You're right, I'm using benefits and rights interchangeably. (But I've also said that I believe healthcare and all that it entails IS a right, so at least I'm consistent in my little woman brain.)

Amy Pagitt said:

---

You're right, I'm using benefits and rights interchangeably. (But I've also said that I believe healthcare and all that it entails IS a right, so at least I'm consistent in my little woman brain.)

---

To make it even easier, instead of saying healthcare is a right, just say you believe we should pay the Federal government thousands of dollars every year and some bureaucrat in a cubicle should decide what healthcare services you're allowed to have.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

T-REX said:

---

laughngrin said:

---

Thee University said:

---

just like you did by posting the link to the interview above??????

---

By the way, I edited my post to remove the link and all my ensuing posts that quoted my original post. I have no interest in breaking the rules of this site and I'm sorry if I did. You may want to edit it out of your comment since it is in the quoted content. I was just saying that the only way I knew who you were was because a staff member used your screen name on an article with your real name. I am not saying it's wrong or bad or whatever. I'm saying I knew who you were because of that, so it's possible someone else did too. And I wouldn't consider it doxing if that was the case. Again, I'm sorry if I accidentally broke a rule. I just didn't think linking to a post that is on this site is against the rules. If so, we have a ton of rule breakers.

---

This is a good point. I only figured out that Thee is Doak because of the link that is still present in Thee's quote reply. I clicked on it just now and see the comment by Ashley. Regardless of everything else in this thread, keeping the link in your qoute reply Thee is helping to direct other users to that interview thread where you are identified by Hodge. Laughgrin edited his to not include the thread link, which as he stated appears to try & appease your wishes concerning "doxing" and not start any uneccesary "beef". I would suggest using the edit function and removing it, otherwise I will not be the last to stumble upon this thread and find that link in your reply.

I believe this is the 1st time ive ever spent more than 5 secs on the R&P sub as i try to stay away from politics and religion on the internet as there will never be a true winner and it just results in needless animosity between people. This thread had some great back & forth discourse from all sides on this subject until the twitter posting was brought up. It would be 1 thing to criticise Amy, her user name is her real name so don't accuse me of doxing lol, for tweeting that and or any of her comments around the medical benefits. But making the comment about "spending that time with her daughter's" was absolutely uncalled for. The person saying that can be assumed to know she has both a son & a daughter & the use of "" was clearly an attempt at attacking her by calling her son a girl. You wanted a reaction, you got her attention, then it went downhill on both sides.

The original user who shared that she tweeted about this tread im going to assume didnt mean to cause what followed but at the end of the day, this is a free forum and anybody can view these posts and comments wothout even being signed in. This is not on the premium side of the forum. The mods dont have a foot to stand on if they went about criticising the sharing of free board things.

This could have, and to some degree still is if you ignore about half, a great thread with discourse on a very hot topic. But due to actions on all sides, wether intentional or not, it was derailed & is not a measuring contest. I am reminded once again why I stay away from this sub forum. Anything productive gets destroyed.

Im sure these words will fall on deaf ears for some as there are at least a few here that have no desire in hearing a single word I say on any subject because dinosaur guy bad, including some who have interacted on this specific thread, but I just wanted to put it out there. As someone who has had "negative" internet interactions with some of the users on this specific thread, there is no reason to go after people the way some of you have. As I always tell people, if you dont like what someone tweets or posts on here, the block button is very easy to find. I dont follow amy on twitter, i either have her muted or maybe even blocked on there. Only reason i came to this thread is because of the mention of her tweet about it on page 1 or 2. I thought id check it out to see what the tread was about but mostly to see who the user was she referred to as i had a few ideas of who it is. And due to no surpise, I walked into a **** storm of liberal vs conservative on what could have been a good discourse without any perosnal attacks. Amy didnt start those either. But she had every right to respond after that stupid daughters comment.

Some of you wanted a response, you got it, then you claimed it was a typlical woke liberal response. No, it was a typical human response to unnecessary bull***** Im a conservative, im 29, i think i know a thing or 2 about "millennial wokeness" and nothing amy said here really fit that bill.

Carry on & see yall at the parade at 6pm in Waco.

