Baylor Chapel and False Teaching

10,328 Views | 280 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by TexasScientist
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

No, read the thread. She knew what she was doing and is enjoying the drama. She is responsible for her words and speech.

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

LIB,MR BEARS said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

If it were called "mosque" I would would be shocked to hear Protestant theology.

It is called "chapel" I'm shocked to hear something outside of Protestant theology.

Is I stated earlier, if speakers are brought in from other faiths for the purpose of educating, then have that as part of the intro.

ie... Today, we are bringing in Elijah Nelson to speak to you about the LDS church.

Learning about other faiths can be helpful in how we work together as well as how we minister to others.

Baylor should not bring in other faiths cloaked as Christianity when that is not what it is.
I had a Mormon Spanish prof. The Dean of Music was a Jew.
I had an English prof that was an Aggie. None of those things have anything to do with chapel
Chapel was 2 hours a week. Spanish 3 hours a week. I'm still not a Mormon. None of the music majors I knew converted to Judaism.

And I guarantee you the "Other faiths cloaked as Christianity" charge has been made before about Christian profs at Baylor. Narrowly defined limits get you worked up about heretics.
This is silly.

Did he spend 3 hours a week teaching Mormonism during your Spanish class?? This lady spent the entire time teaching something totally different from Christianity, during a time which is supposed to be focused on Christ, the Bible and Christianity.

Your comparison is a joke.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:

HuMcK said:

Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

No, read the thread. She knew what she was doing and is enjoying the drama. She is responsible for her words and speech.




I am sure the local government will be happy to know that the Kickapoo/Tonkawa people will be paying decades of back taxes on that land.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:

HuMcK said:

Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

No, read the thread. She knew what she was doing and is enjoying the drama. She is responsible for her words and speech.


Did she mention how many other tribes were conquered by the Kickapoo and Tonkawa tribes, and driven from their lands? Is it ok when one tribe does it to another, but totally horrible when white people do it? Or is it always bad? Very selective history she gives to her audience.
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

BaylorFTW said:

HuMcK said:

Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

No, read the thread. She knew what she was doing and is enjoying the drama. She is responsible for her words and speech.


Did she mention how many other tribes were conquered by the Kickapoo and Tonkawa tribes, and driven from their lands? Is it ok when one tribe does it to another, but totally horrible when white people do it? Or is it always bad? Very selective history she gives to her audience.
I don't think she is interested in that. She isn't going to let inconvenient facts get in the way of her crusade.



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

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

Bearitto said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

I expect Baylor to have speakers with differing political views, even controversial political views. I've no problem with that.

When it comes to Christianity however, there is a "framework" that should always be there. Can there be differing views on some things? Sure. But, in the words of Alistair Begg, " the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things." When we start adding to or taking away from that while teaching, we are misleading others and are creating false gods.

BU needs to be very careful that they choose speakers that have the ability to stay true to the faith while presenting a variety of political views.


The problem is, it's virtually impossible to be a Christian and a leftist. You can't worship God and government simultaneously.
What a stupid statement. But then I'd expect nothing better from a religious bigot.
I think Christians can have differing political views. However, can you backup your statement?

Then maybe you should have jumped in on bearitto. One thing I don't miss about Christians is the "my flavor is better than yours because mine is the only flavor".
People in many fields other than theology tend to think their own opinions are right. Scientists and historians are particularly bad about that.
Strongly disagree. First, science recognizes objective facts. NOMA.

Second, even historians recognize different schools of thought without denying that members of the other school are in fact historians.

What we are looking at here is the claim that only the orthodox are Christian.

If there is a heaven you guys are gonna be surprised about who all is there...
Theology claims to recognize objective facts (sometimes even empirical facts). Essential to NOMA is the principle that science cannot judge this claim.

More to the point, no is saying that a heretical theologian isn't a theologian (some of the ones Waco47 used to cite actually were not, but I digress). The question is whether the person a Christian theologian. If you promote yourself as a historical materialist and fill your books with great man theory, you can expect to get called on it.

