Baylor Chapel and False Teaching

3,756 Views | 151 Replies | Last: 36 min ago by Mudbear
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
bearassnekkid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

But I will say this in response to the thread title. In matters of theology there is no such thing as "false teaching", because in matters of theology nobody knows anything for sure.
Maybe if viewed from outside the faith. But for Christians who believe in the truth of the bible, there absolutely is such a thing as false teaching. Jesus himself warned against it (Matthew 24:11. for example). So did many other New Testament writers (1 John 4:1-6, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Christianity is a truth claim. It shouldn't be surprising Christians would likewise hold certain things to be false.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearPilot said:

I was there.....witnessed it first hand and I was sickened..

As time has gone on, I've really learned that Baylor's Spiritual Life group has been infiltrated with those who use Christianity as a veil for their political indoctrination.

I understand tenure and how difficult it is to remove people, but there has to be a way to remove people who are opposed to the Christian mission. This is something the regents absolutely need to take up if the officers have their hands tied when it comes to handling it.

Parents aren't paying $200K to send their kids to a school, founded on Christian principles, only to be blasted by the rhetoric and evil that was spewed from the lectern yesterday morning. What happened isn't acceptable and heads need to roll.

Get on it regents... Protect our mission.
You can always employ the tactics of the Left and shout them down until they leave the stage. Nothing like a spirited disapproval of blasphemy to bring Baptists to their feet.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

But I will say this in response to the thread title. In matters of theology there is no such thing as "false teaching", because in matters of theology nobody knows anything for sure.


I think you just provided an excellent example of false teaching in a theological context.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABC BEAR said:

BearPilot said:

I was there.....witnessed it first hand and I was sickened..

As time has gone on, I've really learned that Baylor's Spiritual Life group has been infiltrated with those who use Christianity as a veil for their political indoctrination.

I understand tenure and how difficult it is to remove people, but there has to be a way to remove people who are opposed to the Christian mission. This is something the regents absolutely need to take up if the officers have their hands tied when it comes to handling it.

Parents aren't paying $200K to send their kids to a school, founded on Christian principles, only to be blasted by the rhetoric and evil that was spewed from the lectern yesterday morning. What happened isn't acceptable and heads need to roll.

Get on it regents... Protect our mission.
You can always employ the tactics of the Left and shout them down until they leave the stage. Nothing like a spirited disapproval of blasphemy to bring Baptists to their feet.


Standing up and facing your back to her would have been appropriate, given that the university forced the students to attend by including it in a pseudo-course required for graduation.
snarebear55
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most of this thread is missing the point. I don't care what liberal doctrine was spouted - if you don't think someone can have liberal beliefs and be a Christian you need to reevaluate. And if chapel speakers tout conservative values, which I'm sure some do, then do the Baylor Young Democrats or whatever get to demand a public apology from the university? Of course not. Even if you strongly disagree, it's not an invaluable thing to hear other perspectives if only to be aware of what the other viewpoints are. And it's just a single 50 minute chapel session - even if a student hated every word from the speaker they'll live. The snowflakes label can go both ways. If it's just one never-Trumper, move on. I doubt it's recurring, else there'd have been several more posts like linked in the OP.

It's the praying to 'mother mystery' accusation that is the only damning thing to me. If true, that is what raises cause for concern. I can't reconcile that with any Christian view, and it would seem to have some roots in nature spirituality or something similar. THAT'S what objectively would have no place at Baylor, and would be cause for apology.
bearassnekkid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
snarebear55 said:

Most of this thread is missing the point. I don't care what liberal doctrine was spouted - if you don't think someone can have liberal beliefs and be a Christian you need to reevaluate. And if chapel speakers tout conservative values, which I'm sure some do, then do the Baylor Young Democrats or whatever get to demand a public apology from the university? Of course not. Even if you strongly disagree, it's not an invaluable thing to hear other perspectives if only to be aware of what the other viewpoints are. And it's just a single 50 minute chapel session - even if a student hated every word from the speaker they'll live. The snowflakes label can go both ways. If it's just one never-Trumper, move on. I doubt it's recurring, else there'd have been several more posts like linked in the OP.

