Baylor Chapel and False Teaching

8,161 Views | 280 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by TexasScientist
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:

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?
When have I done that?
ShooterTX
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.
Maybe Chapel has changed since the 1990s, but when I was there, it was a time for speakers to discuss topics of Christianity. I watched her entire speech, and it had nothing to do with Christianity. Parts of her speech were in direct conflict with basic Christian doctrine, while the rest was just pure political propaganda.

It isn't about if someone losses their faith over a single speaker. The issue is that some group at Baylor is attempting to use Chapel as a venue for anti-Christian and political propaganda instead of it's intended purpose.
BaylorHistory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX 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.
Maybe Chapel has changed since the 1990s, but when I was there, it was a time for speakers to discuss topics of Christianity. I watched her entire speech, and it had nothing to do with Christianity. Parts of her speech were in direct conflict with basic Christian doctrine, while the rest was just pure political propaganda.

It isn't about if someone losses their faith over a single speaker. The issue is that some group at Baylor is attempting to use Chapel as a venue for anti-Christian and political propaganda instead of it's intended purpose.
When I was there it was a time to work on homework or paying your roommate to sit in and swipe your card for you.
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorHistory said:

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.



No one is seriously arguing for the removal of evolution from the sciences department. The Theory of Evolution is important to understand, and so it must be part of a well-rounded education.

Let's give another example, which might bring more clarity to your question: Marxist Theory

Marxism is a socio-economic theory which stands in direct contrast to Capitalism, Individual Liberty, and Christianity. You might agree with that statement, if you only read the text book definition of Marxism, but you will if you look at the history of it. Marxists have never respected individual liberty when they come into power, but have always established a totalitarian form of control. Likewise, they give lip-service to Freedom of Religion, but in practice they oppress Christians and oppose Christianity in practice.

So, should Marxism be banned from Baylor? No. Marxism played a pivotal role in world history, and there are many in our current time who are trying to revive it today. For these reasons, Marxism should be taught as part of a well-rounded education. The difference is that Marxism should be correctly taught as a flawed and ultimately evil theory, rather than promoted & encouraged from the lecture hall or pulpit.

To answer your question, Baylor should continue to be a "religious" school. The ultimate goal would be for Baylor to be biblical based, rather than religious or denominational based. The Bible is the ultimate truth, and therefore it should be the ultimate guide for Baylor. This does not mean that we should graduate students who are ignorant of other beliefs. Instead our students should understand the basic tenets of Marxism, but also understand why it has always failed, and how it departs from the truth of the Bible.

Watch the chapel video, and you will see that this was not a presentation of Biblical truth. Instead it was a promotion of leftist, Marxist ideas; and a call to join in those failed ideas... all shrouded in the false premise that leftist Marxism is somehow Christian in nature. Oh, and there was a dose of paganism thrown in for good measure.

As I stated before, this kind of speaker should be invited to speak at Baylor in the future. A proper venue for such a speaker would be a special event, with a Q&A session at the end of the presentation. Chapel is a mandatory venue, with the implied support of the university, and no opportunity for questions or rebuttals.
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Aliceinbubbleland
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's so funny watching you bubbles get your panties wadded over a speaker. Yet you criticize the administration's function in speaker selection for Chapel.

There is a reason Chapel is mandatory. If it were not mandatory it would provably draw maybe 20% of the first year student body. So the administration supports your viewpoints for more then you give them credit. They keep it mandatory.

Knowing the administration history they probably wished they had not selected the speaker the bubbles criticize because they don't want the controversy.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorHistory said:

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.


Baylor should never be a fundamentalist institution of any sort, either right-wing or left-wing. Left-wing fundamentalism is the bigger danger in my opinion because it's more fashionable and more conducive to our dreams of nationwide fame and glory. You're right about demographics. I think the market for a traditional education in an orthodox setting will grow in the long term, but the short term will be difficult. Realistically, the debt incurred over the last few decades will make market considerations hard to resist. If Baylor wants to be ready for the needs of the future, it will take vision and a clear intent.
BaylorHistory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BaylorHistory said:

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.


Baylor should never be a fundamentalist institution of any sort, either right-wing or left-wing. Left-wing fundamentalism is the bigger danger in my opinion because it's more fashionable and more conducive to our dreams of nationwide fame and glory. You're right about demographics. I think the market for a traditional education in an orthodox setting will grow in the long term, but the short term will be difficult. Realistically, the debt incurred over the last few decades will make market considerations hard to resist. If Baylor wants to be ready for the needs of the future, it will take vision and a clear intent.
It seems that current leadership is attempting to do that, but that's never been BU's strength.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

BaylorHistory said:

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.