Gourd says Shoe and Sandal aren't Brianists.
It's easy to scoff at distinctions that don't mean anything to you. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. When some posters identify you as a socialist and you reject that identity, are you committing a fallacy?
When I was a Christian I bristled at the notion that A could call B a non-Christian over theological differences. Better?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

If it were called "mosque" I would would be shocked to hear Protestant theology.

It is called "chapel" I'm shocked to hear something outside of Protestant theology.

Is I stated earlier, if speakers are brought in from other faiths for the purpose of educating, then have that as part of the intro.

ie... Today, we are bringing in Elijah Nelson to speak to you about the LDS church.

Learning about other faiths can be helpful in how we work together as well as how we minister to others.

Baylor should not bring in other faiths cloaked as Christianity when that is not what it is.
I had a Mormon Spanish prof. The Dean of Music was a Jew.
I had an English prof that was an Aggie. None of those things have anything to do with chapel
Chapel was 2 hours a week. Spanish 3 hours a week. I'm still not a Mormon. None of the music majors I knew converted to Judaism.

And I guarantee you the "Other faiths cloaked as Christianity" charge has been made before about Christian profs at Baylor. Narrowly defined limits get you worked up about heretics.
This is silly.

Did he spend 3 hours a week teaching Mormonism during your Spanish class?? This lady spent the entire time teaching something totally different from Christianity, during a time which is supposed to be focused on Christ, the Bible and Christianity.

Your comparison is a joke.
She expressed a view of Christianity that some of you reject. There's a difference.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Forest Bueller said:

JXL said:

BaylorFTW said:

Well, it looks like Kaitlin is enjoying the controversy and her notoriety. She changed her Twitter title to Kaitlin *probably pagan* Curtice.

She also made this tweet today:

"Mother Nature, she's the daughter of God and the source of all protection."
-- @BuffySteMarie








This should put an end to any lingering idea that she is in some sense a Christian.

Yep, I agree. If this is really her she's just another salesman, selling.

Sounds like she did not convince you. Has there been a mass defection among the students who were present?

Funny how free speech works.
Free speech certainly gives her the right to sell her books and virtue signal her devoted following.

LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anti second amendment + strict drug laws + strict immigration laws + lots of confiscatory policies = libertarian

How'bout it Quash?
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

BaylorFTW said:

HuMcK said:

Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

No, read the thread. She knew what she was doing and is enjoying the drama. She is responsible for her words and speech.


Did she mention how many other tribes were conquered by the Kickapoo and Tonkawa tribes, and driven from their lands? Is it ok when one tribe does it to another, but totally horrible when white people do it? Or is it always bad? Very selective history she gives to her audience.
Taking this further, different people groups have always conquered other groups of people. It is the nature of people. People are tribal by nature. Jocks vs geeks Socials vs Anti Socials. Greasers vs. Ropers etc. On and on. I'm sure her tribe conquered as well, but she gets to play the self righteous card though.

ps. forgot Hatfields and McCoys.

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

ShooterTX said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

If it were called "mosque" I would would be shocked to hear Protestant theology.

It is called "chapel" I'm shocked to hear something outside of Protestant theology.

Is I stated earlier, if speakers are brought in from other faiths for the purpose of educating, then have that as part of the intro.

ie... Today, we are bringing in Elijah Nelson to speak to you about the LDS church.

Learning about other faiths can be helpful in how we work together as well as how we minister to others.

Baylor should not bring in other faiths cloaked as Christianity when that is not what it is.
I had a Mormon Spanish prof. The Dean of Music was a Jew.
I had an English prof that was an Aggie. None of those things have anything to do with chapel
Chapel was 2 hours a week. Spanish 3 hours a week. I'm still not a Mormon. None of the music majors I knew converted to Judaism.

And I guarantee you the "Other faiths cloaked as Christianity" charge has been made before about Christian profs at Baylor. Narrowly defined limits get you worked up about heretics.
This is silly.

Did he spend 3 hours a week teaching Mormonism during your Spanish class?? This lady spent the entire time teaching something totally different from Christianity, during a time which is supposed to be focused on Christ, the Bible and Christianity.

