(04-23-2015 05:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe you can point to another major university that is so set about being set in its way, but so far I don't know of any other worthwhile university which has such a different public mission.

Just the very first few that came up on a quick search. I'm not sure if they meet your standard of worthwhile, but these are Vanderbilt, Cal and Bowdoin to start:

University forces Vanderbilt Catholic group to change its name

University of California Sued for Discriminating Against Christian Courses
Some college-prep classes deemed “too religious.”

Colleges Use ‘Anti-Discrimination’ Rules Against Christians

"A study done by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research found that college faculty share significantly more negative feelings toward Evangelical Christians than toward any other religious group, with 53 percent reporting that had unfavorable feelings toward Evangelicals. This is compared to just 3 percent who have unfavorable feelings toward Jews, 9 percent toward non-Evangelical Christians, and 10 percent toward Atheists. According to the study, these negative feelings are noted across disciplines and demographic factors. The study also found that the faculty are much less religious than the general public. (Sounds like they need some Affirmative Action laws for Christians passed and enforced to even things up here and make it fair?)

Evangelical and other religious groups say they welcome anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or religious beliefs, to participate in their activities. But their leaders, who oversee Bible studies and prayer services, should have at least a basic Christian faith, the groups insist."

(04-23-2015 09:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 08:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  While I find some of Liberty's protestant dogma erroneous from a scientific point of view . . .

I assure you that there is nothing particularly Protestant about their scientifically erroneous dogma!

While I don't know everything about every Protestant denomination. . .

Ok -- but why did you characterize Liberty's theories of science as "protestant"?

(04-23-2015 09:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...I can assure you there is nothing particularly Catholic about their scientifically erroneous dogma.

No one said there was. But you should understand that it's not inherently Protestant either.

(04-23-2015 10:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Why do we need to draw lines?

First, in any discussion, you should make TWO points; next, any line that you draw will be straight(forward).

(04-23-2015 09:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Ok -- but why did you characterize Liberty's theories of science as "protestant"?

Fair question. Because I have seen most anti-Christian arguments erroneously lump the Catholic Church's beliefs in with Protestant beliefs which some Protestant denominations appear to hold, but zero Catholics hold. The attack is a sideways one that confuses the uneducated or non-religious about just what Catholics believe by spreading misinformation, which is as offensive to me as anti-Semitism is to those who are Jewish.

While I don't agree with Liberty's point of view, I have no problem with them teaching it at their university.

(04-23-2015 09:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...I can assure you there is nothing particularly Catholic about their scientifically erroneous dogma.

(04-23-2015 09:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...you should understand that it's not inherently Protestant either.

If it's not at all Catholic, and yet it is held by some Protestants, then it is at least somewhat Protestant, hence I pointed out where the distinction comes from. Liberty is a Protestant University, albeit one I take it you are not fond of. I'm not asking you to like it, or to agree with it, just to be fair about where Liberty's point of view originates.

According to this article: Is Liberty University the “Protestant Notre Dame”? Liberty wants to be to Protestants what Notre Dame is to Catholics. Well, I can assure you Notre Dame has strayed far from Catholicism, and with what you assert about Liberty, it seems they are endeavoring to do the same from at least some, but certainly not all of the many denominations of Protestantism. Nevertheless, most people would characterize Notre Dame as Catholic, and Liberty as Protestant.

(04-23-2015 10:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Fair question. Because I have seen most anti-Christian arguments erroneously lump the Catholic Church's beliefs in with Protestant beliefs which some Protestant denominations appear to hold, but zero Catholics hold. The attack is a sideways one that confuses the uneducated or non-religious about just what Catholics believe by spreading misinformation, which is as offensive to me as anti-Semitism is to those who are Jewish.

If it's not at all Catholic, and yet it is held by some Protestants, then it is at least somewhat Protestant, hence I pointed out where the distinction comes from.

So, you are offended when those beliefs are generalized as "Christian" but you are perfectly happy to generalize them as "Protestant," because you aren't a Protestant.

Remind me, who is the hypocrite here?

To be fair, Rice doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when taking the high horse on the evolution "debate". There aren't many reputable scientists who publicly reject the mountains of evidence in support of evolution, but one of them is Jim Tour. He's one of the most cited chemists in the world, and he has made several public statements in which he rejects evolution. Although he claims that this is purely on scientific grounds, it is worth noting that he is an extremely fundamentalist Christian (Messianic Jew) scientist and it is likely that his need to cling to this worldview is clouding his judgement on this issue.

What's worse is that when Rick Smalley was dying of cancer, Tour introduced Smalley to some of the contrarian literature on the subject. There are now quotes on the record from a very ill Smalley that creationists will cite routinely to demonstrate support for antievolutionism from a Rice Nobel Laureate.

