Oklahoma university president chastises "safe space" culture

[Punch]

@Leigh and @Alienator . You two have just outlined someone can read something and have a completely different interpretation. I googled the passages and what I have personally took from them is this.

Matthew 12: one should observe the Sabbath unless it is to do good, in Which case, work is permitted.

Matthew 15: it's more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes into it. For what comes out is from the heart, and it should be clean.

Jesus, in the two aforementioned verses is explaining how the PARABLES from the old testament were meant to be understood. It is a lesson he gives his disciples.

Regarding Matthew 22, I'm not sure how alienate arrives at that conclusion, unless I read the wrong verse or maybe he meant to write a different one.

However, I think leighs comment of the passages to be taken as metaphor, although I believe he meant to be facetious, isn't wrong. For it actually states he is explaining parables.

At least how I take it. Open to discussion. That's what we're all here for.

Matthew 22 verse 34 the greatest commandment

 

[member 1013]

When you guys quote the bible it triggers my PTSD, please stop or I will be forced to snap my fingers at you until you acquiesce.

 

[Greenbean]

Matthew 22 verse 34 the greatest commandment

Got it. It does Indeed say the the greatest commandment is to love god. It makes no mention of stoning homosexuals, and furthermore, he suggests in a different verse, when Mary Magdalene was being stoned for being a prostitute, he shamed them and said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus was a big proponent of forgiveness and not big on judgement, unless that judgement comes from the lord.

 

[member 1013]

A good person shouldn't advocate death by burning. That's what "The Source" is preaching

WTF man, what if they're a witch? I got turned into a newt once by one.

 

[Punch]

WTF man, what if they're a witch? I got turned into a newt once by one.

Are you actively watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail right now?

 

[member 1013]

Are you actively watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail right now?

How do you know so much about swallows?

 

[Punch]

Got it. It does Indeed say the the greatest commandment is to love god. It makes no mention of stoning homosexuals, and furthermore, he suggests in a different verse, when Mary Magdalene was being stoned for being a prostitute, he shamed them and said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus was a big proponent of forgiveness and not big on judgement, unless that judgement comes from the lord.

When you really think about it it's extremely difficult message to try to emulate. Love God. Love everyone as you love yourself. Everyone. I fuck this up alllll the time.

 

[Punch]

How do you know so much about swallows?

African or European?

 

[Greenbean]

im no biblical scholar. I had to google the verses. I don't know the Bible by heart. I'm skeptical, of alot of the things in there. So I'm just giving you my uneducated opinion on these matters.

I'm not saying my interpretation is right, But it does tend to make more sense if you don't take everything literal.

I have to end this post with a reminder that I do understand it was written my men who are flawed and there is a strong possibility that it is entirely a fairy tale. Again, creationist LEANING agnostic.

 

[Leigh]

Got it. It does Indeed say the the greatest commandment is to love god. It makes no mention of stoning homosexuals, and furthermore, he suggests in a different verse, when Mary Magdalene was being stoned for being a prostitute, he shamed them and said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Jesus was a big proponent of forgiveness and not big on judgement, unless that judgement comes from the lord.

Why would an explanation of the greatest commandment list ALL the commandments? They are already listed and that passage does not dismiss them. The OT has some horrible laws and Jesus condones them.

 

[Yossarian]

No, I asked this:

"For those who complain about "pussification" in the world or among the current generation, can I ask you how the culture of "toughness" benefits the world, particularly in this age of plenty?"

I didn't disregard your examples. I simply intimated your perception of them as models of toughness was predicated on certain assumptions, namely that personal toughness and trained resilience in the context of a movement or political process are equivalent.

As I've said, my position is generally agnostic, but I think on MMA forums in particular, people are quick to exalt toughness over weakness (because, let's be real, we're into fighting, not curling), so I felt it was worth unpacking. The question stands: how does the stiff upper lip benefit us today? Thus far, all I've heard is how it's benefited us in extreme circumstances in times past. Like "get over yourself. You have no REAL problems." As if ex-slaves couldn't have made the same argument to activists in the Civil Rights movement. There has been an ongoing project to make a more compassionate society since at least the Progressive era. This modern agitation seems to be the latest frontier of that journey in a US that has at least ensured relative civil equanimity. Are it's proponents correct? In some ways yes, in some ways no, in my view, but to say their complaints are solely rooted in weakness or entitlement or ignorance is terribly reductive. It's get off my lawn ethics and that was the counterpoint I was attempting to make.

And I answered; toughness benefits the world better than pussification. You emphasized our criticism of pussification. You present the polar opposite as an argument, and on that opposite was further discussed.

You are assuming that toughness would be an exclusive attribute, without the precense of compassion or empathy. It is a balancing act between all different kinds of attributes that will benefit us.

But what is going on in these colleges is counter culture, an over-reaction, almost a parody of vicitms that went through real (yes I said it) traumatic events. Trigger, the term was used to describe or make sense of shell shock afflicted combatants, NOT a purple haired college girl who could'nt deal with the word pooper.