---

Amy brought it on herself by attempting to publicly shame people on Twitter (which is essentially all she does outside of her sports posts).

I get called a lib here more often than not (I'm a more traditional Republican), but I don't support posting things from this forum on Twitter for the express purpose of shaming.

I support conversation and hate threads getting derailed. Only reason I post here is to have enough self control not to post anything political on Facebook or Twitter.

---

It is RIDICULOUS HYPOCRISY to cloak yourself in your Christianity when defending Baylor's decision to extend healthcare coverage to same-sex spouses while saying things like "slavery was ordained by God" and "if George Floyd had just been a perfect human, he wouldn't be dead" (how'd that work out for Jesus, by the way???). The effort to hide the poster's screen name was made because the tweet was highlighting a disturbingly prevalent way of thinking among many Baylor people.

---

I don't want to belabor the point, but you don't seem to understand what hypocrisy means. If one uses the bible to defend something but then supports or engages in actions that are against the bible, then that would be hypocrisy. You might disagree with YCT's statement that "slavery was ordained by God", but they are saying it is biblically supported. And no one is saying "if George Floyd had just been a perfect human, he wouldn't be dead" - you are, yet AGAIN, creating a strawman parody a la Adam Schiff (and this intellectual dishonesty is getting pretty annoying). The idea being expressed was that bad actions can lead to bad outcomes. Where in the bible does it say it's wrong to think that? You can argue that they're wrong or that they're being insensitive, but "hypocritical" doesn't really apply.

"if George Floyd had just been a perfect human, he wouldn't be dead"

Where did anyone say this? Please direct us to that statement since you used quotes...otherwise you are just making sh*t up.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

The way of thinking that allows people to go to extremes to justify the taking of a life and has decided that homosexuality is the one great sin (and that the best way to spread the Gospel is to continually exclude people).

---

Inclusion should never come at the expense of biblical truth.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

You're right, I'm using benefits and rights interchangeably. (But I've also said that I believe healthcare and all that it entails IS a right, so at least I'm consistent in my little woman brain.)

---

Interesting. What, in your words, makes something a "right"?

Especially a "right" which compels someone to do something for you at your command?

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

Call me silly, but something is "Biblical" when it has Scriptural references to support it.

Not when someone in media thinks it's important.

Hint: The phrase "Social Justice" does not exist in the Bible.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people

---

Your second sentence is nullified by your first.

How do you know government healthcare will actually help instead of making healthcare access worse?

You're asking your fellow average taxpayer to fork over thousands of extra dollars to a federal government that can't even operate the postal service without massive failures. People will have to purchase private insurance on top of their government healthcare taxes because the feds can't do their damn job. Plus you just got in line behind millions and you have to wait.

Have you done the research or did you end at "this sounds like noble cause, lets help these people!"?

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

---

No one has said this. There's your intellectual dishonesty again. You are really, really bad at this.

Ahhhh, yes. My idea is different than your own so *I* must be the ignorant, clueless one.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

---

Question: if someone wants to worship God in church, but also insists on worshiping and praying to a golden statue of Trump in church also, should Christians exclude him from church?

When you say you are okay with Baylor denying benefits on the basis of sexuality (benefits that allow someone to receive preventative care, for example), you are saying IMPLICITLY that you think care for other humans should be conditioned upon their worthiness in the Bible. (Although I'm pretty sure Jesus would say all are worthy of His love and that he didn't interview people about their sexuality before he fed or clothed or ministered to them.) It doesn't have to be LITERALLY stated for the sentiment to be there.

This may shock y'all, but I'm not some raging Liberal tribalist who gloms on to ideas or policies just because "my side" says to. A real, nuanced discussion with me would probably surprise you, but you're too busy dismissing anyone who disagrees with you or takes statements to their logical next steps as an idiot. Shame that I'm watering down your degree.

Wow, have any of the people who did that at CPAC been excluded from their churches yet?