It's the praying to 'mother mystery' accusation that is the only damning thing to me. If true, that is what raises cause for concern. I can't reconcile that with any Christian view, and it would seem to have some roots in nature spirituality or something similar. THAT'S what objectively would have no place at Baylor, and would be cause for apology.
It's the only part I care about. If she's up there attempting political indoctrination, it is off-putting, but whatever. But she literally asked all students to bow their heads and pray to a pagan god, in violation of God's number one command. There is no way that is ok at a Christian school, in a mandated chapel class.
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It made the local news:

BU speaker's prayer sparks campus controversy

A group of conservative Baylor students and alumni is up in arms over a campus appearance by Kaitlin Curtice, a storyteller and poet who raised eyebrows during a prayer before her speech about Native American rights and the fight against white supremacists.

Kaitlin Curtice, a storyteller and poet, raised eyebrows during a prayer before her speech at Baylor about Native American rights and the fight against white supremacists. (Baylor University)
Students say she she offered the prayer to "Mother Mystery."

"There's a lot of people really mad. A lot of alumni are pretty mad. I mean, she didn't pray to God and that's what's most offensive," said Jake Neidert with the Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas.
During the school's required Chapel program Wednesday morning, Curtice asked students to pray, then left students like Neidert stunned.

"She began prayer in the service in the name of Mother Mystery and I looked up, you know, and looked around and there's 12-hundred freshmen bowing their heads to this thing that's not God," Neidert said.
The student said Curtice's speech was filled with strange comments.

"She said that she went to Lake Michigan and dipped a leaf of tobacco in the water and Mother Earth spoke to her audibly and I'm just like, 'what is this?'"

Waco pastor and former Baylor Regent Ramiro Pea, says he's heard from students and believes Baylor made a mistake inviting Curtice to speak.

"Hopefully, the administration can learn from this mistake and grow from it and make corrective action because praying to Mother Mystery is a big miss at Baylor University," said Pea.

"I am very confident Baylor, as a Christian university, wants to do the right thing in agreement with its Christian foundation and principles."

Curtice, who describes herself as a citizen of the Potawatomi Citizen Band Nation and "a writer, speaker, mama, partner and avid coffee drinker" is a mother of two, the author of the book "Native," due out on May 5, in which "she shows how reconnecting with her Native American roots both informs and challenges her Christian faith."

She did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Baylor responded with a letter to parents who inquired about the speech by saying it approved the speaker ahead of time, but sometimes, speakers deviate from what the university approved.

"Every Chapel speaker works with us ahead of time on what message they will be sharing, but on occasion, a speaker may veer away from our understanding of the message they planned to convey. When this happens, we address the matter with our Chapel students and invite them to come talk to us after Chapel," the school said in a message to parents.

The university requires two semesters of chapel attendance for entering freshmen and transfer students classified as either freshmen or sophomores.

https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/BU-speakers-prayer-to-Mother-Mystery-sparks-campus-controversy-567855401.html
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
snarebear55 said:

Most of this thread is missing the point. I don't care what liberal doctrine was spouted - if you don't think someone can have liberal beliefs and be a Christian you need to reevaluate. And if chapel speakers tout conservative values, which I'm sure some do, then do the Baylor Young Democrats or whatever get to demand a public apology from the university? Of course not. Even if you strongly disagree, it's not an invaluable thing to hear other perspectives if only to be aware of what the other viewpoints are. And it's just a single 50 minute chapel session - even if a student hated every word from the speaker they'll live. The snowflakes label can go both ways. If it's just one never-Trumper, move on. I doubt it's recurring, else there'd have been several more posts like linked in the OP.

It's the praying to 'mother mystery' accusation that is the only damning thing to me. If true, that is what raises cause for concern. I can't reconcile that with any Christian view, and it would seem to have some roots in nature spirituality or something similar. THAT'S what objectively would have no place at Baylor, and would be cause for apology.
I started the thread and used the term "false teaching". It was clearly used in a theological sense. I made no mention of politics. Yes, there can be both liberals and conservatives at BU.