Rape, inequality, and racism on colleges are being turned into mere parody, a SNL skit. It's not helping those concerns at all. It is taking away common sense, logic, toughness, resolve, etc and the only option is playing the victim. That would lead to absurdity I would think. What if enough people decided that the word "Cheese" was offensive and should be changed? According to the philosophy on those campuses that thought could actually be entertained.

If these students are in need of a problem project, there are plenty of volunteer programs (Red Cross, Feeding America, etc) they could help and find that their efforts may actually be therapeutic for their own woes.

I get your point, these are important and real issues, but the definiton of those issues are being disproportionally redefined. Being eye-raped should never result in an arrest or therapy for that matter.

Good discussion by the way. No name calling despite our micro-aggressions. I would applaud, but jazz hands are the safer and trigger-free option

 

[Greenbean]

Why would an explanation of the greatest commandment list ALL the commandments? They are already listed and that passage does not dismiss them. The OT has some horrible laws and Jesus condones them.

I don't know. I'm not up to date on the old testament, so for me to comment, would be disingenuous. I'm not here to convert you man. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Tbh, the conversation has really veered off course. I guess I have just been defending the guy in the op because I can fully support his message and look past the Bible stuff. And if that's what he's about and it's coming from a good place with good intentions, I cannot possibly fathom criticism.

 

[Leigh]

I don't know. I'm not up to date on the old testament, so for me to comment, would be disingenuous. I'm not here to convert you man. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Tbh, the conversation has really veered off course. I guess I have just been defending the guy in the op because I can fully support his message and look past the Bible stuff. And if that's what he's about and it's coming from a good place with good intentions, I cannot possibly fathom criticism.

I have consistently shown that the Bible is NOT a source of good and it is NOT a source of accuracy. You took issue with and questioned my original point that the Bible is not a credible source of knowledge or morals so I have expanded on my point.

 

[kneeblock]

And I answered; toughness benefits the world better than pussification. You emphasized our criticism of pussification. You present the polar opposite as an argument, and on that opposite was further discussed.

You are assuming that toughness would be an exclusive attribute, without the precense of compassion or empathy. It is a balancing act between all different kinds of attributes that will benefit us.

But what is going on in these colleges is counter culture, an over-reaction, almost a parody of vicitms that went through real (yes I said it) traumatic events. Trigger, the term was used to describe or make sense of shell shock afflicted combatants, NOT a purple haired college girl who could'nt deal with the word pooper.

Rape, inequality, and racism on colleges are being turned into mere parody, a SNL skit. It's not helping those concerns at all. It is taking away common sense, logic, toughness, resolve, etc and the only option is playing the victim. That would lead to absurdity I would think. What if enough people decided that the word "Cheese" was offensive and should be changed? According to the philosophy on those campuses that thought could actually be entertained.

If these students are in need of a problem project, there are plenty of volunteer programs (Red Cross, Feeding America, etc) they could help and find that their efforts may actually be therapeutic for their own woes.

I get your point, these are important and real issues, but the definiton of those issues are being disproportionally redefined. Being eye-raped should never result in an arrest or therapy for that matter.

Good discussion by the way. No name calling despite our micro-aggressions. I would applaud, but jazz hands are the safer and trigger-free option

I can agree with almost all of that. I think, however, that we can't dismiss these people as solely those who haven't been through trauma. Many of these groups are led by sexual assault or intimate partner violence survivors.

 

[Team Bisping]

I was brought up in Catholic household with mass every weekend. I lost touch with it for a while, but recently I went to mass, and I forgot how much the church drills into you how much of a 'sinner' you are, how 'weak' you are in the presence of jesus etc, how I should be 'guilty' etc....

I'll be honest, that line of thinking doesn't fall in line in how empowered I feel, how positive I am about life and how much strength I have in myself and the people around me.

Now instead of mass, I occasionally pop in the church on my own for some self reflection and quiet.

 

[Greenbean]

. You took issue with and questioned my original point that the Bible is not a credible source of knowledge or morals

That is absolutely not what I took issue with and if you recap the thread, I am in agreement that the Bible is questionable at best (particularly so if taken at face value).

I took issue with your complete dismissal of the guys big boy no nonsense stance on victim mentality. It's like you stopped reading after the first mention of sin or whatever other word you are against.

What about where he saysIf you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. He mentions If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn it's probably not a good fit at that university for you.

I can get behind this. You cannot because the mention of god.

 

[Punch]

Why would an explanation of the greatest commandment list ALL the commandments? They are already listed and that passage does not dismiss them. The OT has some horrible laws and Jesus condones them.

That's not what I got at all. If you first love another as you would yourself, none of those laws that are hate filled would apply anymore. Like the stoning @Greenbean referenced.

 

[Leigh]

That is absolutely not what I took issue with and if you recap the thread, I am in agreement that the Bible is questionable at best (particularly so if taken at face value).

I took issue with your complete dismissal of the guys big boy no nonsense stance on victim mentality. It's like you stopped reading after the first mention of sin or whatever other word you are against.

What about where he saysIf you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. He mentions If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn it's probably not a good fit at that university for you.

I can get behind this. You cannot because the mention of god.

