Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

"Nah, I didn't run away"

Also didn't pay attention to the posts from everyone else, I see.

Soooo.....uhhh...about this trial eh?

BUBear24 said:

---

Soooo.....uhhh...about this trial eh?

---

No one would want me on that jury.

BUBear24 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Soooo.....uhhh...about this trial eh?

---

No one would want me on that jury.

---

All it takes it one to doubt everything. I think he'll still get convicted but going to be interesting coming Friday/next Monday if the defenses plan of Floyd's career drug use comes to play.

---

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm not saying the Defense would like me either.

Twice I have been thrown off jury pools for asking questions that got in the way of both lawyers.

I'm always curious, and never take anyone at their word, especially lawyers.

quash said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

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.)

---

Healthcare is a right. The gov't shouldn't block access to it or allow anyone else to block access to it. Not providing healthcare benefits to a spouse through an employee's compensation structure is not the equivalent of blocking access to it.

---

Healthcare is not a right. Rights are personal. If your right requires something from someone else then it is not a right. You may enter into an agreement with me that gives a contractual right to make a demand on my time or expertise, but you cannot use the government to compel me to provide that expertise to you and call it a right.

---

I think you don't understand my point. To seek healthcare is a right, meaning the gov't should not block access to it, but by no means provide access to it either.

For instance, I have the right to bear arms, the gov't shouldn't have the right to block my access to it, but by no means provide me with firepower.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

You REPEATEDLY used strawmans to make your argument, even after being called out, and then ignored us when you were called out....and you say WE were arguing in bad faith?? Good lord.

I don't care to know your background, your perspective, or how you formed your ideas because it's irrelevant to knowing that what you said was wrong. (You did the same to us, right?)

I can only speak for myself, but the objective here is never to "win" the argument, but rather to espouse and uphold truth. As long as truth wins, I'm good. And I felt you were espousing UNtruths. Namely, the deceitful way you were framing an issue, your begging the question, your incorrect use of the concept of "hypocrisy", and your incessant, unapologetic use of strawmans. And every time you were confronted with these, you either completely ignored it, or you simply returned to your original strawman argument, thus arguing in a circle. Honestly, you did not represent yourself very well.

Though, I have to say you did respond to at least one of my challenges, when you claimed that "exclusion" is NOT biblical, and I got you to admit that yes, actually there are times where exclusion is necessary and biblically based. You concede this, yes? You agree that we can both come to this truth without having to know each other's backgrounds and perspectives, yes? See, this is what we can do with all other biblical issues as well.

I asked you for a case where Baylor denied a single, unmarried employee healthcare coverage because he/she was gay. Because your "Baylor denies healthcare to people based on their sexuality" (false) narrative wholly depends on that. If you can't show this happened, at least once, then your narrative is busted, and you need to build a new one. If you're gonna point to Baylor not providing the "spouse" of a same sex-married couple healthcare benefits as proof of that, then your narrative is busted already, because both "spouses" in the same sex marriage are gay, and Baylor is covering at least one of them.

Of course, that's only true if they are indeed covering the employee, and not denying the same sex couple altogether. If that's the case, then you certainly have an argument. Is that the case? If not, then the fair, right-minded thing to do is cease your narrative and espouse a more accurate one that fits the scenario better. That would be the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

You REPEATEDLY used strawmans to make your argument, even after being called out, and then ignored us when you were called out....and you say WE were arguing in bad faith?? Good lord.

I don't care to know your background, your perspective, or how you formed your ideas because it's irrelevant to knowing that what you said was wrong. (You did the same to us, right?)

I can only speak for myself, but the objective here is never to "win" the argument, but rather to espouse and uphold truth. As long as truth wins, I'm good. And I felt you were espousing UNtruths. Namely, the deceitful way you were framing an issue, your begging the question, your incorrect use of the concept of "hypocrisy", and your incessant, unapologetic use of strawmans. And every time you were confronted with these, you either completely ignored it, or you simply returned to your original strawman argument, thus arguing in a circle. Honestly, you did not represent yourself very well.