Having a false teacher at a "required" event should not occur unless it is prefaced with "you are about to hear a different world view outside of Christianity."
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get a wide range of speakers for chapel/forum, and grow a thick skin. You don't have to agree with everyone you hear.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

snarebear55 said:

Most of this thread is missing the point. I don't care what liberal doctrine was spouted - if you don't think someone can have liberal beliefs and be a Christian you need to reevaluate. And if chapel speakers tout conservative values, which I'm sure some do, then do the Baylor Young Democrats or whatever get to demand a public apology from the university? Of course not. Even if you strongly disagree, it's not an invaluable thing to hear other perspectives if only to be aware of what the other viewpoints are. And it's just a single 50 minute chapel session - even if a student hated every word from the speaker they'll live. The snowflakes label can go both ways. If it's just one never-Trumper, move on. I doubt it's recurring, else there'd have been several more posts like linked in the OP.

It's the praying to 'mother mystery' accusation that is the only damning thing to me. If true, that is what raises cause for concern. I can't reconcile that with any Christian view, and it would seem to have some roots in nature spirituality or something similar. THAT'S what objectively would have no place at Baylor, and would be cause for apology.
I started the thread and used the term "false teaching". It was clearly used in a theological sense. I made no mention of politics. Yes, there can be both liberals and conservatives at BU.

Having a false teacher at a "required" event should not occur unless it is prefaced with "you are about to hear a different world view outside of Christianity."
LOL, you want a trigger warning?
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

snarebear55 said:

Most of this thread is missing the point. I don't care what liberal doctrine was spouted - if you don't think someone can have liberal beliefs and be a Christian you need to reevaluate. And if chapel speakers tout conservative values, which I'm sure some do, then do the Baylor Young Democrats or whatever get to demand a public apology from the university? Of course not. Even if you strongly disagree, it's not an invaluable thing to hear other perspectives if only to be aware of what the other viewpoints are. And it's just a single 50 minute chapel session - even if a student hated every word from the speaker they'll live. The snowflakes label can go both ways. If it's just one never-Trumper, move on. I doubt it's recurring, else there'd have been several more posts like linked in the OP.

It's the praying to 'mother mystery' accusation that is the only damning thing to me. If true, that is what raises cause for concern. I can't reconcile that with any Christian view, and it would seem to have some roots in nature spirituality or something similar. THAT'S what objectively would have no place at Baylor, and would be cause for apology.
I started the thread and used the term "false teaching". It was clearly used in a theological sense. I made no mention of politics. Yes, there can be both liberals and conservatives at BU.

Having a false teacher at a "required" event should not occur unless it is prefaced with "you are about to hear a different world view outside of Christianity."
LOL, you want a trigger warning?
"Chapel" implies religion. Religion at a Baptist university would imply theology. Something like 74% of kids who head off to college calling themselves Christians walk away from their faith in college. Most do that, not because they heard solid evidence to the contrary but because they never heard evidence regarding their own faith. I've no problem with them hearing alternatives but, they need to understand it is an alternative and not the same thing. People can make LDS sound very Christian but, it's not. They can make prosperity gospel sound Christian but, it's not. And on and on and on.

If we were discussing the law and morals, you'd be quick to point out the difference. Why should the Christian Faith be treated differently? Apply your standards equally counselor.
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Get a wide range of speakers for chapel/forum, and grow a thick skin. You don't have to agree with everyone you hear.
The pagan lady led a prayer where she encouraged Christians to pray to part of Creation, Mother Mystery. This is a textbook violation of the Ten Commandments. This isn't just some speech in a random classroom about her talking about how wonderful she thinks paganism is. This was all done in a building of Christian worship, the chapel. That alone is very disrespectful.

What is disturbing is that you don't think this is a big deal. God in the OT killed Aaron's sons (Nadab and Abihu) simply because they didn't do their priestly duties exactly as he commanded. Leviticus 10:1-2 In addition, there are countless examples where God didn't take kindly to people worshipping other gods. There should be no confusion on this point: This should never have taken place and that it was allowed to shows yet again the Baylor administration is not on top of things or worse thinks it is perfectly fine.

Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.
Here you go, it's only one bowl. One bowl won't hurt you. Don't be such a snowflake. Grab a spoon.
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would have walked up to the stage and vomlited
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Malbec said:

PartyBear said:

It doesnt happen frequently and my concern is Baylor. I want it to achieve its Tier one goals.
So in order to achieve it's goals, Baylor must forsake the principals on which it was founded? Sounds like either you are wrong, or Baylor should reassess its goals.
Bingo. I have always thought that the idea we were going to research ourselves into the next "tier" of universities was ludicrous. First, we don't have the money for it; second, when we get the money we can't help but to spend it on athletics and third, even if we got the money and spent it on the "right" thing, the research would be outweighed by our reputation as a conservative, Christian school. .