Watch the chapel video, and you will see that this was not a presentation of Biblical truth. Instead it was a promotion of leftist, Marxist ideas; and a call to join in those failed ideas... all shrouded in the false premise that leftist Marxism is somehow Christian in nature. Oh, and there was a dose of paganism thrown in for good measure.



Yea, I finally got around to that and also reading her blogs and ideas and poems and rantings, and lovely sounding prose.

1) It is very interesting reading her stuff as she twists and turns her words into beautiful prose, from some type of daddy issues she seems to have enduring growing up.

Definitely nothing she said has any relation to orthodox christianity, nor does she want it to. She is pretty clear in her blogs she has rejected orthodox christianity, "white culture", "colonialism" unless of course it is her colonialism, and pretty much what we have come to know as the "American" way of life.

The SJW crowd obviously eats it up as she makes sure to hit all the dog whistles and virtue signals of the entire world of SJWarriorism with every blog she puts out there.

She is however very good with words, kinda of funny, cute, probably really nice to talk to in person and yea she is a salesman, and this incident really helps her program with her circle. Good for her.

Surprised BU thought this through and wanted her for chapel at a christian university, but she would be great as a speaker in another venue to hear a different voice and perspective. But, she doesn't pretend to contend for orthodox christianity.
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Golem identifies as a minarchist. calling some of his positions statist is one thing, it is not saying he is not a minarchist. The points where your beliefs differ from Protestants can get you called a Papist; that doesn't make you a non-Christian. In my mind at least, there are others here who would make that claim.
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Golem identifies as a minarchist. calling some of his positions statist is one thing, it is not saying he is not a minarchist. The points where your beliefs differ from Protestants can get you called a Papist; that doesn't make you a non-Christian. In my mind at least, there are others here who would make that claim.
You didn't call some of his positions statist. You called him statist, and mocked him for it repeatedly. Not that I necessarily blame you. I know you get tired of being called a fake libertarian. I just don't know why you're allowed to stand on commonly accepted definitions while denying others the same right.

I'd be a lot more concerned about some random person's opinion of papists if I thought Christianity was defined by some random person's opinion. Despite KC's assumptions, that isn't the case.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Maybe Chapel has changed since the 1990s, but when I was there, it was a time for speakers to discuss topics of Christianity. I watched her entire speech, and it had nothing to do with Christianity. Parts of her speech were in direct conflict with basic Christian doctrine, while the rest was just pure political propaganda.
Have you converted to paganism?
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Golem identifies as a minarchist. calling some of his positions statist is one thing, it is not saying he is not a minarchist. The points where your beliefs differ from Protestants can get you called a Papist; that doesn't make you a non-Christian. In my mind at least, there are others here who would make that claim.
You didn't call some of his positions statist. You called him statist, and mocked him for it repeatedly. Not that I necessarily blame you. I know you get tired of being called a fake libertarian. I just don't know why you're allowed to stand on commonly accepted definitions while denying others the same right.

I'd be a lot more concerned about some random person's opinion of papists if I thought Christianity was defined by some random person's opinion. Despite KC's assumptions, that isn't the case.
You're missing the point: first, because Golem doesn't identify as Libertarian, and second, because even if he did "statist" is just a way libertarians call out other libertarians on any given issue, but not to tell them they aren't Libertarian. In Libertarian boards I routinely tell people that if we keep defining ourselves by what we aren't, and tell like minded folks that they aren't libertarian, then the party will shrink and split over gourds and sandals. It's like Baptists calling another Baptist a Calvinist. Most of the time they still acknowledge the Calvinist is a Christian; some folks here would not.
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:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Golem identifies as a minarchist. calling some of his positions statist is one thing, it is not saying he is not a minarchist. The points where your beliefs differ from Protestants can get you called a Papist; that doesn't make you a non-Christian. In my mind at least, there are others here who would make that claim.
You didn't call some of his positions statist. You called him statist, and mocked him for it repeatedly. Not that I necessarily blame you. I know you get tired of being called a fake libertarian. I just don't know why you're allowed to stand on commonly accepted definitions while denying others the same right.