Though, I have to say you did respond to at least one of my challenges, when you claimed that "exclusion" is NOT biblical, and I got you to admit that yes, actually there are times where exclusion is necessary and biblically based. You concede this, yes? You agree that we can both come to this truth without having to know each other's backgrounds and perspectives, yes? See, this is what we can do with all other biblical issues as well.

I asked you for a case where Baylor denied a single, unmarried employee healthcare coverage because he/she was gay. Because your "Baylor denies healthcare to people based on their sexuality" (false) narrative wholly depends on that. If you can't show this happened, at least once, then your narrative is busted, and you need to build a new one. If you're gonna point to Baylor not providing the "spouse" of a same sex-married couple healthcare benefits as proof of that, then your narrative is busted already, because both "spouses" in the same sex marriage are gay, and Baylor is covering at least one of them.

Of course, that's only true if they are indeed covering the employee, and not denying the same sex couple altogether. If that's the case, then you certainly have an argument. Is that the case? If not, then the fair, right-minded thing to do is cease your narrative and espouse a more accurate one that fits the scenario better. That would be the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do.

---

Did I miss the new premium member training course back in 2017 on how to start posts tearing into the structure, flow, word choice and a sentence diagrams as board jazz hands for fun? Did yall learn how to disguise your posts as discourse, but spend 3/4 of it rattling off intellectual buzzwords to try to pull apart how the poster actually organized their point of view, Instead of ever actually addressing their actual point of view? Of course which you well understand regardless of the "strawman" or flawed structure, but still pretend to be befuddled by us morons out here who have a heart for the people impacted by these topics.

Wait... just hit me... IS THIS WHAT YOU DO IN LAW SCHOOL??? FML.

I dodged a big bullet there. Billable hours & strawman policing wouldn't have been my thing.

Wish there was less sentence / debate critique and actual willingness to engage with just 10% of an open heart for other Christians' passions, beliefs, challenges and heart-tugs from the Holy Spirit that make us all human and also His own. And before you hit quote reply to begin tearing apart my law school revelation & ignore this last paragraph with meaning.... Read it again, then read Amy's again, and consider grace and love - just 10% - in your reply. See what it gets us.

saykay said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

You REPEATEDLY used strawmans to make your argument, even after being called out, and then ignored us when you were called out....and you say WE were arguing in bad faith?? Good lord.

I don't care to know your background, your perspective, or how you formed your ideas because it's irrelevant to knowing that what you said was wrong. (You did the same to us, right?)

I can only speak for myself, but the objective here is never to "win" the argument, but rather to espouse and uphold truth. As long as truth wins, I'm good. And I felt you were espousing UNtruths. Namely, the deceitful way you were framing an issue, your begging the question, your incorrect use of the concept of "hypocrisy", and your incessant, unapologetic use of strawmans. And every time you were confronted with these, you either completely ignored it, or you simply returned to your original strawman argument, thus arguing in a circle. Honestly, you did not represent yourself very well.

Though, I have to say you did respond to at least one of my challenges, when you claimed that "exclusion" is NOT biblical, and I got you to admit that yes, actually there are times where exclusion is necessary and biblically based. You concede this, yes? You agree that we can both come to this truth without having to know each other's backgrounds and perspectives, yes? See, this is what we can do with all other biblical issues as well.

I asked you for a case where Baylor denied a single, unmarried employee healthcare coverage because he/she was gay. Because your "Baylor denies healthcare to people based on their sexuality" (false) narrative wholly depends on that. If you can't show this happened, at least once, then your narrative is busted, and you need to build a new one. If you're gonna point to Baylor not providing the "spouse" of a same sex-married couple healthcare benefits as proof of that, then your narrative is busted already, because both "spouses" in the same sex marriage are gay, and Baylor is covering at least one of them.

Of course, that's only true if they are indeed covering the employee, and not denying the same sex couple altogether. If that's the case, then you certainly have an argument. Is that the case? If not, then the fair, right-minded thing to do is cease your narrative and espouse a more accurate one that fits the scenario better. That would be the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do.

---

Did I miss the new premium member training course back in 2017 on how to start posts tearing into the structure, flow, word choice and a sentence diagrams as board jazz hands for fun? Did yall learn how to disguise your posts as discourse, but spend 3/4 of it rattling off intellectual buzzwords to try to pull apart how the poster actually organized their point of view, Instead of ever actually addressing their actual point of view? Of course which you well understand regardless of the "strawman" or flawed structure, but still pretend to be befuddled by us morons out here who have a heart for the people impacted by these topics.

