Jump to content

kllindley

Members
  • Posts

    1,667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Idaho

Recent Profile Visitors

1,814 profile views

kllindley's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

2.1k

Reputation

  1. Genesis 11:1-9 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/11?lang=eng And the whole earth was of one alanguage, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of aShinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and aslime had they for mortar. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a aname, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their alanguage, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the acity. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there aconfound the blanguage of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord cscatter them dabroad upon the face of all the earth.
  2. Very well written! I may not completely agree with everything you've written, but overall super insightful.
  3. I don't accept the premise that the Bible presents a claim of Adam and Eve as the first humans as a historical event. In looking at the text itself, this is one possible conclusion, but certainly not the only conclusion. In fact, I find it highly doubtful that this is even a likely or probable conclusion based on the nature of the text itself. Again, I find no incompatibility in my effort to reconcile the current scientific and historical evidence with Adam and Eve being literal individuals. However, I would agree with your last sentence if you made the following edit: "Because all of the provable and testable evidence supports evolution we can without any doubt declare that the Adam and Eve story, at least as it is presented in [popular Christian/LDS culture], is a myth."
  4. Not necessarily. It is actually possible to reconcile the existence of a literal Adam and Eve and the geologic and historical evidence we do have. The dominant paradigms presently at play in Western society do not allow for both to be true, but that doesn't mean that those paradigms are correct. Stepping outside them allows room for faith without denying evidence. @The Nehor said, it is like allowing for the possibility that not all the pieces of the puzzle are included in the starter set. Maybe it is even possible to fit some of the pieces together in a way that completes a particular version of the puzzle. But those versions are ultimately incomplete or narrow versions of what is possible to assemble from the whole. I see secular materialism and religious fundamentalism as two prominent examples of worldviews that are content to reject the pieces that don't fit into their perspective and can therefore seem complete. However, both of those views require that we ignore many of the pieces we are presented with. Personally, I am most interested in allowing God to help me see what pieces I lack and to hold space in my puzzle for them when He sees fit to reveal them to me. In the meantime, I often have to point to a gap in the picture and say "then something goes here and connects these two sections." I usually try to imagine what those pieces might look like, even though all I have is a vague or fuzzy idea. Sometimes, I have no idea what sort of piece could possibly fit there. In some cases, I even create pieces (personal theories or explanations) of my own to fill the gaps temporarily. In those cases it is tricky to remember that those pieces are tentative and mine. Otherwise, when I get another batch of actual pieces, I run the risk of ignoring the new information because it conflicts with the picture I have created. And there is my tendency to get carried away with metaphors and analogies. I'll stop now while it seems to still be mostly applicable.
  5. I will grant that I cannot prove that people in the 2007-2008 era were claiming places like BYU could still have an Honor Code. I will also admit that my memory of more recent discussions was in error. I apologize for the accusation of gaslighting. Given the difficulty of doing searches for specific comments, not to mention the possibility of technological changes making searches beyond a certain time, I will screenshot this post of yours because I do expect that we will see that happen given the trajectory to this point.
  6. If my daughter attends a state school that discriminates against Christian student groups, she is eligible for Pell grants and other research grants. Now, if y'all get your way, if she attends a religious university that requires students to adhere to their religious code of conduct she cannot. She is denied those same opportunities. I didn't say that it felt like oppression. I said there is a harm. Further introducing the concept of privilege is misleading here. Currently (for the past many decades) the Law - not some IRS regulation - grants an exemption for religious institutions. I have not brought up any concern about IRS regulations regarding tax exempt status. That is not what this case is about. You are now as adding into the discussion the concept of "irreparable injury." That wasn't my claim. Not to mention the condescension or contempt in your statement that I feel I am being harmed. Can you please reference the legal right of students to attend whatever University they want while ignoring the institution's Code of Conduct? I haven't seen that.
  7. Again, I did not make any claim about the verdict, nor did I even say I disagreed with the decision. I'm not sure why you seem to need me to fit into this box you have created.
  8. I am not claiming anything about the decision other than the undisputed fact that 4 Supreme Court justices joined a dissent. The decision was not unanimous or clear cut like you are trying to make it. So when you make a passive aggressive comment mocking someone for agreeing with 4 Supreme Court justices instead of the 5 you agree with, it comes across as petty and mean.
  9. Four Supreme Court justices did not agree with that decision. Apparently you think you know more about constitutional law than those Supreme Court justices, but it sounds more like a political opinion than a legal opinion.
  10. Then nothing I could say would make any difference to you. Have a nice evening.
  11. You are seriously asking how stripping the ability of any religious school that upholds a sexual ethic consistent with their religion to participate in federal programs could harm me or my children?
  12. Well, now I feel stupid for ever being conflicted about the Church's opposition to SSM. It just goes to show me how inspired the Brethren were in the first place. Thank you for giving me a very concrete answer for any time I am asked what harm gay marriage does to me. And thank you for a post like this so I can prove that "the vast majority of pro-LGBT posters" always understood that this is what would happen.
  13. I find the suggestion that "We told you all along that legalizing SSM would lead to stripping federal funding/discrimination lawsuits" to be the very definition of the word "gaslighting."
  14. So when we talk about the diseparate impact the BYU Honor Code (and by extension, the Law of Chastity) has on different students, why do we not also criticize the way it discriminates against marital status? At BYU a married student is allowed to have sex while an unmarried student is not. Isn't this every bit as unjust as what this law suit is about?
  15. I don't know how that is determined with Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, which are awarded through the school to the student. I am thinking more of research grants. In general, I think that the government really loses out if they no longer have BYU doing research for them. It's not as though the Federal Government is handing out this money as charity. They believe the benefit of the research being done is worth the (significantly discounted) cost of having universities do this research. And I admit that the students at BYU also lose out on getting the opportunity to do the research.
×
×
  • Create New...