(04-23-2015 09:47 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  "A study done by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research found that college faculty share significantly more negative feelings toward Evangelical Christians than toward any other religious group, with 53 percent reporting that had unfavorable feelings toward Evangelicals.

This has less to do with religion than with the anti-intellectualism that Evangelical Christians wear as a badge of honor (as you often demonstrate).

People involved in the generation and dissemination of knowledge wouldn't be expected to support those who actively reject learning.

(04-23-2015 11:17 PM)Pellet Wrote:  the anti-intellectualism that Evangelical Christians wear as a badge of honor

This strikes me as a way too broad generalization. it's not like they are demanding that the sun revolves around the Earth or that gold can be transmuted from lead. They differ on a few things, not all things.

And before I get labeled as an anti-science fundamentalist, I have not set foot in a church of any type since 1990 save for funerals and weddings, and my last affiliation was Methodist.

I still don't want to have Liberty in our conference, or to be in theirs, but just like when we played BYU, the coursework of the U. and the personal beliefs of the players both mean zero to me.

(04-23-2015 10:39 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 10:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Fair question. Because I have seen most anti-Christian arguments erroneously lump the Catholic Church's beliefs in with Protestant beliefs which some Protestant denominations appear to hold, but zero Catholics hold. The attack is a sideways one that confuses the uneducated or non-religious about just what Catholics believe by spreading misinformation, which is as offensive to me as anti-Semitism is to those who are Jewish.

If it's not at all Catholic, and yet it is held by some Protestants, then it is at least somewhat Protestant, hence I pointed out where the distinction comes from.

So, you are offended when those beliefs are generalized as "Christian" but you are perfectly happy to generalize them as "Protestant," because you aren't a Protestant.

Remind me, who is the hypocrite here?

That's not at all what I said. I'm okay with someone disagreeing with what I believe. I clearly said I'm offended when someone mis-attributes something to my belief system that is not what I said or believe, as you just did. It is exceedingly common these days for some to attach Protestant beliefs and lump in Catholics in their attacks because they are all "Christians" while the truth is Catholics hold starkly differing beliefs from those in the attack. Pointing out that Liberty's dogma has nothing at all to do with the Catholic view, while it does originate from and relate to certain Protestant views is factual. What you stated is nonsense. That would make you the hypocrite here, G.

I can't help that they purport to believe what they believe. That is a fact. I clearly explained that I described them as Protestant because that is how they describe themselves, not because I am not one of them. Again, your mis-characterization would make you the hypocrite here, G. But if that's what you wish to be, have a party. You're 2 for 2.

Well, I'll be...

GoodOwl has gotten positive rep in the past from Jerry Falwell. Who knew?

(04-23-2015 11:17 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:47 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  "A study done by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research found that college faculty share significantly more negative feelings toward Evangelical Christians than toward any other religious group, with 53 percent reporting that had unfavorable feelings toward Evangelicals.

This has less to do with religion than with the anti-intellectualism that Evangelical Christians wear as a badge of honor (as you often demonstrate).

People involved in the generation and dissemination of knowledge wouldn't be expected to support those who actively reject learning.

So many errors in such a short post—how do you do it, Pellet?

I'd be in the 9% group, but you failed to quote that category or the others. Interesting. I'd think that you'd be concerned that faculty were bigoted to any degree against any group at all. Replace some of the quoted other categories with "gay" or "women" or "black" and the roof would blow up. Fascinating, as Spock would say.

An Evangelical Christian is one who appears to require conversion to their sect. Since I don’t require conversion and have not stated so, but merely disseminated some knowledge containing some clarifying information from a recognized and generally well-respected authority on the subject, you must be talking about someone else; my group would be the 9% discriminated against. Though your quote makes it appear you are talking about me, which belies your obvious complete ignorance of what an Evangelical is, hence that would make you guilty of the very anti-intellectualism you claim to abhor. Oh well, small detail.

Science is a subset of knowledge, not the all-encompassment of it. If you actually watched all the way through and listened closely to the video I posted a few pages back on scientism (which your comment shows you clearly didn’t) you would not make the mistake of espousing a classic scientism view. That would make you the one who rejects learning. Oh, well, you can lead a horse to water…stay thirsty, my friend. But thank you for being kind enough to illustrate that fallacy, Pellet.

While I don’t agree with Liberty’s belief perspective on evolution, I can’t say they aren’t learning, because they clearly are. The fact that their beliefs are different than mine, does not mean they reject learning as you incorrectly stated, they just differ on what they learn. But what they learn is consistent with their belief system, and therefore it is understandable from that perspective for them to be teaching what they believe. Why would you expect differently?