Your comparison is a joke.
She expressed a view of Christianity that some of you reject. There's a difference.


You seem to have a poor view of Christianity, what with your belief that praying to a new deity ('mystery'), espousing racism and trying to gin up Marxist angst is somehow a "view of Christianity".

I have to ask, are you a Christian?
BaylorTaxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This was one ridiculous controversy.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

BaylorFTW said:

HuMcK said:

Sooo uh, did Baylor YCT stir up all this controversy based on a mistake or a lie?

No, read the thread. She knew what she was doing and is enjoying the drama. She is responsible for her words and speech.


Did she mention how many other tribes were conquered by the Kickapoo and Tonkawa tribes, and driven from their lands? Is it ok when one tribe does it to another, but totally horrible when white people do it? Or is it always bad? Very selective history she gives to her audience.


Well, she does pray to Agatha Christie novels, so...
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.
BaylorTaxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.


If you fire your staff any time there is a minor controversy, and, yes, a speaker like this in chapel is a minor controversy, your staff will be on egg shells, afraid that some random speaker will go a little off the reservation and they will lose their jobs. Yours would soon become a weak and diseased organization.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.


If you fire your staff any time there is a minor controversy, and, yes, a speaker like this in chapel is a minor controversy, your staff will be on egg shells, afraid that some random speaker will go a little off the reservation and they will lose their jobs. Yours would soon become a weak and diseased organization.


You would no doubt consider this not 'minor' if they had invited Richard Spencer to deliver a mandatory speech, espousing his equally despicable views. It's not terribly challenging for employees of even average intelligence and a touch of Christian morality to see this was antithetical to the ethos upon which Baylor was founded - Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. She was anti both and virulently so.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.


If you fire your staff any time there is a minor controversy, and, yes, a speaker like this in chapel is a minor controversy, your staff will be on egg shells, afraid that some random speaker will go a little off the reservation and they will lose their jobs. Yours would soon become a weak and diseased organization.


You would no doubt consider this not 'minor' if they had invited Richard Spencer to deliver a mandatory speech, espousing his equally despicable views. It's not terribly challenging for employees of even average intelligence and a touch of Christian morality to see this was antithetical to the ethos upon which Baylor was founded - Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. She was anti both and virulently so.


You would consider it a major issue if they invited the pastor of First Baptist Any Town if she didn't agree with your own views.

This just isn't a big deal, and you are making it so because you don't like Baylor's leadership, not because you don't like the speaker's presence on campus. Like the speaker, you are seeking opportunities to be outraged so you can promote your agenda, whatever that is.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.


If you fire your staff any time there is a minor controversy, and, yes, a speaker like this in chapel is a minor controversy, your staff will be on egg shells, afraid that some random speaker will go a little off the reservation and they will lose their jobs. Yours would soon become a weak and diseased organization.


You would no doubt consider this not 'minor' if they had invited Richard Spencer to deliver a mandatory speech, espousing his equally despicable views. It's not terribly challenging for employees of even average intelligence and a touch of Christian morality to see this was antithetical to the ethos upon which Baylor was founded - Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. She was anti both and virulently so.


You would consider it a major issue if they invited the pastor of First Baptist Any Town if she didn't agree with your own views.

This just isn't a big deal, and you are making it so because you don't like Baylor's leadership, not because you don't like the speaker's presence on campus. Like the speaker, you are seeking opportunities to be outraged so you can promote your agenda, whatever that is.


Once again, you are completely incorrect. If there's one thing I can credit you with, at least you are consistent.
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.
So what if you are confident in your faith. Maybe others are not and looking for Christian leadership. Is the purpose of chapel to have Christianity supported or attacked? Remember this was a mandatory event where students could not simply opt out. They were forced to listen to this talk. And again, this was chapel and not the classroom so it really calls into question why such a talk was permitted outside of the potential heresy.

And how do you even know if we are blowing this out of proportion? Outside of your personal opinion, what are you really even basing that on? The concern is over why the administration thought it was a good idea to put such a person in front of students? The lady claims the administration knew all about who she was and what she was going to talk about. If that is true, that is a big problem. If that is not true, it is still a bad look because it meant they didn't do their homework.