Wait... just hit me... IS THIS WHAT YOU DO IN LAW SCHOOL??? FML.

I dodged a big bullet there. Billable hours & strawman policing wouldn't have been my thing.

Wish there was less sentence / debate critique and actual willingness to engage with just 10% of an open heart for other Christians' passions, beliefs, challenges and heart-tugs from the Holy Spirit that make us all human and also His own. And before you hit quote reply to begin tearing apart my law school revelation & ignore this last paragraph with meaning.... Read it again, then read Amy's again, and consider grace and love - just 10% - in your reply. See what it gets us.

---

This is absurd.

Lying, distortion, false accusation, and poor logic are not problems with sentence structure, flow, word choice, or how one organized their point of view. If you want a discussion that acknowledges someone's passions, beliefs, and challenges, and how that shapes their point of view, then it probably isn't a good idea to trash the other side's passions, beliefs, challenges, and how it shaped their point of view by saying how bad, un-Christian, and "hypocritical" they are for not agreeing with you.

And if you think lies, distortions, false witness, and unclear thinking are fruits, or "heart tugs" as you say, of the Holy Spirit, then you are deceived. Grace and love should not come at the expense of biblical truth. And again, it's probably a good idea to try 10% of it for yourself before you ask it from others.

Ok, now I'll address your law school revelation with this: if you were truly considering becoming a lawyer, but didn't, you weren't the one who dodged a bullet - WE all did.

Porteroso said:

---

Canon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Canon said:

---

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the evidence or even the jury thinks, really. There's enough promised violence and tacit guarantees that a juror who doesn't vote guilty will be destroyed, that the verdict was likely guilty before the trial ever began.

---

Yeah when you murder a guy in front of a crowd, on video tape, and the entire world sees it/gets mad about it, it's probably really hard to get a fair trial. I can sympathize with that. Chauvin is the real victim here, imo. Maybe we could find a technologically illiterate island tribe in the Caribbean to show the video to, I'm sure they'd vote not guilty.

---

You might try responding to the post that was made rather than the post you made up.

---

You're saying he can't get a fair trial in your view. I'm just agreeing, dude.

---

That's not what I said at all.

---

Quote:

---

violence and tacit guarantees that a juror who doesn't vote guilty will be destroyed

---

You need a dictionary refresh if this spells out fair trial.

---

Only if you need one to spell out violence.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

If you really learned to think about the policy implications of everything...then you should revisit and think through the implications of mainstreaming homosexuality in a society.

Also, the Bible only mentions child sacrifice in a few places and rarely mentions cannibalism. What exactly is your point? Cannibalism and Child sacrifice are condemned without reservation when they are mentioned...the Bible doesn't need to spend a lot of time going back over and condemning such abominations.

We also have 2,000 years of Christian social/moral/civilizational teaching to rely on....which again condemns deviant sexual practices (both heterosexual and homosexual), cannibalism, and human child sacrifice without reservation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saykay said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

You REPEATEDLY used strawmans to make your argument, even after being called out, and then ignored us when you were called out....and you say WE were arguing in bad faith?? Good lord.

I don't care to know your background, your perspective, or how you formed your ideas because it's irrelevant to knowing that what you said was wrong. (You did the same to us, right?)

I can only speak for myself, but the objective here is never to "win" the argument, but rather to espouse and uphold truth. As long as truth wins, I'm good. And I felt you were espousing UNtruths. Namely, the deceitful way you were framing an issue, your begging the question, your incorrect use of the concept of "hypocrisy", and your incessant, unapologetic use of strawmans. And every time you were confronted with these, you either completely ignored it, or you simply returned to your original strawman argument, thus arguing in a circle. Honestly, you did not represent yourself very well.

Though, I have to say you did respond to at least one of my challenges, when you claimed that "exclusion" is NOT biblical, and I got you to admit that yes, actually there are times where exclusion is necessary and biblically based. You concede this, yes? You agree that we can both come to this truth without having to know each other's backgrounds and perspectives, yes? See, this is what we can do with all other biblical issues as well.

