What $42,000 a year will buy
Christian parents should be aware of what kind of education their kids are likely to receive at a secular college or university, and wise parents will try to prepare them before they leave the nest. But those who spend big bucks to send their children to a Christian college, presumably for a Christian education, should think twice. Even though the division between Christian and secular at some institutions has blurred, it’s reasonable to expect a few standards at a denominational college.
Or maybe not. Gustavus Adolphus College (named for the Lutheran king of Sweden who defended Protestantism in the Thirty Years’ War) in St. Peter, Minn., is chartered by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which long ago stopped taking Scripture seriously. What their grandfathers learned as higher criticism, their children and grandchildren interpret as “anything goes.” During a freshman-orientation program called “The Inside Scoop,” upperclassmen PAs (peer assistants) perform “humorous” skits designed to put the kids at ease about their sexuality and religious doubts (those are OK) while confronting their biases (not OK). For this year’s Scoop, the PAs performed a rhyme about various forms of sexual expression and celebrated a young man’s “coming out” as an atheist. (Caution: the video clip below is not graphic, but it’s chalk-squeakingly irritating.)
What’s noteworthy is not the content of the program but its banality. Students are encouraged to speak up against bigotry, enjoy their sexuality, and celebrate their diversity as if they’d grown up next door to Beaver Cleaver. The children of a denomination that accepted and even ordained (as a deacon) the late-term abortionist George Tiller probably don’t need lectures against Scriptural norms. They need to be challenged, but the skits and testimonials meant to challenge them are glib, repetitive, and dull, as though college hasn’t nurtured one original thought since 1969.
The students of the 1960s have grown up. Sort of. But they haven’t caught up. Christian churches and colleges that try to be “relevant” will always find themselves behind the curve, spouting tired platitudes about everybody getting along, never addressing the issue of why people can’t get along.
That’s what real Christianity does. That’s the real radicalism. When history is finally revealed, the church militant will be out front, and the church irrelevant will be bringing up the rear.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top113 Comments to “What $42,000 a year will buy”
There are still Christian colleges out there, however, and some of them cost less than a typical college degree. I agree, look into the question of whether they really still have a statement of faith teachers have to sign (and what it is), and other behavioral issues. Are men allowed in the women’s dorms, and vice versa? Is a pregancy cause for repentance? Are students allowed to drink? (Most college students are underage, and college drinking is problematic, so even if you don’t have a moral issue with drinking, a school that forbids alcohol is good.) Do they have a dress code that stresses modesty? What sort of issues are cause for discipline? What do their graduates look like (profession, family makeup, etc.)?
Report comment to moderator
My husband worked with my son on looking at college choices, which was fine with me because I trust their judgment, and because their interests and viewpoints are more like each other’s than mine. My son specifically wanted a conservative college (not necessarily Christian but he did prefer private to public), though I don’t know just what criteria he looked at.
He was surprised, when doing the summer reading assignment for incoming freshman, that the required book was written from (at least as he perceived it) a more liberal point of view than he had expected. The author was the college’s featured speaker at a symposium last month. It will be interesting to hear from him what he thought of it and how his friends thought of it.
The college he chose was Hope College in Holland, MI, which is associated with the Reformed Church in America. My husband and I were very favorably impressed with the distinctively Christian emphasis in the sessions we attended at Orientation Weekend, and hope that it carries over into the classroom.
His dorm is coed, but each floor is single-sex. I’m pretty sure they don’t have the kind of strict behavioral code that the Baptist school I went to had (no drinking, movies, dancing, playing cards, or watching TV shows or listening to music that was on the blacklist), since such schools usually have you sign a statement promising to follow those rules, and I think he’d have mentioned if he had to.
He’s planning to come home this weekend, which will be the first time we’ll have talked with him other than a quick phone conversation about prescriptions, and a few facebook chats. It will be interesting to hear what campus life is like and what he thinks of it all.
Report comment to moderator
Janie B. Cheaney said that the division between Christian and secular at some institutions has blurred. That is unavoidable because the secularists and leftists are so willing to lie and parade themselves as “Christian.”
Real Christians cannot prevent such lies. Thus the blurring remains for those who still think that public rhetoric has anything to do with reality. We cannot trust labels and rhetoric anymore. All presumptions and decisions about reality must now be rooted in a deep distrust of ANYthing that a leftist or secularist says when their lips move or when they lable themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Below is a link to a book review on a related theme focusing more on this problem at secualr institutions of higher learning.