Really, I am more concerned that you aren't defending the faith and willing to let things slide. If you won't stand up for the faith on what you perceive are little things, how do we know you will answer the call to address big things? A small leak can sink a big ship. Letting the "little things" slide is a great way of creating big problems.

If our actions help in some way to ensure this type of incident doesn't happen again, it is a good thing. On the other hand, if this kind of incident repeats itself, it would show we did not blow things out of proportion and should have made even a greater deal out of it. Either way, it is up to the administration to decide whether they will continue to let things slide or start checking for leaks.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.


If you fire your staff any time there is a minor controversy, and, yes, a speaker like this in chapel is a minor controversy, your staff will be on egg shells, afraid that some random speaker will go a little off the reservation and they will lose their jobs. Yours would soon become a weak and diseased organization.


You would no doubt consider this not 'minor' if they had invited Richard Spencer to deliver a mandatory speech, espousing his equally despicable views. It's not terribly challenging for employees of even average intelligence and a touch of Christian morality to see this was antithetical to the ethos upon which Baylor was founded - Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. She was anti both and virulently so.


You would consider it a major issue if they invited the pastor of First Baptist Any Town if she didn't agree with your own views.

This just isn't a big deal, and you are making it so because you don't like Baylor's leadership, not because you don't like the speaker's presence on campus. Like the speaker, you are seeking opportunities to be outraged so you can promote your agenda, whatever that is.


Once again, you are completely incorrect. If there's one thing I can credit you with, at least you are consistent.


You don't like Baylor's leadership, and you didn't like them before this particular speaker showed up on campus. You have said as much in this thread. You are free to continue with your faux outrage.
BaylorTaxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.
So what if you are confident in your faith. Maybe others are not and looking for Christian leadership. Is the purpose of chapel to have Christianity supported or attacked? Remember this was a mandatory event where students could not simply opt out. They were forced to listen to this talk. And again, this was chapel and not the classroom so it really calls into question why such a talk was permitted outside of the potential heresy.

And how do you even know if we are blowing this out of proportion? Outside of your personal opinion, what are you really even basing that on? The concern is over why the administration thought it was a good idea to put such a person in front of students? The lady claims the administration knew all about who she was and what she was going to talk about. If that is true, that is a big problem. If that is not true, it is still a bad look because it meant they didn't do their homework.

Really, I am more concerned that you aren't defending the faith and willing to let things slide. If you won't stand up for the faith on what you perceive are little things, how do we know you will answer the call to address big things? A small leak can sink a big ship. Letting the "little things" slide is a great way of creating big problems.

If our actions help in some way to ensure this type of incident doesn't happen again, it is a good thing. On the other hand, if this kind of incident repeats itself, it would show we did not blow things out of proportion and should have made even a greater deal out of it. Either way, it is up to the administration to decide whether they will continue to let things slide or start checking for leaks.



Sounds like a plan
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.
Im glad you are strong in your faith and I wish many others were that strong. However, 74% of college students who were professing Christians entering their freshman year walk away from their faith during their college years.

There is a reason the Bible is full of warnings about false teachers and stumbling blocks as well as warnings to those who would be stumbling blocks. Chapel should not be in the business of providing stumbling blocks.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

D. C. Bear said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.


Yes. Her despicable views deserved zero exposure. Whoever invited her to speak should be fired.


That's just a very poor way to run an organization.


No. It isn't. Not if the organization is Christian, with anything resembling moral standards. Baylor is not looking much like that these days, though. Our leadership is weak and diseased and likely outright condones the speakers views wholesale.


Consider how firing people any time you have a minor controversy will impact the health of an organization. It is a good thing you aren't in charge.


Promoting fundamentally evil views in a mandatory course is only "minor" if your view of morality is severely impaired.


If you fire your staff any time there is a minor controversy, and, yes, a speaker like this in chapel is a minor controversy, your staff will be on egg shells, afraid that some random speaker will go a little off the reservation and they will lose their jobs. Yours would soon become a weak and diseased organization.