I would definitely say that anyone breaking the first commandment shouldn't be allowed to do so in church. I would also hope that their fellow Christians would wonder what went wrong and how someone worshiping another god snuck in while they were too busy worrying about who people love.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

You know what is really sad to me? That this is the way it usually goes: If you don't agree with my policy ideas, like having the Federal government run the healthcare system, you don't care about people and you are either a bad Christian or not a Christian at all. It is such a non-starter for actually reaching solutions.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return.

---

I agree. We should pay them less, not entrust them with more to screw up.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

When you say you are okay with Baylor denying benefits on the basis of sexuality (benefits that allow someone to receive preventative care, for example), you are saying IMPLICITLY that you think care for other humans should be conditioned upon their worthiness in the Bible. (Although I'm pretty sure Jesus would say all are worthy of His love and that he didn't interview people about their sexuality before he fed or clothed or ministered to them.) It doesn't have to be LITERALLY stated for the sentiment to be there.

This may shock y'all, but I'm not some raging Liberal tribalist who gloms on to ideas or policies just because "my side" says to. A real, nuanced discussion with me would probably surprise you, but you're too busy dismissing anyone who disagrees with you or takes statements to their logical next steps as an idiot. Shame that I'm watering down your degree.

---

"Denying benefits on the basis of sexuality" - did Baylor do this? Have they denied healthcare coverage to an unmarried person because they were gay?

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Wow, have any of the people who did that at CPAC been excluded from their churches yet?

I would definitely say that anyone breaking the first commandment shouldn't be allowed to do so in church. I would also hope that their fellow Christians would wonder what went wrong and how someone worshiping another god snuck in while they were too busy worrying about who people love.

---

So, you ARE for exclusion, then. And you think there can be a biblical basis for it.
Thank you.

Addendum: Yes, I think Christians should NOT have tolerated that golden Trump idol.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

Honestly, I agree that the health care system in America is screwed up. The bureaucracy of government, insurance companies, hospitals have made costs far higher than they should be.

I'm getting to the screw it at this point. But the fear is that the government runs everything poorly. Why trust them fully? Before pointing to the EU countries as a health care example, realize that their individual tax rate is near 50% and the countries spend next to nothing on their own defense. If America wants to stop playing world protector and cut our defense by 60%, then let's do it. But the EU will all of a sudden have a lot of issues.

BearTruth13 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

Honestly, I agree that the health care system in America is screwed up. The bureaucracy of government, insurance companies, hospitals have made costs far higher than they should be.

I'm getting to the screw it at this point. But the fear is that the government runs everything poorly. Why trust them fully? Before pointing to the EU countries as a health care example, realize that their individual tax rate is near 50% and the countries spend next to nothing on their own defense. If America wants to stop playing world protector and cut our defense by 60%, then let's do it. But the EU will all of a sudden have a lot of issues.

---

The healthcare system is royally screwed up ... because of how involved the government is in it, and because it is bizarrely tethered to your employment thanks to tax and regulatory legislation. The market incentives are completely twisted beyond recognition.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Ahhhh, yes. My idea is different than your own so *I* must be the ignorant, clueless one.

---

No, you are ignoring valid posts and making up things to attack, which is dishonest on its face.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

But then, as other posters have mentioned, YOU guys decided to bring MY tweet in here and make it personal. I particularly enjoyed the weird gender identity shaming or whatever it was that you tried to pull with my long-haired son. There is a reason why the vast majority of Baylor people don't post here, and it's not because they all agree with you and are cheering from the sidelines when you post. It's because you guys jump into bully mode immediately and the agreement was made long ago to make the non-premium boards an unmoderated hellscape.

---

Allow me to retort.

You sure are trying hard to make this into more than it was and is. Imagine that!

What you attempt to designate as gender identity shaming was nothing more than a mistake on my part. I did not stare at your Tweet pic that showed the entire family for more than 5 seconds. I saw long hair on both kids and you standing there with who I must assume is your husband (mate, partner, hubby, consort, old man, companion, significant other, helpmate, lord & master, patriarch, honey, sweetheart, sweety pie, escort, fella, betrothed, buck, laddie, galoot or whatever is politically correct in your world) and then your astronomical tweet count and backed out. I had seen enough.

Long hair on little ones is great. Long hair on old men? Maybe not so great but I have it today and a small bald spot too.

