funinspace

I guess I should say the E-ticket reference was unintentional personal humor. It certainly is lacking in seriousness, but I wasn’t attempting mockery, and it is something I have a habit of using. FWIW, E-tickets invokes memories of the old Disneyland ticketing method where E-tickets were required for the top/best rides in the amusement park; and Disneyland is a place of fond memories. Yeah, humans can be pretty ugly at times.

I think it has a lot to do with the vagueness of the various Christian Bibles, but then you probably would think that unlikely. Some Christians are somewhat ignorant of their holy book, so that would also be a factor. There are vast differences of opinion on just how many might be hell bound, and what that means. I think it would be unfair to many, many faithful people of honest intentions to say they are illiterate or liars.

Very strange…your reactions. I asked; you gave me your opinion; and I said “wow”, when you told me that you think 95% of humanity is facing eternal torment. I think that is a pretty big and radical thing to believe, and somewhat uncommon. “Wow” doesn’t seem to be that odd of a reaction to me… I didn’t get upset, and I’m not now upset. If anything, I find it rather sad.

Further explaining the “wow”, which still seems to be a point of contention (though you will probably hate my example, but it is what sprung to mind):
Evidently you do, as evidenced by your responses. I suspect that you would find animated child pornography to be rather vile and obscene. FWIW, I find such to be vile and obscene. Yet, at least physically, no one is hurt by such “entertainment” (I assume I can safely put quotes around words you haven’t used). I would suspect that you would say something at least as strong as “wow”, if you had just heard that 95% of humans actually watch/liked animated child pornography.

Again, no attempt to clarify what you really meant…how strange.

sotto voce

funinspace

Oh….I took all those question marks at the end of many of your sentences to mean that you desired further discourse; maybe those were rhetorical questions؟

Solo

I'll take Roger's dishonesty any time before the malicious, malodorous, mendacious, malignant miasma spewed by your machiavellian Mistress.

Jiri

Roger Pearse

I think the truth is that every institution DOES have its own credo; particularly in these intolerant days. The difference here is that some institutions -- those whose credo is different from that prevailing in their time and place -- make the credo explicit. And surely that is better than an implicit one?

For what it's worth, my sympathies are with the college, based on the little that I know about this. The guy didn't have to take a job there; and, having decided that he didn't really agree with what the group believed (nothing wrong with that), nevertheless felt that group had an obligation to continue to employ him while he undermined their beliefs (plenty wrong with that). He forced them to fire him, and then sneered at them. That says to me that their suspicions -- that he was actually "outside pissing in" rather than "inside pissing out" -- were well-founded. But of course I may be quite misinformed as to the facts, I know.

The same moral principle, tho, would apply if it was a Mormon college, a Moslem college, a Democrat or Republican institution; or one dedicated to advancing the Truth of the Flat Earth; there's no specially religious aspect to this.

In truth I tire of self-entitled people who think principles are for others. Change your opinions -- by all means. But demand your former friends keep paying -- no. Go and start your own religion/college/political party/whatever, in that scenario. It's just common honesty. IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Juststeve

Roger Pearse:

Colleges and Universities hold themselves out to be places of free inquiry, of learning. That makes them different. You can't simultaneously claim to be an institution of free inquiry and seek to limit, in advance, the results of that inquiry. At least some religious colleges do that by demanding that professors not engage in research the results of which are contrary to dogma. Do they have a right to do that, sure. Should they associate themselves with the traditions of scholarship, no, that's flying under false colors.

Steve

No Robots

All institutions place limits on inquiry. Would any university sign off on experiments in human-chimpanzee hybrids, for example?

spin

All those who make assertions based on "scholarly" authority in the field of biblical studies (hereafter referred to as BS) have been shown the gutless stupidity of such assertions, when scholars aren't allowed the free speech to air the fruits of their learned labors. We are not dealing here with what LeDonne taught at LCU, but what he published as a popular, not academic, book. Institutions don't have any rights to infringe on the rights of individuals who broke no laws nor any rules regarding the workplace. Scholarly consensus in BS seems to be dictated by forces other than scholarship and therefore needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. This is difficult for those who don't have the time or wherewithal to learn sufficiently to evaluate the consensus.

No Robots

People get fired all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with conduct in the workplace or illegal activity. Hell, where's the outrage for the guy who got fired for giving James Franco a D?

In the case under consideration here, the author is promoting views that are hostile to the tenets of the institution that pays him and that gives him standing in the community. Case closed, man.

spin

Mind closed, I'd say.

We are dealing with scholarship and its worth. Scholarly consensus has now been rendered a difficult concept to justify.