I'd be a lot more concerned about some random person's opinion of papists if I thought Christianity was defined by some random person's opinion. Despite KC's assumptions, that isn't the case.
You're missing the point: first, because Golem doesn't identify as Libertarian, and second, because even if he did "statist" is just a way libertarians call out other libertarians on any given issue, but not to tell them they aren't Libertarian. In Libertarian boards I routinely tell people that if we keep defining ourselves by what we aren't, and tell like minded folks that they aren't libertarian, then the party will shrink and split over gourds and sandals. It's like Baptists calling another Baptist a Calvinist. Most of the time they still acknowledge the Calvinist is a Christian; some folks here would not.
Well, then I'm pleased to say I'm a Libertarian too. Now let's close the abortion clinics and build that wall.
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:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Golem identifies as a minarchist. calling some of his positions statist is one thing, it is not saying he is not a minarchist. The points where your beliefs differ from Protestants can get you called a Papist; that doesn't make you a non-Christian. In my mind at least, there are others here who would make that claim.
You didn't call some of his positions statist. You called him statist, and mocked him for it repeatedly. Not that I necessarily blame you. I know you get tired of being called a fake libertarian. I just don't know why you're allowed to stand on commonly accepted definitions while denying others the same right.

I'd be a lot more concerned about some random person's opinion of papists if I thought Christianity was defined by some random person's opinion. Despite KC's assumptions, that isn't the case.
You're missing the point: first, because Golem doesn't identify as Libertarian, and second, because even if he did "statist" is just a way libertarians call out other libertarians on any given issue, but not to tell them they aren't Libertarian. In Libertarian boards I routinely tell people that if we keep defining ourselves by what we aren't, and tell like minded folks that they aren't libertarian, then the party will shrink and split over gourds and sandals. It's like Baptists calling another Baptist a Calvinist. Most of the time they still acknowledge the Calvinist is a Christian; some folks here would not.
Well, then I'm pleased to say I'm a Libertarian too. Now let's close the abortion clinics and build that wall.
You come from a strange wing.
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:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

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?
When have I done that?
Only on days ending with a "y." But seriously, how's it different?
Nope.
Golem indicated that he was a libertarian (or at other times a classical liberal, which encompasses the same thing). I don't think I need to count all the times you've called him a statist. You've said that GrowlTowel didn't know what a libertarian was. You've even made the same analogy I'm making now, on a thread where you quite understandably objected to being called a Democrat. So why is this okay for you and no one else? Are Christians some kind of ideological second-class citizens who don't get to define themselves as a group?
Golem identifies as a minarchist. calling some of his positions statist is one thing, it is not saying he is not a minarchist. The points where your beliefs differ from Protestants can get you called a Papist; that doesn't make you a non-Christian. In my mind at least, there are others here who would make that claim.
You didn't call some of his positions statist. You called him statist, and mocked him for it repeatedly. Not that I necessarily blame you. I know you get tired of being called a fake libertarian. I just don't know why you're allowed to stand on commonly accepted definitions while denying others the same right.

I'd be a lot more concerned about some random person's opinion of papists if I thought Christianity was defined by some random person's opinion. Despite KC's assumptions, that isn't the case.
You're missing the point: first, because Golem doesn't identify as Libertarian, and second, because even if he did "statist" is just a way libertarians call out other libertarians on any given issue, but not to tell them they aren't Libertarian. In Libertarian boards I routinely tell people that if we keep defining ourselves by what we aren't, and tell like minded folks that they aren't libertarian, then the party will shrink and split over gourds and sandals. It's like Baptists calling another Baptist a Calvinist. Most of the time they still acknowledge the Calvinist is a Christian; some folks here would not.
Well, then I'm pleased to say I'm a Libertarian too. Now let's close the abortion clinics and build that wall.
You come from a strange wing.
Embrace the mystery. Decolonize your mind. The LP was always anti-choice and anti-immigration until it was expropriated by the toxic counterculture.
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Potawatomi Christian chapel speaker Kaitlin Curtice draws ire of Baylor student group

(RNS) A week after Potawatomi Christian author and speaker Kaitlin Curtice spoke in chapel at Baylor University, people are still talking about it.

Although perhaps not for reasons the school or speaker would hope.

Curtice's remarks during the school's three chapel services about her journey of "decolonizing" her faith drew pushback from a student group at the private Christian university in Texas, and her message was reportedly interrupted by a shouting student.

The incident has drawn public apologies from at least one faculty member and an alum and brought back memories of a chapel service last year in which Kathy Khang, another progressive Christian author and speaker who is Korean-American, was heckled.