You would no doubt consider this not 'minor' if they had invited Richard Spencer to deliver a mandatory speech, espousing his equally despicable views. It's not terribly challenging for employees of even average intelligence and a touch of Christian morality to see this was antithetical to the ethos upon which Baylor was founded - Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. She was anti both and virulently so.


You would consider it a major issue if they invited the pastor of First Baptist Any Town if she didn't agree with your own views.

This just isn't a big deal, and you are making it so because you don't like Baylor's leadership, not because you don't like the speaker's presence on campus. Like the speaker, you are seeking opportunities to be outraged so you can promote your agenda, whatever that is.


Once again, you are completely incorrect. If there's one thing I can credit you with, at least you are consistent.


You don't like Baylor's leadership, and you didn't like them before this particular speaker showed up on campus. You have said as much in this thread. You are free to continue with your faux outrage.


That Baylor's leadership is sick, weak and diseased is evident in many facets. This despicable event is a standalone bit of evidence of the diseased nature of our so-called leadership. I'd find it despicable regardless of the other intersectional leftist, racist things going on. This is, however another mark in the ledger.

Perhaps you can email the Baylor bias response team and chat with them about it.

https://www.baylor.edu/diversity/index.php?id=953212

But be careful. According to our leadership, "If you're breathing, you're biased" and "You probably don't even know you have biases" anyway.

That is right up your favored "Anti-Ecclesia, Anti-Texana" agenda, right.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

Bearitto said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

I expect Baylor to have speakers with differing political views, even controversial political views. I've no problem with that.

When it comes to Christianity however, there is a "framework" that should always be there. Can there be differing views on some things? Sure. But, in the words of Alistair Begg, " the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things." When we start adding to or taking away from that while teaching, we are misleading others and are creating false gods.

BU needs to be very careful that they choose speakers that have the ability to stay true to the faith while presenting a variety of political views.


The problem is, it's virtually impossible to be a Christian and a leftist. You can't worship God and government simultaneously.
What a stupid statement. But then I'd expect nothing better from a religious bigot.
I think Christians can have differing political views. However, can you backup your statement?

Then maybe you should have jumped in on bearitto. One thing I don't miss about Christians is the "my flavor is better than yours because mine is the only flavor".
People in many fields other than theology tend to think their own opinions are right. Scientists and historians are particularly bad about that.
Strongly disagree. First, science recognizes objective facts. NOMA.

Second, even historians recognize different schools of thought without denying that members of the other school are in fact historians.

What we are looking at here is the claim that only the orthodox are Christian.

If there is a heaven you guys are gonna be surprised about who all is there...
Theology claims to recognize objective facts (sometimes even empirical facts). Essential to NOMA is the principle that science cannot judge this claim.

More to the point, no is saying that a heretical theologian isn't a theologian (some of the ones Waco47 used to cite actually were not, but I digress). The question is whether the person a Christian theologian. If you promote yourself as a historical materialist and fill your books with great man theory, you can expect to get called on it.

Gourd says Shoe and Sandal aren't Brianists.
It's easy to scoff at distinctions that don't mean anything to you. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. When some posters identify you as a socialist and you reject that identity, are you committing a fallacy?
When I was a Christian I bristled at the notion that A could call B a non-Christian over theological differences. Better?
But you have no problem calling a self-identified libertarian a statist if you think they meet that definition. What's the difference?
BaylorHistory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:

PartyBear said:

Good God! The last thing Baylor needs is the "KGB" of Reynolds vernacular from the 80s. Baylor will never be tier one if some of y'all have your way in terms of only right wing voices being able to speak on campus. This is a universty. Go to Antioch if you want to hear repeats of what you already believe.
you should have gone to SMU or Duke.


I have a question for the observant ones on the board. Where exactly should BU fall between Bob Jones and Cal? Obviously religion is important to most BU alums, but should we stop doing things such as teaching Evolution in our Bio/Anthro classes because it goes against traditional Baptist views on the subject? Where exactly is that cutoff between religion and education? BU's ideas on what is ok to teach/allow has changed over time and I would imagine this will continue as society changes.

