Plan B Forum

Unsurprisingly, by other Christians:

A tenured Wheaton College political science professor who pledged to wear a hijab during Advent in support of her Muslim neighbors has been placed on administrative leave. Not for donning the Islamic head covering, but over "significant questions regarding the theological implications" of her explanation of why she was doing so.

“Wheaton College faculty and staff make a commitment to accept and model our institution’s faith foundations with integrity, compassion, and theological clarity,” the college stated in announcing the decision. “As they participate in various causes, it is essential that faculty and staff engage in and speak about public issues in ways that faithfully represent the college’s evangelical Statement of Faith.”

Larycia Alaine Hawkins, an associate professor who has taught at Wheaton since 2007, announced last week that she’d don the traditional headscarf as a sign of human, theological, and embodied solidarity.

“I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book,” she wrote in a Facebook post on December 10. “And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

So Christians believe it is justifiable to deny a livelihood to Christians who believe that all people of the Book worship the same God. Very Christian of them, indeed.

Evidently the administrators of Wheaton College believe that their staff should not act in a way to deny the statement of faith that motivates the college to which they belong. This is an outrageous position for any organization to take - next thing, someone will be denouncing... oh, a public servant for refusing to comply with the rules laid down by a section of society and enjoined upon the whole.

Naturally, any equivalence on those lines will be denied by those who desire to express their anti-Christianity without challenge.

Examining the lies.
o Being placed on administrative leave is not denying a livelihood to anyone
o Wheaton's expectation that employees should abide by legal workplace standards is hardly uncommon in an employer
o "All people of the book" do not worship the same god, whether the Pope or atheists dictate that they do

It will be useless to engage in a theological discussion with atheists who are determined that they, and they alone, are to arbitrate what is and is not appropriate belief for a group to which they do not belong and which they deny has any validity in the first place.

It is good to see honest bigotry expressed so well by the likes of rubato and Scooter.

I would expect no less from the alma mater of Billy Graham and Dennis Hastert...

Whew, I was worried for a moment. There is a Wheaton College in southeastern MA, but pretty certain that's not the kind of thing they would do:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton ... achusetts)

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Examining the lies.
o Being placed on administrative leave is not denying a livelihood to anyone [it is an open-ended denial of her livelihood. The leave might be made permanent. ]
o Wheaton's expectation that employees should abide by legal workplace standards is hardly uncommon in an employer [Was there a workplace standard that no one could wear a headscarf? Would such a standard be legal? How could her "explanation" be the real issue? Would she still be barred from working if she proposed that explanation but didn't wear the scarf? ]
o "All people of the book" do not worship the same god, whether the Pope or atheists dictate that they do [That is merely your opinion. How do you know they don't? Do Hutterites worship the same god as Greek Orthodox Christians? Do Apostolic Lutherans worship the same god as Herbert W. Armstrong? How can you tell? ]
... "

I ma much less bigoted and schismatic than you are.

yrs,
rubato

Substance? No? Thought not. Just the ad hominem then?

Much as I hate to be in the position of defending Wheaton, if we are to permit religious institutions to exist and operate and run their own universities, this is an unfortunate consequence that will occasionally be seen. The administration appears to be pigheaded, but I do think they are within their rights to require faculty to toe the line on compliance with their statement of faith. I wouldn't want to attend or work at an institution like this and wouldn't wish it on anyone else, but I think what they have done is legal (especially when the USSC has given a hobby store chain that is not a religious institution at all the right to impose the religious views of some of its owners on the benefits it offers its employees).

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Substance? No? Thought not. Just the ad hominem then?

Postby rubato » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:05 am

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

Examining the lies.
o Being placed on administrative leave is not denying a livelihood to anyone [it is an open-ended denial of her livelihood. The leave might be made permanent. ]
o Wheaton's expectation that employees should abide by legal workplace standards is hardly uncommon in an employer [Was there a workplace standard that no one could wear a headscarf? Would such a standard be legal? How could her "explanation" be the real issue? Would she still be barred from working if she proposed that explanation but didn't wear the scarf? ]
o "All people of the book" do not worship the same god, whether the Pope or atheists dictate that they do [That is merely your opinion. How do you know they don't? Do Hutterites worship the same god as Greek Orthodox Christians? Do Apostolic Lutherans worship the same god as Herbert W. Armstrong? How can you tell? ]
... "




I ma much less bigoted and schismatic than you are.

yrs,
rubato

Buy some new reading glasses. And then use them to read.


yrs,
rubato

Oh yeah! Now I see what you did - you put your comments inside what you presented as a quote from me. Why, I never thought to read what I wrote to see if you wrote it!

a. Perhaps it is... I think of "leave" as being just that; paid leave. I wonder if it is unpaid? I doubt it

b. You'll have to ask the school or whoever wrote the article. It is stated that the issue was not that of wearing a headscarf.

c. No, I think you are incorrect there. Peoples of many countries have passports including citizens of the USA but that does not mean that all people with passports are US citizens. There are differences between the one (a French passport, say) and the other (a US passport). Similarly, the US passport holder is not a citizen of France by virtue of holding a US passport.

If a person worships the spaghetti monster, I am quite secure in stating that they do not worship the same god as do I. But what is the criteria? It is the ways in which the one (spaghetti monster) differs from the other (the character of God in Christian scripture).

A moslem understands very well that I am not worshipping his god, Allah. For example, Allah presides over a heaven (jannah) in which believers (male ones) get married to virgins (a quantity) with big boobs. Christ teaches that in Heaven there is no marriage.

One can cite many, many differences. Because of that, and it has nothing to do with bigotry, I am enabled to say that the statement "the people of the book all worship the same god" is not a true statement. We worship different gods. One may be more correct than others - all may be false, logically speaking. But they are different.