I wouldn’t expect a communist to not teach communism at a communist university they owned. I wouldn’t agree with it, and I would be sure that someone including me in an attack on them, whether from intent or ignorance, because they either thought or wanted to show I was part of that group, heard from me that they were incorrect in any assumption that I would ascribe to that particular belief system. I’d still be comfortable labeling the belief system referred to as communist and mine as not such because it would be factual in both instances. I wouldn’t say they “reject learning” just because they are learning something I don’t believe in.

While I disagree with their dogma, I have no problem with playing them in a football contest if we needed a game and they were the only choice, in a Wagner-type scenario. My objection to being in favor of them joining our conference, whether Liberty or communists is based on their status in athletics compared to Rice’s athletic tradition, as I previously posted. I’d concede I’d enjoy beating the communists. Then again, I’ll concede that Rice does appear to have far more in common with communists than it does with Catholics or Protestants.

Anti-intellectualism? Dr Ben Carson's biblical worldview did not stop him from becoming a world renowned neurosurgeon. His faith actually helped lift him out of poverty.

Entire video worth a listen. Especially starting around the 9:20 mark.

https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/v...240834414/

(04-23-2015 09:47 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 05:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe you can point to another major university that is so set about being set in its way, but so far I don't know of any other worthwhile university which has such a different public mission.

Just the very first few that came up on a quick search. I'm not sure if they meet your standard of worthwhile, but these are Vanderbilt, Cal and Bowdoin to start:

University forces Vanderbilt Catholic group to change its name

University of California Sued for Discriminating Against Christian Courses
Some college-prep classes deemed “too religious.”

Colleges Use ‘Anti-Discrimination’ Rules Against Christians

"A study done by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research found that college faculty share significantly more negative feelings toward Evangelical Christians than toward any other religious group, with 53 percent reporting that had unfavorable feelings toward Evangelicals. This is compared to just 3 percent who have unfavorable feelings toward Jews, 9 percent toward non-Evangelical Christians, and 10 percent toward Atheists. According to the study, these negative feelings are noted across disciplines and demographic factors. The study also found that the faculty are much less religious than the general public. (Sounds like they need some Affirmative Action laws for Christians passed and enforced to even things up here and make it fair?)

Evangelical and other religious groups say they welcome anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or religious beliefs, to participate in their activities. But their leaders, who oversee Bible studies and prayer services, should have at least a basic Christian faith, the groups insist."

Did you even read those articles? Or did you just skim the headlines?

Two of them deal with the fact that clubs were not allowed to be on campus because they would not let anyone run for office. So while it would be strange for a Jewish person to be the president of the Catholic's of Vanderbilt, the univeristy was saying that for order for them to participate, they would have to at least allow someone not of that denomination to run for office. Contrast that to Libert, which specifically said it took away funding from the College Democrats because their views did not align with Liberty's.

And then there was the UC example, which again, you must not have read. The UC schools wouldn't approve biology courses (for credit I assume?) if a certain biology textbook was used, because it relied too heavily on a Biblical explanation of biology. The article then tried to equate that with textbooks that were used in other courses that had other religious views, or even femenist viewpoints. They weren't discriminating against Christians, they were trying to maintain the integrity of their biology program.

Also, try and find less biased sources next time.

(04-23-2015 10:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Ok -- but why did you characterize Liberty's theories of science as "protestant"?

Fair question. Because I have seen most anti-Christian arguments erroneously lump the Catholic Church's beliefs in with Protestant beliefs which some Protestant denominations appear to hold, but zero Catholics hold. The attack is a sideways one that confuses the uneducated or non-religious about just what Catholics believe by spreading misinformation, which is as offensive to me as anti-Semitism is to those who are Jewish.

While I don't agree with Liberty's point of view, I have no problem with them teaching it at their university.

(04-23-2015 09:27 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  ...I can assure you there is nothing particularly Catholic about their scientifically erroneous dogma.

(04-23-2015 09:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  ...you should understand that it's not inherently Protestant either.

If it's not at all Catholic, and yet it is held by some Protestants, then it is at least somewhat Protestant, hence I pointed out where the distinction comes from. Liberty is a Protestant University, albeit one I take it you are not fond of. I'm not asking you to like it, or to agree with it, just to be fair about where Liberty's point of view originates.

According to this article: Is Liberty University the “Protestant Notre Dame”? Liberty wants to be to Protestants what Notre Dame is to Catholics. Well, I can assure you Notre Dame has strayed far from Catholicism, and with what you assert about Liberty, it seems they are endeavoring to do the same from at least some, but certainly not all of the many denominations of Protestantism. Nevertheless, most people would characterize Notre Dame as Catholic, and Liberty as Protestant.

