at least it shouldn't be.Oldbear83 said:No, that's not what he said. And if it's what he meant, at that time schools like Texas and OU were not exactly setting the bar for inclusion, so it's hardly a legitimate comment by any reasonable standard.quash said:Dude. If you think you can win without the best players, regardless of race, go for it. cinque is not saying black athletes are better, he's saying BU once ignored the best black athletes.bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
Totally agree!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.
Nope. Nice try (not really), but nope. You said "without integration Baylor wouldn't have had those great football teams."cinque said:I said what I meant. Baylor is better in a myriad of ways (football being one of them) because people challenged it to change and integrate. This is hardly a controversial statement, at least it shouldn't be.Oldbear83 said:No, that's not what he said. And if it's what he meant, at that time schools like Texas and OU were not exactly setting the bar for inclusion, so it's hardly a legitimate comment by any reasonable standard.quash said:Dude. If you think you can win without the best players, regardless of race, go for it. cinque is not saying black athletes are better, he's saying BU once ignored the best black athletes.bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
You stop being silly. Are you suggesting that without Baylor changing and choosing to integrate, it would have had those great football teams of the Briles era? You know better. A diverse Baylor has proved to better than the one that preceded it. I'm not sure of the point you think you're making, but stop. Just stop.bearassnekkid said:Nope. Nice try (not really), but nope. You said "without integration Baylor wouldn't have had those great football teams."cinque said:I said what I meant. Baylor is better in a myriad of ways (football being one of them) because people challenged it to change and integrate. This is hardly a controversial statement, at least it shouldn't be.Oldbear83 said:No, that's not what he said. And if it's what he meant, at that time schools like Texas and OU were not exactly setting the bar for inclusion, so it's hardly a legitimate comment by any reasonable standard.quash said:Dude. If you think you can win without the best players, regardless of race, go for it. cinque is not saying black athletes are better, he's saying BU once ignored the best black athletes.bearassnekkid said:Can't wiggle out now. You claim to be black. And you just said that the football teams are better because of black players. You're claiming your race is superior athletically. Are those kinds of superiority claims ok for other races or just yours?cinque said:What?bearassnekkid said:So you're saying your race is inherently better at something than other races?cinque said:People had to push Baylor to integrate. Without that change, Baylor would not have had those great football teams.bearassnekkid said:I didn't mean that in a snarky way. Sorry if it came across as such.Prairie_Bear said:Ha, maybe! Disappointed in this post tbh (especially coming from you whom I respect). I am reading this as essentially, "go back to where you came from and/or you are not welcome here". I am a grad alum, do I not have a say?bearassnekkid said:
May have picked the wrong school.
I meant it legitimately. Maybe you actually picked the wrong school. That would be an ok thing to acknowledge. I admit, I am always a little baffled by the folks who complain about Baylor being all "religious" etc. I always want to ask, "Did you not research the school you chose to attend? How could you not know that Baylor is an overtly religious institution?"
The push to "change" Baylor always just makes me shake my head. People knew what Baylor was when they decided to go there. Why the disdain now? And if you have "evolved" in your thinking since you made that decision, why does Baylor need to change as well? Are we saying there is no place for a Christian school in the marketplace of universities, just because you now wish you had chosen not to go to such a school?
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but just in the broader sense that I see anti-religious Baylor grads griping about Baylor being Christian . . . but that's not Baylor's "fault." It's the individual who changed in their thinking from when they made a conscious decision to attend a religious institution. I don't think the institution needs to change at the whim of the individual (or "culture") when it is rooted in a belief and mission it never tried to hide in the first place.
Do whites/asians etc get to make those claims too, or would that be racist?
Everyone knows exactly what you meant. You think blacks are better at football. But if someone had said that an all black college would improve its proficiency in math or science by admitting whites/asians/whatever . . . you be crying that it was the most racist thing in the world.
You made a blatantly racist statement (by yours and current culture's definition). Just own it. For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with your statement because it's demonstrably true. But that don't fly both ways, does it Cinque?
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?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.
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.bearassnekkid said: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?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.
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.
bearassnekkid said: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?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.
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.
cinque said: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.bearassnekkid said: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?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.
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.