"I challenged some of them on a deep enough level that it rattled the walls of patriarchal white supremacy that they hide behind, and, well, I've done my job," tweeted Curtice, who has declined interviews about the incident.

In the video of one Feb. 12 service posted on Baylor's website, Curtice was introduced by Ryan Richardson, associate chaplain and director of worship and chapel at the school.

Richardson referenced an Air Force chaplain who had spoken in chapel the week before and said some people had disagreed with the chaplain's comments. Similarly, some people might feel triggered by Curtice's comments, he said, and he invited those people to come to the chapel table in the lobby and discuss what made them uncomfortable.

"This is a place that we're going to bring diverse ideas and understandings of what it means to be a Christian in the world," he said.

...

"For me, as a mixed European and Potawatomi woman whose inner and outer voice has been silenced, especially by the church, I am reclaiming who I am, wrestling with all parts of my identity, my white privilege, my Native feminism, my spirituality," Curtice said during the service.

"I'm questioning the systems that I participate in. I'm challenging myself to understand all the aspects of myself and the world around me."

She encouraged students to "envision a decolonized spirituality" with her, calling out "white supremacy," "toxic patriarchy," "settler colonialism" and "capitalist greed."

When the speaker said women are told they aren't valued as much as men in society, a male student reportedly shouted, "Nobody says that!"

Curtice later tweeted she actually was interrupted twice by the same student both times while talking about women.

The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.
After Curtice's chapel message, a student group called Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas posted a statement on Twitter disavowing the service, where the group said it was met by "the liberal agenda." It called on the university to apologize "for breaking with their mission to provide an unapologetically Christian chapel experience and for allowing a speaker with pagan sympathies to mislead students once again."
One member of the group, Jake Neidert, told a local news outlet what was "most offensive" was that Curtice had not prayed to God, but to "Mother Mystery."

On Tuesday, Baylor confirmed in an email to RNS that it had reviewed video of all three chapel services in which Curtice spoke. At no time did she refer to "Mother Mystery," the school concluded.
"We would apologize for reporting that incorrectly, but the rest of our statement still stands," Baylor YCT said in an email to RNS.

Curtice noted in a tweet she's never used "Mother Mystery" in a talk but she's "definitely going to now."

In the video, the speaker begins her prayers by addressing God as "Mystery," as she does in several prayers in her first book, "Glory Happening: Finding the Divine in Everyday Places," published by Christian publisher Paraclete Press in 2017. That's not without precedent in Christian tradition, according to Christian publication Relevant Magazine, which pointed to the ancient Latin text "O Magnum Mysterium," or "O Great Mystery."
Curtice's second book, "Native: Identity, Belonging, and Rediscovering God," will be released May 5 by Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group that publishes books by Christian thinkers.

Baylor told RNS it had spoken with Curtice before she came to chapel and expected her to speak from "Glory Happening."

The college seemed to imply in a statement sent to those who had questions about chapel that it was surprised by her message. That statement reads in part: "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."

Curtice responded on Twitter, "The Baylor chapel leaders knew exactly what I was speaking on before I came."
"We can pretend that what happened at Baylor is about me praying to Mystery, or we can recognize that based on the onslaught of anti-native attacks and accusations of being a pagan I've received since speaking there, it's about something else," she tweeted.

Rest of article: https://religionnews.com/2020/02/20/potawatomi-christian-chapel-speaker-kaitlin-curtice-draws-ire-of-baylor-student-group/
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorHistory said:

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.


I believe it would be wise to not follow the direction of schools like Duke and SMU that are becoming increasingly secular. Instead of trying to keep up with them for secular students, we should create a clear distinction as a proud Christian institution and use that as a competitive advantage. Them leaving the field creates an opportunity for us.

Now, Baylor could choose to become more nondenominational in time like say a TCU but it may be unnecessary and even be counterproductive. I don't see why there should be any rush on such a decision. Also, your demographic predictions assume a couple of things.

1. Bible following and believing Christianity is not growing. In fact, it is growing partly because it encourages the creation of families where mainline Protestant faiths no longer do so as they incorporate secular ideas.
2. There will not be a religious revival. I am of the opinion that a religious revival will take place because we have been living through a time of nihilism and people are getting tired of it. All that it requires is for bible believing folks to take the lead and defend Christianity as the answer to what those folks are searching for. Obviously, Baylor could be a beneficiary of such a movement.