There are Catholics who are evangelicals, Catholics who are biblicai literalists, and Catholics more devoted to social justice than any Christian theology. There is nothing particularly wrong with any of that. But the Catholic population is not 'lock step' in unison any more than other Protestant body.

(04-24-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:17 PM)Pellet Wrote:  the anti-intellectualism that Evangelical Christians wear as a badge of honor

This strikes me as a way too broad generalization. it's not like they are demanding that the sun revolves around the Earth or that gold can be transmuted from lead. They differ on a few things, not all things.

And before I get labeled as an anti-science fundamentalist, I have not set foot in a church of any type since 1990 save for funerals and weddings, and my last affiliation was Methodist.

I still don't want to have Liberty in our conference, or to be in theirs, but just like when we played BYU, the coursework of the U. and the personal beliefs of the players both mean zero to me.

He also confuses Evangelical Christianity with Fundamentalist Christians, but that's not an uncommon error.

(04-24-2015 03:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  An Evangelical Christian is one who appears to require conversion to their sect. Since I don’t require conversion and have not stated so, but merely disseminated some knowledge containing some clarifying information from a recognized and generally well-respected authority on the subject, you must be talking about someone else; my group would be the 9% discriminated against. Though your quote makes it appear you are talking about me, which belies your obvious complete ignorance of what an Evangelical is, hence that would make you guilty of the very anti-intellectualism you claim to abhor. Oh well, small detail.

No one here wants the thread to devolve into a thorough discussion of Catholic and Protestant theology, similarities (huge) and differences (quite few, but much less huge), and that includes me. I took Reformation History at Rice (Dr. Garside) and Church History at a seminary. I'm not an expert, but I can hold a very intelligent discussion on the matter, and most discussions on the matter are far more emotional than intelligent.

That said, your definition of an Evangelical Christian is inaccurate, although I understand where it comes from.

First, most Catholics I've met are Evangelical.

Second, Evangelicals, generally speaking, believe that the Christ intended the Gospel to be spread. That's not the same thing as requiring conversion. The New Testament is pretty clear - Christ taught that not everyone would 'convert'. However, the New Testament is also clear that the message was not limited to any one group of people, ethnic persuasion etc.

When Christianity became a 'state' religion upon the conversion of members of Constantine's family, was when 'forced' conversion came into play. 'Forced' conversion or 'forcing' to adhere to doctrine is more about power than religion, has been perfected at various times by various religions (and is in practice in the world today).

The Reformation ultimately (with fits and starts) led to the concept of freedom of religion, at least here in America.

Freedom of religion and conscience is a pretty basic belief here. Oddly enough, but Baptists, who were non-literalists and during the Reformation found themselves arguing with reformers who they didn't feel went far enough, were among the earliest and strongest proponents of religious liberty (John Smythe spending lots of time in English prison in the 17th century).

(I'm not pointing this out for any reason other than to point out the dichotomy in that faith. On one hand, they are non-creedal and allow a lot of individual freedom of belief to individuals and individual churches. On the other hand, it allows both fundamentalists and evangelicals and a wide variety of 'focus groups' to have a voice. This is what allows both Wake Forest and Liberty to be founded.)

I am a bit flabbergasted that a thread on future plans morphed into a debate on which religions should be excluded from our august presence, and why.

I am ready to get back to athletics, before I am accused of wrongthink.

(04-24-2015 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am a bit flabbergasted that a thread on future plans morphed into a debate on which religions should be excluded from our august presence, and why.

I am ready to get back to athletics, before I am accused of wrongthink.

Amen

(04-24-2015 02:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  That's not at all what I said. I'm okay with someone disagreeing with what I believe. I clearly said I'm offended when someone mis-attributes something to my belief system that is not what I said or believe, as you just did. It is exceedingly common these days for some to attach Protestant beliefs and lump in Catholics in their attacks because they are all "Christians" while the truth is Catholics hold starkly differing beliefs from those in the attack. Pointing out that Liberty's dogma has nothing at all to do with the Catholic view, while it does originate from and relate to certain Protestant views is factual. What you stated is nonsense. That would make you the hypocrite here, G.

I can't help that they purport to believe what they believe. That is a fact. I clearly explained that I described them as Protestant because that is how they describe themselves, not because I am not one of them. Again, your mis-characterization would make you the hypocrite here, G. But if that's what you wish to be, have a party. You're 2 for 2.

What you said is that their beliefs are "protestant dogma." Which is a ridiculous overgeneralization, just as saying those beliefs are "Christian dogma" would be a ridiculous overgeneralization.

Guys, you've already fully sabotaged the original intent of this thread. If you want to continue ad nauseum this totally unrelated religious conversation, can you at least have the courtesy of taking it to another thread and forum? Thanks.