I wonder about BU's future as those that attended a more Bible School like atmosphere start to die off and are replaced by those that attended the more selective and rich (albeit still non-denominationaly religious) Baylor. Is BU destined to become the next Duke, TCU, or SMU over time as the % of our students who are "Baptist" drops? I don't necessarily think that it will in my lifetime as there is still a very strong religious spirit on campus, but demographic changes have to eventually have some form of an impact.

BaylorTaxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

BaylorTaxman said:

Bearitto said:

BaylorTaxman said:

This was one ridiculous controversy.


Yes. Who ever invited the racist, pagan Marxist to speak should be fired.


I am confident in my faith. Some Chapel speaker is not going to impact that. Those of you blowing this so far out of proportion have given her far greater exposure, and a bigger platform, than she deserved.
Im glad you are strong in your faith and I wish many others were that strong. However, 74% of college students who were professing Christians entering their freshman year walk away from their faith during their college years.

There is a reason the Bible is full of warnings about false teachers and stumbling blocks as well as warnings to those who would be stumbling blocks. Chapel should not be in the business of providing stumbling blocks.


Sounds good.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller said:

Osodecentx said:

Forest Bueller said:

JXL said:

BaylorFTW said:

Well, it looks like Kaitlin is enjoying the controversy and her notoriety. She changed her Twitter title to Kaitlin *probably pagan* Curtice.

She also made this tweet today:

"Mother Nature, she's the daughter of God and the source of all protection."
-- @BuffySteMarie








This should put an end to any lingering idea that she is in some sense a Christian.

Yep, I agree. If this is really her she's just another salesman, selling.

Sounds like she did not convince you. Has there been a mass defection among the students who were present?

Funny how free speech works.
Free speech certainly gives her the right to sell her books and virtue signal her devoted following.


Exactly

She sounds unserious to me
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Aliceinbubbleland said:

Bearitto said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

I expect Baylor to have speakers with differing political views, even controversial political views. I've no problem with that.

When it comes to Christianity however, there is a "framework" that should always be there. Can there be differing views on some things? Sure. But, in the words of Alistair Begg, " the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things." When we start adding to or taking away from that while teaching, we are misleading others and are creating false gods.

BU needs to be very careful that they choose speakers that have the ability to stay true to the faith while presenting a variety of political views.


The problem is, it's virtually impossible to be a Christian and a leftist. You can't worship God and government simultaneously.
What a stupid statement. But then I'd expect nothing better from a religious bigot.
I think Christians can have differing political views. However, can you backup your statement?

Then maybe you should have jumped in on bearitto. One thing I don't miss about Christians is the "my flavor is better than yours because mine is the only flavor".
People in many fields other than theology tend to think their own opinions are right. Scientists and historians are particularly bad about that.
Strongly disagree. First, science recognizes objective facts. NOMA.

Second, even historians recognize different schools of thought without denying that members of the other school are in fact historians.

What we are looking at here is the claim that only the orthodox are Christian.

If there is a heaven you guys are gonna be surprised about who all is there...
Theology claims to recognize objective facts (sometimes even empirical facts). Essential to NOMA is the principle that science cannot judge this claim.

More to the point, no is saying that a heretical theologian isn't a theologian (some of the ones Waco47 used to cite actually were not, but I digress). The question is whether the person a Christian theologian. If you promote yourself as a historical materialist and fill your books with great man theory, you can expect to get called on it.

Gourd says Shoe and Sandal aren't Brianists.
It's easy to scoff at distinctions that don't mean anything to you. So let's put the shoe on the other foot. When some posters identify you as a socialist and you reject that identity, are you committing a fallacy?
When I was a Christian I bristled at the notion that A could call B a non-Christian over theological differences. Better?
But you have no problem calling a self-identified libertarian a statist if you think they meet that definition. What's the difference?
The difference is, it's Quash and what is good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander when it's the gander's neck (views) on the chopping block.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.