Baylor's mission should be to be the best teaching major university in the nation.

Very solid point of view.

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.
Here you go, it's only one bowl. One bowl won't hurt you. Don't be such a snowflake. Grab a spoon.

I can refuse, as could the Baylor students. And it's much more like a meal outside your comfort zone.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Malbec said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.
Here you go, it's only one bowl. One bowl won't hurt you. Don't be such a snowflake. Grab a spoon.

I can refuse, as could the Baylor students. And it's much more like a meal outside your comfort zone.
What are the chances a freshman or sophomore in college realize they can walk out of a MANDATORY chapel? I'm guessing very slim.

What is the standard definition of Mandatory to a 18-20 year old?
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.


The purpose of this was explicitly the dissemination of racist, AntiChristian propaganda. This was not a byproduct. It was the feature. Your analogy is a miserable failure. I continue to be embarrassed for you.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.
A classroom is great for Q&A. Chapel is not typically presented that way. You know that and playing like you don't doesn't help your case.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.


The purpose of this was explicitly the dissemination of racist, AntiChristian propaganda. This was not a byproduct. It was the feature. Your analogy is a miserable failure. I continue to be embarrassed for you.
How was it anti-christian?

Do we call Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Atheist "anti-christian" because they don't believe as we do?

How was it racist?

If she just pointed out the manner and effect of European colonization of North America, I do not see that as "racist," just history.

Took a look at her website:

https://kaitlincurtice.com/

She grew up Evangelical Southern Baptist and still refers to "God" quite a bit. 5 minutes scanning her blog and I think she is of the mind that Christ's ethics are ideal and a manifestation of a greater power, but that Jesus was not himself divine. But I might have that wrong.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.


The purpose of this was explicitly the dissemination of racist, AntiChristian propaganda. This was not a byproduct. It was the feature. Your analogy is a miserable failure. I continue to be embarrassed for you.
How was it anti-christian?

Do we call Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Atheist "anti-christian" because they don't believe as we do?

How was it racist?

If she just pointed out the manner and effect of European colonization of North America, I do not see that as "racist," just history.

Took a look at her website:

https://kaitlincurtice.com/

She grew up Evangelical Southern Baptist and still refers to "God" quite a bit. 5 minutes scanning her blog and I think she is of the mind that Christ's ethics are ideal and a manifestation of a greater power, but that Jesus was not himself divine. But I might have that wrong.


A Christian praying to Jesus in a Mosque would be anti-Islam in exactly the same way she is antiChristian. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

The very notion of "decolonization" is racism on its face. You probably are more used to hearing "go back to Africa" as an example of this.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Get a wide range of speakers for chapel/forum, and grow a thick skin. You don't have to agree with everyone you hear.
Hear, hear
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

Booray said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.


The purpose of this was explicitly the dissemination of racist, AntiChristian propaganda. This was not a byproduct. It was the feature. Your analogy is a miserable failure. I continue to be embarrassed for you.
How was it anti-christian?

Do we call Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Atheist "anti-christian" because they don't believe as we do?

How was it racist?

If she just pointed out the manner and effect of European colonization of North America, I do not see that as "racist," just history.

Took a look at her website:

https://kaitlincurtice.com/

She grew up Evangelical Southern Baptist and still refers to "God" quite a bit. 5 minutes scanning her blog and I think she is of the mind that Christ's ethics are ideal and a manifestation of a greater power, but that Jesus was not himself divine. But I might have that wrong.


A Christian praying to Jesus in a Mosque would be anti-Islam in exactly the same way she is antiChristian. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

The very notion of "decolonization" is racism on its face. You probably are more used to hearing "go back to Africa" as an example of this.
You are an angry elf.

The woman identifies as a Christian, the fact that she expresses it differently than you believe doesn't make her anti-Christian.

As to decolonization, I don't trust in the least the Young Conservatives description of her speech, just as I wouldn't trust a Young Liberals description of a Rush LImbaugh speech. Zealots tend to not get it right.
The idea of indigenous people's decolonization rarely involves a political overthrow.