I asked you for a case where Baylor denied a single, unmarried employee healthcare coverage because he/she was gay. Because your "Baylor denies healthcare to people based on their sexuality" (false) narrative wholly depends on that. If you can't show this happened, at least once, then your narrative is busted, and you need to build a new one. If you're gonna point to Baylor not providing the "spouse" of a same sex-married couple healthcare benefits as proof of that, then your narrative is busted already, because both "spouses" in the same sex marriage are gay, and Baylor is covering at least one of them.

Of course, that's only true if they are indeed covering the employee, and not denying the same sex couple altogether. If that's the case, then you certainly have an argument. Is that the case? If not, then the fair, right-minded thing to do is cease your narrative and espouse a more accurate one that fits the scenario better. That would be the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do.

---

Did I miss the new premium member training course back in 2017 on how to start posts tearing into the structure, flow, word choice and a sentence diagrams as board jazz hands for fun? Did yall learn how to disguise your posts as discourse, but spend 3/4 of it rattling off intellectual buzzwords to try to pull apart how the poster actually organized their point of view, Instead of ever actually addressing their actual point of view? Of course which you well understand regardless of the "strawman" or flawed structure, but still pretend to be befuddled by us morons out here who have a heart for the people impacted by these topics.

Wait... just hit me... IS THIS WHAT YOU DO IN LAW SCHOOL??? FML.

I dodged a big bullet there. Billable hours & strawman policing wouldn't have been my thing.

Wish there was less sentence / debate critique and actual willingness to engage with just 10% of an open heart for other Christians' passions, beliefs, challenges and heart-tugs from the Holy Spirit that make us all human and also His own. And before you hit quote reply to begin tearing apart my law school revelation & ignore this last paragraph with meaning.... Read it again, then read Amy's again, and consider grace and love - just 10% - in your reply. See what it gets us.

---

And if you think lies, distortions, false witness, and unclear thinking are fruits, or "heart tugs" as you say, of the Holy Spirit, then you are deceived. Grace and love should not come at the expense of biblical truth.

---

Ummm... hey lady, are we reading different Bibles?

Grace IS the entire thing. Love IS the entire thing.

Maybe that's the disconnect. Do Southern Baptists not actually believe in grace as the foundation for all of this? Did I miss that somewhere?

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.

1. Drugs absolutely contributed to his death. I suspect he might have been loaded up on illegal substances when he held a loaded gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child during a robbery. Maybe not.

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

3. Laws/commandments are made for a very real reason. Obey them. Again, obey authorities and no harm will come.

Did any of you folks truly attend Baylor University?

---

Normally I would agree with you and Floyd was no saint. However, watch the video Chauvin (twice as I recall) looks directly at the camera and grinds his knee into Floyd. Floyd was no longer resisting.

I think Chauvin is onw of those cops with a fear-me, i-am-boss attitude.

saykay said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saykay said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Canon said:

---

saykay said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, abandoning all pretense of courtesy is a detriment, not a success.

---

How should we frame up the abandonment on the pretense of courtesy when it comes to equating my value as a person to a puddle of piss? What scale exactly do you rate that on... Ounces? Distance from Canon's belt to the urinal? Pee stream velocity? Lots of options here.

But I wasn't a math major. Help this ignorant little lady liar out. You'd think I was coached by Mulkey or something.

---

You might start by not lying. It's a good place to start.

Canon said:

---

It's enjoyable to see someone with so little to add parroting the arguments they have heard from someone else parroting another person, still. None of them ever reaching an analysis more thoughtful than a puddle at a men's urinal.

---

---

Please remind me what I lied about, along with supporting evidence or knowledge you have of that to be making that accusation? And if none exists, what other variables should warrant or justify your word being more valid, true or believable than mine, please kind sir and brother in Christ?

---

You aren't this obtuse. No one is. Your blatant lie and the evidence of your blatant lie is all in the post you quoted. It's all in coherent, standard English. (My part at least) Your weak attempts at deflection are unbecoming of an adult.