I was born when Eisenhower was in the White House so I am one of those white males you likely despise. Your comments that I have read, just 2 or 3, lead me to make an old, white man assumption that you get your feelings hurt very easily. I suggest you steer clear of Sports Bulletin Boards. There is an awful lot of testosterone flowing from here. I understand testosterone is kryptonite for millennial snowflakes.

You will be happy to know that very few Baylor folks agree with much of anything I post here. You would be surprised though at the "fan mail" and free drinks I receive. Some folks like to hear the TRUTH.

Robert Wilson said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

Honestly, I agree that the health care system in America is screwed up. The bureaucracy of government, insurance companies, hospitals have made costs far higher than they should be.

I'm getting to the screw it at this point. But the fear is that the government runs everything poorly. Why trust them fully? Before pointing to the EU countries as a health care example, realize that their individual tax rate is near 50% and the countries spend next to nothing on their own defense. If America wants to stop playing world protector and cut our defense by 60%, then let's do it. But the EU will all of a sudden have a lot of issues.

---

The healthcare system is royally screwed up ... because of how involved the government is in it, and because it is bizarrely tethered to your employment thanks to tax and regulatory legislation. The market incentives are completely twisted beyond recognition.

---

It's sad. Nothing moves in the right direction either because someone is going to stop making a lot of money.

If the feds controlled it, healthcare would be exploited even more than it is today. The same jackasses profiteering off a bogus 20+ year war on "terror" and getting our sons killed in the process are going to be responsible for our healthcare now?

It's like people are asleep in this world.

" Some folks like to hear the TRUTH."

And too many have no idea what is true anymore.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Ahhhh, yes. My idea is different than your own so *I* must be the ignorant, clueless one.

---

Well it's not so much that your ideas are different than his as that every idea you have posted here has been either a blatant straw man, tantamount to a lie, a complete distortion of Christian principles, an absurd redefinition of an existing term or just an irrational, illogical train wreck.

This board that you mock as unchristian for its use of logical standards in discussion (and because of your apparent obsession with homosexuality, which you incessantly bring up) is filled with people on the left and right who have spent a great deal of time in thoughtful intellectual sparring over big ideas. They aren't always pleasant, but I'd stack 90% of the minds here against the Twitter mob in which you seem to prefer membership any day.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

You're right, I'm using benefits and rights interchangeably. (But I've also said that I believe healthcare and all that it entails IS a right, so at least I'm consistent in my little woman brain.)

---

There is absolutely no reason for you to disparage other women in this way. Particularly not when your other modifier appears entirely sufficient.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

Honestly, I agree that the health care system in America is screwed up. The bureaucracy of government, insurance companies, hospitals have made costs far higher than they should be.

I'm getting to the screw it at this point. But the fear is that the government runs everything poorly. Why trust them fully? Before pointing to the EU countries as a health care example, realize that their individual tax rate is near 50% and the countries spend next to nothing on their own defense. If America wants to stop playing world protector and cut our defense by 60%, then let's do it. But the EU will all of a sudden have a lot of issues.

---

The healthcare system is royally screwed up ... because of how involved the government is in it, and because it is bizarrely tethered to your employment thanks to tax and regulatory legislation. The market incentives are completely twisted beyond recognition.

---

It's sad. Nothing moves in the right direction either because someone is going to stop making a lot of money.

If the feds controlled it, healthcare would be exploited even more than it is today. The same jackasses profiteering off a bogus 20+ year war on "terror" and getting our sons killed in the process are going to be responsible for our healthcare now?

It's like people are asleep in this world.

---

Healthcare is a great place to make a ton of money because there is no price sensitivity whatsoever. Just get insurance or Medicaid approval for your product at a certain price point, which is largely based on cronyism.

Canon said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Ahhhh, yes. My idea is different than your own so *I* must be the ignorant, clueless one.

---

Well it's not so much that your ideas are different than his as that every idea you have posted here has been either a blatant straw man, tantamount to a lie, a complete distortion of Christian principles, an absurd redefinition of an existing term or just an irrational, illogical train wreck.