In the classroom, I think it is important that Baylor teaches a variety of competing or challenging ideas but the thumb on the scale should always be in favor of growing students' Christian faith. In other words, we share secular world theories and ideas but we also want to equip students with the ability to defend the faith.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:


Them leaving the field creates an opportunity for us.



That space is occupied.
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I found this quote from that article very interesting:

The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.


To everyone who was defending this speaker and encouraging others to listen to the recording of her speech on the website, this shows very clearly that the video of the speech has been edited and not all parts of it are available online. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Why would Baylor doctor the footage unless there were things said they didn't really want made public?

Also the quote about her saying she's now definitely going to use the "Mother Mystery" line tells you everything you need to know about this woman. She is a troll just trying to get a rise out of people. Because if she can do that, she can immediately claim the rise isn't caused by what she said but by white patriarchy, or a desire to oppress her or women in general or Native Americans or whatever victim status she feels like claiming at the time.

In my opinion, those two aspects of this article should put this issue completely to rest because it has exposed Baylor's role and her motivations.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BaylorFTW said:


Them leaving the field creates an opportunity for us.



That space is occupied.
Not what he's talking about at all.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

I found this quote from that article very interesting:

The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.


To everyone who was defending this speaker and encouraging others to listen to the recording of her speech on the website, this shows very clearly that the video of the speech has been edited and not all parts of it are available online. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Why would Baylor doctor the footage unless there were things said they didn't really want made public?

Also the quote about her saying she's now definitely going to use the "Mother Mystery" line tells you everything you need to know about this woman. She is a troll just trying to get a rise out of people. Because if she can do that, she can immediately claim the rise isn't caused by what she said but by white patriarchy, or a desire to oppress her or women in general or Native Americans or whatever victim status she feels like claiming at the time.

In my opinion, those two aspects of this article should put this issue completely to rest because it has exposed Baylor's role and her motivations.
I think there are three services each time, and they just chose the one without the interruption.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anytime somebody starts talking about patriarchy or white privilege i automatically tune out. Marxist clap trap is all that is and those people basically hate western civilization which is ironically the only place that they would be allowed to speak their foolish ideas.
jason_cook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another red herring ... There was no "doctoring" of the video. We typically post the 2nd Chapel session online each week. The student interruption occurred in the first Chapel session that day. We have provided recordings of all three Chapel sessions to several media outlets upon their request, and all independently verified there was no prayer to "Mother Mystery."
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jason_cook said:

Another red herring ... There was no "doctoring" of the video. We typically post the 2nd Chapel session online each week. The student interruption occurred in the first Chapel session that day. We have provided recordings of all three Chapel sessions to several media outlets upon their request, and all independently verified there was no prayer to "Mother Mystery."


Thank you for taking the time to post on here. The student group was wrong to focus on "Mother Mystery" when it didn't happen, and that should be pointed out. However, Isn't that missing the forest for the trees? Whatever the speaker's actual beliefs, she did not in any way focus on Christianity. It was a purely secular, political speech AT CHAPEL and that is the issue that troubles a lot of us. While beside thIs main point, the speech was also far leftist, without any nuance or context, and she directly attacked whites, capitalism, America, oil/gas, among others. All of these are fair game in the appropriate forum and context but this did not meet the standard of BU Chapel.
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jason_cook said:

Another red herring ... There was no "doctoring" of the video. We typically post the 2nd Chapel session online each week. The student interruption occurred in the first Chapel session that day. We have provided recordings of all three Chapel sessions to several media outlets upon their request, and all independently verified there was no prayer to "Mother Mystery."


...and no prayer to God. You invited a racist, sexist, pagan troll to propagandize a captive audience of students. Congrats! Whoever invited that abortion of a speaker should be fired post haste. But you guys are cool with abortion, I'm sure.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FormerFlash said:

I found this quote from that article very interesting:

The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.


To everyone who was defending this speaker and encouraging others to listen to the recording of her speech on the website, this shows very clearly that the video of the speech has been edited and not all parts of it are available online. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Why would Baylor doctor the footage unless there were things said they didn't really want made public?

Also the quote about her saying she's now definitely going to use the "Mother Mystery" line tells you everything you need to know about this woman. She is a troll just trying to get a rise out of people. Because if she can do that, she can immediately claim the rise isn't caused by what she said but by white patriarchy, or a desire to oppress her or women in general or Native Americans or whatever victim status she feels like claiming at the time.