---

Canon, I'm for real here - I have NO CLUE what you're referring to. Can someone else translate in Golem-speak what he's talking about - what post - what lie - I legit don't know. Spell it out. Copy/paste. Hell, you can even chisel it into a commandment or fire up Florida Mike's Speak & Spell.

Just explicitly SPELL-IT-OUT please if you really want to have "thoughtful intellectual sparring" you said you most welcome.

---

He gave you the quotation that referenced what he was talking about, in his last post. The puddle of urine insult was in reference to the quality of your analysis, not your value as a person, which you accused him of saying.

If you would just quiet your spirit, maybe you could have just looked back and figured it out, instead of busying yourself posting a flurry of comments with what I can only describe as a nauseating, self-important style of writing. I mean, sheesh, if I wanted to read such pseudointellectual, pretentious fluff I'll go read the New Yorker.

---

Umm... per the last sentence, flattery will get you everywhere.

I should have been up front on a few things, I fear, here to avoid an accidental compliment you embedded - comparing my writing style to the New Yorker is the highest praise I could probably receive... if you knew anything about my background. So... thank you, kind friend? #BaylorFamilyForever

---

Accidental compliment? Or intentional insult of The New Yorker?

Word of advice: aim higher.

---

Awww... I love your quiet spirit, twin sis, w/ that passive aggressive shade. Wurk it, you saucy Bible board queen, yaaaasss. (YAAAAS QUEEN GIF REDACTED)

Aim higher? Well, now that you said so... I'm inspired to go finally make something of myself. I've been waiting for a moment like this for 38 glorious years... so you heard it here first... I found my inpso for whatever I go off and do in my next ten years right here, right now, in this moment on April 14, on the free boards.

(If this screenshot doesn't show up out of nowhere to make fun of me / give me a little giggle in 2031, mods, I'll be truly disappointed).

---

Lot's of self love with this individual .

Nothing particularly wrong with that if one has the accomplishments to back it up.

Possibly reading the New Yorker is all that's required.

fadskier said:

---

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.

1. Drugs absolutely contributed to his death. I suspect he might have been loaded up on illegal substances when he held a loaded gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child during a robbery. Maybe not.

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

3. Laws/commandments are made for a very real reason. Obey them. Again, obey authorities and no harm will come.

Did any of you folks truly attend Baylor University?

---

Normally I would agree with you and Floyd was no saint. However, watch the video Chauvin (twice as I recall) looks directly at the camera and grinds his knee into Floyd. Floyd was no longer resisting.

I think Chauvin is onw of those cops with a fear-me, i-am-boss attitude.

---

Agreed

Plus IMO Chauvin was ' showing off' ' to the rookie cops with him.

Dude deserves jail time....but for manslaughter .

fadskier said:

---

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.

1. Drugs absolutely contributed to his death. I suspect he might have been loaded up on illegal substances when he held a loaded gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child during a robbery. Maybe not.

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

3. Laws/commandments are made for a very real reason. Obey them. Again, obey authorities and no harm will come.

Did any of you folks truly attend Baylor University?

---

Normally I would agree with you and Floyd was no saint. However, watch the video Chauvin (twice as I recall) looks directly at the camera and grinds his knee into Floyd. Floyd was no longer resisting.

I think Chauvin is onw of those cops with a fear-me, i-am-boss attitude.

---

Yep, he was being the "big man" flexing basically, on top of a dying man. Protect and serve was the last of his thoughts.

Manslaughter at the least should be his sentence.

saykay said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

saykay said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

You REPEATEDLY used strawmans to make your argument, even after being called out, and then ignored us when you were called out....and you say WE were arguing in bad faith?? Good lord.

I don't care to know your background, your perspective, or how you formed your ideas because it's irrelevant to knowing that what you said was wrong. (You did the same to us, right?)

I can only speak for myself, but the objective here is never to "win" the argument, but rather to espouse and uphold truth. As long as truth wins, I'm good. And I felt you were espousing UNtruths. Namely, the deceitful way you were framing an issue, your begging the question, your incorrect use of the concept of "hypocrisy", and your incessant, unapologetic use of strawmans. And every time you were confronted with these, you either completely ignored it, or you simply returned to your original strawman argument, thus arguing in a circle. Honestly, you did not represent yourself very well.