I never made any comment on his "big boy no nonsense stance on victim mentality". You are repeatedly making strawman arguments by assigning a stance to me that I never made. Here is my original post that you took issue with:

They all take the cake, including the guy trying to teach morals from the Bible. University is a place to improve your mental aptitude, not retard it.

I very specifically refer to teaching morals from the Bible. You then talk about sky daddies and other such stuff that I never mentioned. So you are either:
1) Taking issue with something I never said, or
2) Taking issue with what I DID say, in which case you feel the Bible is a good source of morality.

Please quote my exact wording and state what it is you disagree with.

 

[Leigh]

That's not what I got at all. If you first love another as you would yourself, none of those laws that are hate filled would apply anymore. Like the stoning @Greenbean referenced.

Who says they're hatefilled? They're written by God and Jesus specifically states (numerous times) that those passages are NOT to be ignored. If there is any ambiguity, he clears that up - you do not dismiss the laws of the Old Testament.

 

[Punch]

Who says they're hatefilled? They're written by God and Jesus specifically states (numerous times) that those passages are NOT to be ignored. If there is any ambiguity, he clears that up - you do not dismiss the laws of the Old Testament.

Killing someone because they do something you disagree with that doesn't even affect you seems pretty hateful to me.

He also says first anything must pass the test of the greatest and second commandment. At least that is how I see it.

 

[Leigh]

Killing someone because they do something you disagree with that doesn't even affect you seems pretty hateful to me.

He also says first anything must pass the test of the greatest and second commandment. At least that is how I see it.

Seems hateful to me too. But not necessarily to God, who wrote it, or Jesus, who condones it. Your interpretation of that passage is basically, do what you think is right. That we are our own judge. If that's the case, why does the Bible have commandments?

 

[Greenbean]

I never made any comment on his "big boy no nonsense stance on victim mentality". You are repeatedly making strawman arguments by assigning a stance to me that I never made. Here is my original post that you took issue with:


I very specifically refer to teaching morals from the Bible. You then talk about sky daddies and other such stuff that I never mentioned. So you are either:
1) Taking issue with something I never said, or
2) Taking issue with what I DID say, in which case you feel the Bible is a good source of morality.

Please quote my exact wording and state what it is you disagree with.

i did that already. If anyone cares to, they can re read the thread and observe my stance on any and all issues regarding this topic. If you want to play the semantic game, I'm really not up for it. However you have made some strong implications that you do not agree with the mans teachings without actually coming out and saying, I don't agree with what he said. So bravo for not making a definitive statement that you have to stand behind regarding whether you agree or disagree with what he said.

I will however say that most dialogue is nonverbal and I may be picking up something that you're not putting down, but you aren't exactly making it clear how you feel about what was said, only how you feel about where it was coming from. So please tell me if you do indeed agree with the 'big boy no nonsense attitude' that he conveyed. Because you didn't say you were against it, but seeing is you you get off on semantics, you made damn sure no to say you were for it either. So where do you stand on his anti victimhood stance?

 

[Punch]

Seems hateful to me too. But not necessarily to God, who wrote it, or Jesus, who condones it. Your interpretation of that passage is basically, do what you think is right. That we are our own judge. If that's the case, why does the Bible have commandments?

I think that people have concept of right and wrong unless there is some mental illness. And knowing right from wrong is part of what makes us human. Doing right and not giving in to the temptation of wrong is hard. I fail all the time. But doing your best is what's important.

Kinda like jiminy cricket said, always let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Robbie Hart]

Only an education so expensive could accept students this stupid


View: https://youtu.be/Tsgc0k594Js

Looking again at this, I just would have turned around and said shut the fuck up, you are all attacking me and that is what they call bullying and you are suspended from the school until an investigation can be conducted next year some time....and, fuck you.

 

[Leigh]

i did that already. If anyone cares to, they can re read the thread and observe my stance on any and all issues regarding this topic. If you want to play the semantic game, I'm really not up for it. However you have made some strong implications that you do not agree with the mans teachings without actually coming out and saying, I don't agree with what he said. So bravo for not making a definitive statement that you have to stand behind regarding whether you agree or disagree with what he said.

I will however say that most dialogue is nonverbal and I may be picking up something that you're not putting down, but you aren't exactly making it clear how you feel about what was said, only how you feel about where it was coming from. So please tell me if you do indeed agree with the 'big boy no nonsense attitude' that he conveyed. Because you didn't say you were against it, but seeing is you you get off on semantics, you made damn sure no to say you were for it either. So where do you stand on his anti victimhood stance?

I havent played any semantics game. You acknowledge that I made no comment regarding his anti victimhood stance yet you've taken issue with me over it. You also state that you may be "picking up" on something I haven't said. Subtelty is not my way, if I have an opinion that I want to share, I'll share it. Making assumptions on someone's opinion over the internet and taking issue with that opinion is unlikely to be very fruitful.

To answer your question, I don't agree with the guy's stance. That has nothing to do with his religion. I do agree that if he is reporting accurately (as it is simply his anecdote), that kid seems entitled and needs to harden up if he wants to be successful at university. What I disagree with is his comment that his university may not be for them. I think a better stance would be to try to educate these kids, rather than just write them off.