I found this conversation from her about decolonization:

Kaitlin: In America, we can't ever go back to what once was before we were colonized. We have conversations about reparations, how do we return the land, how do we do these things? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that every day any person can do any small thing or large thing to help breakdown systems of colonization.


On a larger scale let's talk about in the church our mission's frameworks and how they are actually colonizing people all over the world. Let's be honest about that. On a smaller level, let's make sure that our kids' libraries are diverse and have different stories in them. On another level, let's make sure that we're not repeating toxic stereotypes for Native people.

If she wants us to be aware of the harm Western Culture can impose for the purpose of mitigating that harm, that is a conversation worthy of any Christian chapel. Western culture gives far more benefit than harm, but pretending perfection doesn't speak well for us. Strikes me that the most probable story here is that the YCT are in fact snowflakes easily triggered by any criticism of Western traditions.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:

D. C. Bear said:

Get a wide range of speakers for chapel/forum, and grow a thick skin. You don't have to agree with everyone you hear.
The pagan lady led a prayer where she encouraged Christians to pray to part of Creation, Mother Mystery. This is a textbook violation of the Ten Commandments. This isn't just some speech in a random classroom about her talking about how wonderful she thinks paganism is. This was all done in a building of Christian worship, the chapel. That alone is very disrespectful.

What is disturbing is that you don't think this is a big deal. God in the OT killed Aaron's sons (Nadab and Abihu) simply because they didn't do their priestly duties exactly as he commanded. Leviticus 10:1-2 In addition, there are countless examples where God didn't take kindly to people worshipping other gods. There should be no confusion on this point: This should never have taken place and that it was allowed to shows yet again the Baylor administration is not on top of things or worse thinks it is perfectly fine.


I don't think it is a big deal. Did anyone convert to (mystery)?

Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Bearitto said:

Booray said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.


The purpose of this was explicitly the dissemination of racist, AntiChristian propaganda. This was not a byproduct. It was the feature. Your analogy is a miserable failure. I continue to be embarrassed for you.
How was it anti-christian?

Do we call Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Atheist "anti-christian" because they don't believe as we do?

How was it racist?

If she just pointed out the manner and effect of European colonization of North America, I do not see that as "racist," just history.

Took a look at her website:

https://kaitlincurtice.com/

She grew up Evangelical Southern Baptist and still refers to "God" quite a bit. 5 minutes scanning her blog and I think she is of the mind that Christ's ethics are ideal and a manifestation of a greater power, but that Jesus was not himself divine. But I might have that wrong.


A Christian praying to Jesus in a Mosque would be anti-Islam in exactly the same way she is antiChristian. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

The very notion of "decolonization" is racism on its face. You probably are more used to hearing "go back to Africa" as an example of this.
You are an angry elf.

The woman identifies as a Christian, the fact that she expresses it differently than you believe doesn't make her anti-Christian.

As to decolonization, I don't trust in the least the Young Conservatives description of her speech, just as I wouldn't trust a Young Liberals description of a Rush LImbaugh speech. Zealots tend to not get it right.
The idea of indigenous people's decolonization rarely involves a political overthrow.

I found this conversation from her about decolonization:

Kaitlin: In America, we can't ever go back to what once was before we were colonized. We have conversations about reparations, how do we return the land, how do we do these things? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that every day any person can do any small thing or large thing to help breakdown systems of colonization.


On a larger scale let's talk about in the church our mission's frameworks and how they are actually colonizing people all over the world. Let's be honest about that. On a smaller level, let's make sure that our kids' libraries are diverse and have different stories in them. On another level, let's make sure that we're not repeating toxic stereotypes for Native people.

If she wants us to be aware of the harm Western Culture can impose for the purpose of mitigating that harm, that is a conversation worthy of any Christian chapel. Western culture gives far more benefit than harm, but pretending perfection doesn't speak well for us. Strikes me that the most probable story here is that the YCT are in fact snowflakes easily triggered by any criticism of Western traditions.


Facts aren't emotionally charged things. My stating them doesn't demonstrate anger in any way. I do understand why you are attempting to deflect. It must be difficult to post from behind that 8 ball.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

Booray said:

Bearitto said:

Booray said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

quash said:

Bearitto said:

At a minimum, antiChristian, racist, leftist speeches should not be mandatory. If you'd like to host this kind of so-called thought at the university, students should be able to choose to attend or not.
It is not a semester long course in paganism: it was one talk. Any student could choose to skip or even walk out without sanction. Just exercise your right to not be there.