Though, I have to say you did respond to at least one of my challenges, when you claimed that "exclusion" is NOT biblical, and I got you to admit that yes, actually there are times where exclusion is necessary and biblically based. You concede this, yes? You agree that we can both come to this truth without having to know each other's backgrounds and perspectives, yes? See, this is what we can do with all other biblical issues as well.

I asked you for a case where Baylor denied a single, unmarried employee healthcare coverage because he/she was gay. Because your "Baylor denies healthcare to people based on their sexuality" (false) narrative wholly depends on that. If you can't show this happened, at least once, then your narrative is busted, and you need to build a new one. If you're gonna point to Baylor not providing the "spouse" of a same sex-married couple healthcare benefits as proof of that, then your narrative is busted already, because both "spouses" in the same sex marriage are gay, and Baylor is covering at least one of them.

Of course, that's only true if they are indeed covering the employee, and not denying the same sex couple altogether. If that's the case, then you certainly have an argument. Is that the case? If not, then the fair, right-minded thing to do is cease your narrative and espouse a more accurate one that fits the scenario better. That would be the intellectually honest and responsible thing to do.

---

Did I miss the new premium member training course back in 2017 on how to start posts tearing into the structure, flow, word choice and a sentence diagrams as board jazz hands for fun? Did yall learn how to disguise your posts as discourse, but spend 3/4 of it rattling off intellectual buzzwords to try to pull apart how the poster actually organized their point of view, Instead of ever actually addressing their actual point of view? Of course which you well understand regardless of the "strawman" or flawed structure, but still pretend to be befuddled by us morons out here who have a heart for the people impacted by these topics.

Wait... just hit me... IS THIS WHAT YOU DO IN LAW SCHOOL??? FML.

I dodged a big bullet there. Billable hours & strawman policing wouldn't have been my thing.

Wish there was less sentence / debate critique and actual willingness to engage with just 10% of an open heart for other Christians' passions, beliefs, challenges and heart-tugs from the Holy Spirit that make us all human and also His own. And before you hit quote reply to begin tearing apart my law school revelation & ignore this last paragraph with meaning.... Read it again, then read Amy's again, and consider grace and love - just 10% - in your reply. See what it gets us.

---

And if you think lies, distortions, false witness, and unclear thinking are fruits, or "heart tugs" as you say, of the Holy Spirit, then you are deceived. Grace and love should not come at the expense of biblical truth.

---

Ummm... hey lady, are we reading different Bibles?

Grace IS the entire thing. Love IS the entire thing.

Maybe that's the disconnect. Do Southern Baptists not actually believe in grace as the foundation for all of this? Did I miss that somewhere?

---

Grace and love do not eliminate truth. God is not divided against Himself. As Jesus said, a house divided can not stand. Jesus never sacrificed truth for grace and love. That was the point, and nothing more. Do you disagree with this?

Are we reading different bibles? We might be. Let's find out.
Answer this - is the homosexual lifestyle a sin, or not?

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.

"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X

sombear said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.

---

Why is providing spousal benefits to same sex couples the "love side", exactly? Why is BU giving or not giving these benefits even an issue of loving or not loving one's neighbor? This is a false dilemma/dichotomy. It's the prime straw man in their argument, and despite your distaste for strawmen, you seem to have succumbed to a big one.

BU would similarly deny spousal benefits to an employee's girlfriend or boyfriend. As well as to one who claims multiple wives. If someone tried to claim their maid as their spouse in an effort to provide her much needed health insurance, then once she is discovered not to be his actual wife, BU would cancel it. Would then the "loving" position in all these scenarios be to disregard policy and/or principle, and extend coverage to all? Or to anyone else outside BU who asks, for that matter? Why would NOT giving all of them benefits be not loving, or less loving? What, exactly, makes this about love, and why would a same sex "spouse" deserve this love over all the others? I'm just not understanding. Can you explain?

If you can somehow rationalize this to be an issue of love, then it needs to be asked: is it really loving your neighbor if you validate their sin or delusion, or make them more comfortable in their sin? And what about love for God, which must be above all else? Aren't we to love God with everything, and love others only as ourselves, NOT as we do God? If you compromise what you believe to be true to God in order to "love" others, are you not loving them above God, or as God?