This board that you mock as unchristian for its use of logical standards in discussion (and because of your apparent obsession with homosexuality, which you incessantly bring up) is filled with people on the left and right who have spent a great deal of time in thoughtful intellectual sparring over big ideas. They aren't always pleasant, but I'd stack 90% of the minds here against the Twitter mob in which you seem to prefer membership any day.

---

Hoody Hoo! The Intro to Logic 101 board police are back. That train is never late.

More seriously, to the broader commentary & challenges posed as to how the Bible doesn't at all support or reference anything related to modern "social justice" or equality, as Amy & many others here have advocated for passionately... I'd urge us to consider there are in fact undeniable calls to action for those who interpret the Bible maybe in a different way than what many of you (aka all members other than the '12 liberals' who actively post here, as referenced above on this thread) may feel called to act on personally in your own lives.

For some of us who graduated from Baylor, depending on your life experiences, upbringing, even your unique Baylor experience, for which everyone was likely quite different... we may all also interpret the Bible very differently. God designed us that way. Remember - none of us interpreting the Bible in 2021 are perfect, only those through whom he used to originally capture His infallible Word.

So we all could be wrong. We all could be right. We all could be a little of both. (Spoiler: It's the third one).

That said, if we have to take it back to a logic debate, it's pretty hard to overlook the two thousand references to justice and poverty and our calling in response in the Bible.

The social condition of people is mentioned in the Bible often. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth.

The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others questioning a Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his own reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today, even on the free boards.

No small feat, yo.

Jesus spoke sternly against those who hid behind religion/religious ceremony while they also 'neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy & faith.'

So.. I think these same matters were, in practice, a concern and a reality in terms of Jesus's time, works, calling and purpose on this earth. And thus, at least I believe, they are our own.

All of the above, agree or not, are valid interpretations of the Bible and our role as Christians to love & give to others more than we hate and withhold. That is what is odd to me to be what you vehemently oppose with 'crazy liberal' views from others like Amy or myself (read: actually much less liberal / previously conservative Christians who in fact now interpret the Bible and our role as Christians on this earth differently than you might based on different life experiences & callings... and just like you do, we feel called to no longer sit silently by & ignore the tug on our own hearts He has placed on us, again, just as you are. So, we speak louder.)

What would you have instead for me or Amy or anyone else with that belief or calling?

What in love are you hopeful for my or her calling on this earth to instead be?

What would you have of others with similar callings in our own walks with Christ... ignore it and follow the common opinions found on a board, which has never felt right or never been what I felt Christ was calling me in my life to do?

Specifically when it comes to equality, injustice, oppression and most notably our calling to love all, ESPECIALLY the outcasts, the rejected, the Gay Christians or non-Christians. And yes, the former of the two, is in fact a thing.

As the Baylor minority with those beliefs, instead of railing on us for standing up for what we know and believe with all of our hearts that Christ has called of us uniquely to do... maybe we can rally around a greater purpose? What we all believe Baylor's mission in fact calls it uniquely to do in an effort to bring more people to Christ... to treat others equally, with love, to stand up for the oppressed... and to produce VERY DIFFERENT types of Christians in its alumni, all sent out in the world with the knowledge, desire and foundation to draw others to Him, into the gift we all have received and were blessed to learn more about as Baylor students ourselves.

Maybe, instead of all of that, just tip your hat, laugh at us and our ignorance in your eyes and even DM us to tell us that's TOTAL HORSE-ISH... but publicly (and yes, that includes the unofficially associated w/ our alma mater free boards) celebrate and support all ideas that could in fact make Baylor University more of an institution where increasingly more non-believers are loved & brought closer to Christ, no matter what cross they bear when they arrive or depart. We want them all able to learn about Christ, His love for us, and the love He calls for us to give freely to others while on His earth, right?

And publicly supporting inequality in official BU policies, especially those related to health and well-being, I believe, does not optimize our ability to do just that. At all.

For real... strip it all away... and what are we called to. What does our heart reveal. I imagine much more alike than different when it counts.