Therefore, by your measure and admission, I am apparently less bigoted than you which will come as no surprise to anyone.

How do you know they aren't the same god? How can you tell? You still have to prove they are not.


Mere bigotry.


yrs,
rubato

You are really quite idiotic on the subject. I shall not bother with further explanation to a closed mind

MajGenl.Meade wrote:You are really quite idiotic on the subject. I shall not bother with further explanation to a closed mind

Yours is the closed mind. The differences between Christian dogmas are greater than the differences between them and Islam.

You're the bigot. And you don't even follow your own texts.


yrs,
rubato

Meade--while I understand, but do not necessarily agree with, your point of the deities being different, the example you suggest is not dispositive. Firstly, as I recall, the biblical statement attributed to Jesus referred to marriage after the resurrection/second coming; if there is a period of time in heaven before this is begun (and Christian denominations differ on this (some saying people go to heaven when they die, others that they "sleep" until the second coming), I'm not certain that it applies.

Second is that the biblical/koranic quotes were delivered to different people; Jesus was responding to someone who was trying to trap him by using the example of the man who married his brother's widow and asking who would she be married to at the resurrection; he replied neither as people would not be married at the resurrection. The Koran is trying to describe the delights that face people going to heaven; in a polygamous society, the idea of multiple nubile wives would definitely be something desired; add to that the fact that the arabic cultures are not as uptight about sex or describing it as western cultures are, and the idea of heaven as a sexual garden of eden would be attractive. Face it, there is nothing that says these would be marriages in the conventional sense.

Finally, as Jesus has said, there are many mansions (or rooms) in my father's house; what goes on in one mansion might not necessarily go on in another. And if heaven is a place of eternal joy and bliss who knows what awaits anyone? All the descriptions are merely ways to describe the bliss that will be achieved in the presence of god, and the descriptions might well be allegorical rather than intended to be literal.

IMHO, there is no one face or attribute that fully describes god--the loving father, the sacrificing creator, the angry and vengeful Yahweh (or perhaps Allah), all of these are like the fabled observations of the blind men encountering the elephant, describing just a small part of the whole.

rubato wrote:
Yours is the closed mind. T


You're the bigot.



yrs,
rubato

The differences between Christian dogmas are greater than the differences between them and Islam.

LMAO!!!



To start with just the most glaringly obvious and basic, all Christian denominations believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, (hence the word, "Christian") and the truth of the Resurrection...

Islam teaches Jesus was a great "messenger of God", (not God Made Man) and denies the Resurrection:

Islamic texts categorically deny the idea of crucifixion or death attributed to Jesus by the New Testament.[7][33] The Quran states that people (i.e., the Jews and Romans) sought to kill Jesus, but they did not crucify nor kill him, although "this was made to appear to them". Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but instead, he was raised up by God unto the heavens. This "raising" is often understood to mean through bodily ascension.[34]

And they said we have killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.
— Quran surah 4 (An-Nisa النساء) ayah 157-158[35]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

The assertion, "The differences between Christian dogmas are greater than the differences between them and Islam" is in the same category as "The Poles weren't victims of the Nazis" on The Absolutely, Totally, Completely, And Demonstrably Wrong Scale...

MajGenl.Meade wrote:You are really quite idiotic on the subject. I shall not bother with further explanation to a closed mind

Gen'l I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with your use of the word "mind"...

I don't know what one would properly call that walnut-sized mass at the center of rube's cranium, but "mind" wouldn't be it...

Jim--you got me there; how is

Jesus was not crucified but instead, he was raised up by God unto the heavens. This "raising" is often understood to mean through bodily ascension

different from the Christian account of the resurrection? It states, Jesus did not die, indeed he was resurrected and taken by god into heaven, which Christians also believe. Now christians state jesus died and was resurrected, but Is this materially different from saying jesus did not die but was resurrected by god? And was the resurrection not described in Acts as a bodily resurrection/ascension? It's a rather slender reed upon which to hang the conclusion that moslems deny the resurrection.

Now there is a different in the understanding of the trinity, but then not all Christians have the same beliefs about that either; one of the major dissents which led to the great schism was the argument as to whether the spirit proceeds from the father alone (the orthodox position) or the father and the son (the roman position).

Big RR, you just take the biscuit. Amazing. Christianity is founded upon the death and resurrection of Christ. Islam says he didn't die and wasn't resurrected. He was nothing more than a prophet of Allah and considerably less than Mahomet. One can draw cartoons of Issa (Jesus) and it's no biggie. A cartoon of Mohamet and suddenly Nous Sommes Charlie! If you can't tell the difference... well... my flabber is gasted because the Islamists sure can.

See, Wheaton would throw you out too for suggesting that Allah is God and that there's room in Christianity for a romper room where believers roger virgins to their hearts' content. Christ said that mansion thing with a huge wink, right? I think everyone with a brain knows that Jesus' point is that it's not only Hebrews who go to Heaven but people from all nations. He wasn't (and I fear no contradiction even from the resident enormous ignoremouse) positing a Playboy club, a library and a nice quiet room for meditation.

rubato wrote:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:You are really quite idiotic on the subject. I shall not bother with further explanation to a closed mind

Yours is the closed mind. The differences between Christian dogmas are greater than the differences between them and Islam.

You're the bigot. And you don't even follow your own texts.


yrs,
rubato

Anything about religion posted by our resident Atheist should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

Meade--you and Wheaton are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. I am not surprised that we differ interpretations of scripture, but I stand by mine; may you be as happy with yours.

Thanks, Big RR

I don't understand what "interpretation" has to do with it. Christianity stands or falls on the belief that Jesus died, was buried and rose again. It's a cold stone fact. It either happened or it didn't happen.

If you deny that it happened, then that is not interpretation but denial.