Porteroso said:

---

sombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.

In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).

The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.

---

This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.

---

Why is providing spousal benefits to same sex couples the "love side", exactly? Why is BU giving or not giving these benefits even an issue of loving or not loving one's neighbor? This is a false dilemma/dichotomy. It's the prime straw man in their argument, and despite your distaste for strawmen, you seem to have succumbed to a big one.

BU would similarly deny spousal benefits to an employee's girlfriend or boyfriend. As well as to one who claims multiple wives. If someone tried to claim their maid as their spouse in an effort to provide her much needed health insurance, then once she is discovered not to be his actual wife, BU would cancel it. Would then the "loving" position in all these scenarios be to disregard policy and/or principle, and extend coverage to all? Or to anyone else outside BU who asks, for that matter? Why would NOT giving all of them benefits be not loving, or less loving? What, exactly, makes this about love, and why would a same sex "spouse" deserve this love over all the others? I'm just not understanding. Can you explain?

If you can somehow rationalize this to be an issue of love, then it needs to be asked: is it really loving your neighbor if you validate their sin or delusion, or make them more comfortable in their sin? And what about love for God, which must be above all else? Aren't we to love God with everything, and love others only as ourselves, NOT as we do God? If you compromise what you believe to be true to God in order to "love" others, are you not loving them above God, or as God?

---

Fair point, I just could not think of a better way to characterize one side of the argument other than "love." I totally understand that love can be tough, and I certainly did not mean to suggest the other side of the argument is not loving. I have no problem telling people I think the Bible is clear on homosexuality, and I think I can do that out of love. But I did not go straw man at all. To me, it is consistent, loving, and still sticking to the Bible to maintain the position that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, but still pay benefits to a gay spouse. Wright or wrong (I think wrong based on the law) our Supreme Court ruled gay marriage is a constitutional right. Should we suspend benefits as to a spouse who is cheating? Committing other sin? To take your argument to its logical end, we as Christians should be treating all sinners different and not providing benefits or anything else to them. The problem is, we are all sinners, and many of us are unrepentant sinners because we commit the same darn sins every day . . . . But again, I totally understand your position and do not think you are in any way being un-loving.

---

I can at least appreciate your point of view. You are homophobic, but not actually hating on the homosexuals. That's a good distinction to make.

I do want to interject that all of this is an extreme watering down of the Bible. If you simply read it without your chosen denomination telling you what to think about it, you'll find that the authors often had conflicting ideas. Even the Gospels tell the story a little differently. Not just from different perspectives, they say different things. When we try to be literalists, when we go through the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize everything in the Bible to our tiny brains, we've put God in a box. We've told ourselves that the authors must have been able to perfectly understand everything they wrote about. I think the truth is different, that it's not so easy. We won't understand it all, the English, Hebrew, Greek languages aren't sufficient to tell it all to us, we just have a tiny nugget of truth, that pertains to us.

I say all of that, because many things in the Bible were sins in the beginning, and later they were not. Most of our 2021 lives would be considered sinful by most religious leaders of the Old Testament. And when it comes to sin, there is always a reason. We were told to not eat unclean meat, because there can be diseases. With better farming, better technology, it became safe and ok. We were told to reproduce as much as we can, when the survival of humanity was in jeopardy. We generally accept now, that it's ok to not have 12 kids in 2021. There was a reason for all of it. I think homosexuality is much the same way. It's hardly singled out in the NT at all. The Greek word can be interpreted as "homosexual assault," and is by some scholars, in reference to the Romans' male sex slaves they kept.

If the Bible is black and white, you're going to have a hard time, and miss the point. It was very black and white to the people that put Jesus on a cross. Jesus didn't just come to fulfill prophecy, he came to change our understanding of God. If you can accept that you might not know everything about God, and that you're not the final judge of all things, life gets easier. You can be free in that knowledge.

---

My brother is a theologian and agrees with you. I agree there are arguments on both sides, but I have a hard time getting around the clear OT and NT references. And not just the negative references but the overall man, woman, how and why we are created, kids, marriage, etc. Buuuuut, I dispute your apparent definition of homophobic. Folks can think it is a Biblical sin but not dislike, fear, or discriminate against them.