And personally, FWIW, I'd pay more than a Natty mid-court ticket to be a +1 with Amy at the pearly gates any day of the week. He's likely to ask her if she really is willing to vouch for me... and I'll gladly take my shack in heaven's slums over the Highland Park of Heaven if I get to be neighbors for eternity with my gay Christian cousin in heaven b/c I continued to love, support and advocate for them like Jesus did when He came to earth for our sorry selves until my last, dying breath.

All my love,
Keko Keeper of the S365 Logic Police Dog Whistle
D.C. Bear's Favorite Poster
Crazy Liberal Board Disciple #12

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Gays good. Conservatives bad. Bible means what you want it to mean.

You're welcome.

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Since you're 'new' here, I'm generous with my 'first one is free' copy/pastes of an exact excerpt:

The social condition of people is often mentioned in the Bible. For example, the book of Leviticus is all about the law, the right, fair, just living/existence amongst all people on earth. The Bible speaks out against 'corrupt scales' in the market/economy, exploiting the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates/usury, acquiring multiple properties at the expense of the poor/unjust housing, exploiting widows and orphans i.e. misuse of power, welcoming immigrants & treating them well, paying day laborers fairly & quickly and the list goes on, and treating others with love and grace above all else, just to name a few of our responsibilities in the short 80+ years or so we spend on this earth.

So, if the Bible is true, social justice, equality and our role in addressing it, in fact are a concern to God (Hat tip: OldBear & others still questioning that Biblical reference).

And for those not yet convinced, Jesus cared as much as God instructed us to on earth in his reality... He healed people, fed people, embraced the outcast & crossed racial / ethnic barriers, AND he defended women & children in a culture in a time when that was even less popular to do so than it is today on the free boards.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

It's really sad to me that you all think taking care of fellow humans regardless of their "worthiness" is not Biblical. Or that excluding *is* Biblical. We have very different interpretations of Christianity, and we will never agree here.

also, newsflash: we already pay the government thousands of dollars and we get very little in return. I would be SO on board with my tax dollars being used to benefit actual people. Right now, we are also paying insurance companies thousands of dollars, and someone who has cancer or a heart attack is probably STILL going to have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. But people are just supposed to be okay with a system that doesn't work for a lot of people and relies on fellow citizens to donate to GoFundMe, I guess.

---

Honestly, I agree that the health care system in America is screwed up. The bureaucracy of government, insurance companies, hospitals have made costs far higher than they should be.

I'm getting to the screw it at this point. But the fear is that the government runs everything poorly. Why trust them fully? Before pointing to the EU countries as a health care example, realize that their individual tax rate is near 50% and the countries spend next to nothing on their own defense. If America wants to stop playing world protector and cut our defense by 60%, then let's do it. But the EU will all of a sudden have a lot of issues.

---

The healthcare system is royally screwed up ... because of how involved the government is in it, and because it is bizarrely tethered to your employment thanks to tax and regulatory legislation. The market incentives are completely twisted beyond recognition.

---

It's sad. Nothing moves in the right direction either because someone is going to stop making a lot of money.

If the feds controlled it, healthcare would be exploited even more than it is today. The same jackasses profiteering off a bogus 20+ year war on "terror" and getting our sons killed in the process are going to be responsible for our healthcare now?

It's like people are asleep in this world.

---

People are asleep in America. Most other developed countries have healthcare figured out.

BearN said:

---

Canon said:

---

If someone (anyone) decides to take the time to wade through the incoherent word salad above, I'd appreciate both an English interpretation and an executive summary. Thanks in advance.

---

Gays good. Conservatives bad. Bible means what you want it to mean.

You're welcome.

---

Apologies. I'll publish my next post at 0.5X playback speed by default for both of you.

That said, it's kind of sad I would think to live your life interpreting a post that in fact stipulated to the idea that a Christian's calling, even if based on different Biblical interpretations by both of us, can in fact be both still be valid, as long as it is a reflection of Christ's calling on your life personally, only which we can each individually know to be true... but, so it goes.

You are certainly generous with the volume of words you are willing to use. Their impact is lessened and, indeed, made largely meaningless, by the order in which you happen to place them, however. Your views on Christianity, such as you've presented them (largely incoherently), are remarkably like a vegetarian advocating the virtues of wrapping every dish with bacon.