Honestly, do y'all really think this one talk is going to corrupt the student body? Y'all are effectively calling them snowflakes. I trust these young adults to know how to handle what is essentially a really weird point of view. The dangerous stuff is what comes in looking like orthodoxy.


It's a mandatory course. This is inappropriate for a mandatory course.
Depends on how narrowly you want to define inappropriate. I had a classmate ask my OT prof "Do you believe in the bible?" because the student interpreted something in class as inappropriate. It led to a discussion, not a meltdown.


That's a very weak analogy. I'm embarrassed for you.
OT was mandatory. Somebody heard inappropriate content. Pretty on the nose, but you do you.


The purpose of this was explicitly the dissemination of racist, AntiChristian propaganda. This was not a byproduct. It was the feature. Your analogy is a miserable failure. I continue to be embarrassed for you.
How was it anti-christian?

Do we call Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Atheist "anti-christian" because they don't believe as we do?

How was it racist?

If she just pointed out the manner and effect of European colonization of North America, I do not see that as "racist," just history.

Took a look at her website:

https://kaitlincurtice.com/

She grew up Evangelical Southern Baptist and still refers to "God" quite a bit. 5 minutes scanning her blog and I think she is of the mind that Christ's ethics are ideal and a manifestation of a greater power, but that Jesus was not himself divine. But I might have that wrong.


A Christian praying to Jesus in a Mosque would be anti-Islam in exactly the same way she is antiChristian. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

The very notion of "decolonization" is racism on its face. You probably are more used to hearing "go back to Africa" as an example of this.
You are an angry elf.

The woman identifies as a Christian, the fact that she expresses it differently than you believe doesn't make her anti-Christian.

As to decolonization, I don't trust in the least the Young Conservatives description of her speech, just as I wouldn't trust a Young Liberals description of a Rush LImbaugh speech. Zealots tend to not get it right.
The idea of indigenous people's decolonization rarely involves a political overthrow.

I found this conversation from her about decolonization:

Kaitlin: In America, we can't ever go back to what once was before we were colonized. We have conversations about reparations, how do we return the land, how do we do these things? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that every day any person can do any small thing or large thing to help breakdown systems of colonization.


On a larger scale let's talk about in the church our mission's frameworks and how they are actually colonizing people all over the world. Let's be honest about that. On a smaller level, let's make sure that our kids' libraries are diverse and have different stories in them. On another level, let's make sure that we're not repeating toxic stereotypes for Native people.

If she wants us to be aware of the harm Western Culture can impose for the purpose of mitigating that harm, that is a conversation worthy of any Christian chapel. Western culture gives far more benefit than harm, but pretending perfection doesn't speak well for us. Strikes me that the most probable story here is that the YCT are in fact snowflakes easily triggered by any criticism of Western traditions.


Facts aren't emotionally charged things. My stating them doesn't demonstrate anger in any way. I do understand why you are attempting to deflect. It must be difficult to post from behind that 8 ball.
As you know and are yourself deflecting from, my reference was to:

I'm sorry you don't understand this and You probably are more used to hearing "go back to Africa" as an example of this, neither of which are "facts."

Back to your safe space!
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
She claims to be Christian.
David Koresh claimed you be the Messiah
Trump claims to be honest
MSNBC claims to be fair

Boo, do you see any problem here?
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

She claims to be Christian.
David Koresh claimed you be the Messiah
Trump claims to be honest
MSNBC claims to be fair

Boo, do you see any problem here?
I know that Koresh was crazy and Trump was a liar based on watching them talk and act. (I don't watch MSNBC much but have never heard them proclaim themselves as "fair"; Ithink they would acknowledge a liberal bent. Maybe you were confused and meant to say Fox claims itself to be fair--it is part of their slogan.)

How much do you know about her faith? How much do you know about what she actually said at Chapel? I actually don't know very much about that at all. I know what a couple of zealot students say she said, which is a very different thing from knowing what she actually said.

My quick review of her website and blog would tell me that her theology is pretty close to that held by many of our founding fathers-Christian deists like Adams, Jefferson and Washington. I would hope those three would be welcome at Baylor Chapel.
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you mean MSLSD.
Page 2 of 5
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.