In my opinion, those two aspects of this article should put this issue completely to rest because it has exposed Baylor's role and her motivations.
I find it interesting that you decided to leap to a false conclusion and accuse Baylor of "doctoring footage." Had I made an accusation like that based incredibly poor logic, I would be quite embarassed by it. You are free to hold your opinion, but you can't just make up facts to bolster it as you have done here in accusing Baylor of "doctoring footage."

If the speaker is a troll just tying to get a rise out of people, she has most certainly been successful in your case.

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

quash said:

BaylorFTW said:


Them leaving the field creates an opportunity for us.



That space is occupied.
Not what he's talking about at all.
That is exactly what he is talking about. Echoes of the fundamentalists who tried to change Baylor that direction in the '80s.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

BaylorFTW said:


Them leaving the field creates an opportunity for us.



That space is occupied.
Not what he's talking about at all.
That is exactly what he is talking about. Echoes of the fundamentalists who tried to change Baylor that direction in the '80s.
It's a false dilemma. SMU and Bible college aren't the only choices. It is possible to be a full-fledged university and be orthodox at the same time. Baylor has done it for generations.
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

BaylorFTW said:


Them leaving the field creates an opportunity for us.



That space is occupied.
I was talking more broadly but even if we use your list. Of that list, only two ranked schools are in this part of the country with Oklahoma Baptist in Shawnee, Ok and Hardin Simmons in Abilene. Even if you throw in other schools like Dallas Baptist, that still leaves a lot of room.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

FormerFlash said:

I found this quote from that article very interesting:

The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.


To everyone who was defending this speaker and encouraging others to listen to the recording of her speech on the website, this shows very clearly that the video of the speech has been edited and not all parts of it are available online. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Why would Baylor doctor the footage unless there were things said they didn't really want made public?

Also the quote about her saying she's now definitely going to use the "Mother Mystery" line tells you everything you need to know about this woman. She is a troll just trying to get a rise out of people. Because if she can do that, she can immediately claim the rise isn't caused by what she said but by white patriarchy, or a desire to oppress her or women in general or Native Americans or whatever victim status she feels like claiming at the time.

In my opinion, those two aspects of this article should put this issue completely to rest because it has exposed Baylor's role and her motivations.
I find it interesting that you decided to leap to a false conclusion and accuse Baylor of "doctoring footage." Had I made an accusation like that based incredibly poor logic, I would be quite embarassed by it. You are free to hold your opinion, but you can't just make up facts to bolster it as you have done here in accusing Baylor of "doctoring footage."

If the speaker is a troll just tying to get a rise out of people, she has most certainly been successful in your case.


Yep
A Russian bot trying to divide us
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

FormerFlash said:

I found this quote from that article very interesting:

The outburst was not part of the service that Baylor recorded and posted on its website.


To everyone who was defending this speaker and encouraging others to listen to the recording of her speech on the website, this shows very clearly that the video of the speech has been edited and not all parts of it are available online. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Why would Baylor doctor the footage unless there were things said they didn't really want made public?

Also the quote about her saying she's now definitely going to use the "Mother Mystery" line tells you everything you need to know about this woman. She is a troll just trying to get a rise out of people. Because if she can do that, she can immediately claim the rise isn't caused by what she said but by white patriarchy, or a desire to oppress her or women in general or Native Americans or whatever victim status she feels like claiming at the time.

In my opinion, those two aspects of this article should put this issue completely to rest because it has exposed Baylor's role and her motivations.
I find it interesting that you decided to leap to a false conclusion and accuse Baylor of "doctoring footage." Had I made an accusation like that based incredibly poor logic, I would be quite embarassed by it. You are free to hold your opinion, but you can't just make up facts to bolster it as you have done here in accusing Baylor of "doctoring footage."

If the speaker is a troll just tying to get a rise out of people, she has most certainly been successful in your case.


I happily stand corrected on that portion of my post. I based my opinion on the information provided in the posted article and, for the record, I am glad my conclusion was incorrect.

I definitely still hold to the other aspect of my post that this woman is a troll eating up the publicity and her jump to include "Mother Mystery" in the future is very telling.
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jason_cook said:

Another red herring ... There was no "doctoring" of the video. We typically post the 2nd Chapel session online each week. The student interruption occurred in the first Chapel session that day. We have provided recordings of all three Chapel sessions to several media outlets upon their request, and all independently verified there was no prayer to "Mother Mystery."
Thanks for the clarification. Glad I was wrong.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.