Book title: “Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student”, by Miriam Grossman, MD.
Link:
http://www.campuscrosswalk.org/online/Resources/Reviews/BookReviewUnprotected/tabid/362/Default.aspx
Report comment to moderator
Just invited my husband to watch this with me. He said he guessed we were right all the years ago when we saw this coming and left that church body. It makes us weep with sadness for the young people who will be so lead astray and those who are doing it. Millstones come to mind.
Report comment to moderator
There is no dress code after graduation or prohibition on alcohol. At 18 years old, I feel like its time for a kid to learn to deal with the real world.
Report comment to moderator
This is exactly why those of us who are Lutheran, and DEFINITELY NOT ELCA, just cringe. Fortunately, there are churches within the ELCA that do not accept the lax view of Scripture that the leadership is employing. But those of us in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod that understand the differences between our two church bodies are amazed at how God’s Word just seems to mean nothing to some people.
Report comment to moderator
If so-called Christian colleges decide at some point that they want diversity in professors, that is when the tides change. Eventually one of those secular professors becomes the dept. chair, and s/he won’t be adding any Christian professors. Next thing you know the college isn’t Christian anymore. (Remember Harvard and Princeton used to be Christian.)
Report comment to moderator
Some have sent their children to Christian colleges where their children let their guard down. They might meet someone who was put their by their parents because they were straying. Next thing you know your child has hooked up with the wrong crowd.
Probably best to go to a college nearby and not stay in dorms or apartments. I guess it depends what you are going to college for–a degree, or a social life away from home.
Report comment to moderator
My daughter goes to a Christian college in NC which had a lot of influence from Ruth Bell, Billy Graham’s wife and her father Dr. Bell. All but one of their children went there. The faculty still appear to have a strong Christian ethic, but the school itself has decided to become a sports college and actively recruits lesbians for their teams, apparently for their athleticism.
And so my daughter who is a strong conservative Christian attends a Christian school with many non-Christian actively gay students. The only motive I can think of is that someone decided that the only way for the school to survive is to “go gay!” Nevertheless, they are all required to attend chapel and take religious courses, which from what I can surmise are still conservative.
The whole of American culture is “going gay” and it is up to Christians to shine the light of truth on this calamity. I oppose the fundamentalist methods of condemnation for dealing with the problem, other than as a doctrinal statement.
The light Christians should shine on this problem is that homosexuality is a behavior, not unlike nosepicking or groin scratching. A homosexual is not a new kind of person. A homosexual is a normal person who chooses to behave and live a certain way.
Gustavus Adolphus College should not avoid the homosexual issue, but as a Christian school it should proclaim the truth. Instead, the kids in this video are perpetuating the worldly lie that homosexuals are created that way by God and therefore their sin should be respected.
Christians should be full of grace and truth. Grace meaning kindness to those who don’t deserve it. We should be friends with the confused in a chaotic world. But we should also proclaim truth. There is no such thing as a gay person, meaning an inherent trait, and we should let them know that we aren’t buying into the lie. They are simply a normal person who is a bit confused and a little perverse.
I have convinced more than one person to reject a gay lifestyle by convincing them that they were not gay, just confused.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass,
In the real world, one isn’t likely to have binge drinkers throwing up outside one’s bedroom door, or have one’s roommate have a sex partner in the next bed. (Or at least I screen my roommates and have never had alcohol or sex in my house.)
And you’re right that in the real world there isn’t a dress code, but it is nice to live in a place with one, nonetheless, and not have immodesty flaunted in one’s face. College age is the biggest age for immodest dress, and about the highest hormone level for men, and of course the age when women look “good” in immodest outfits. So, cram a couple thousand twenty-somethings in immodest dress in a small space, and it’s unpleasant for everyone, men and women, who doesn’t think that is appropriate. (I was glad for the male dress code myself, though of course male immodesty is always less of an issue.)
Having rules like that also screens out kids who want to go to college for the partying.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose that Cheaney cheers the kind of bullying that went on at Rutgers–bullying that led a confused young man to commit suicide.
What aspect of “taking Scripture seriously” leads one to turn a blind eye to homophobic bullying while obsessing over the superficial efforts of some 19-year-old kinds to counteract such things?
Besides, the ELCA has many fine churches. So, it is simply a lie to suggest that the denomination as a whole does not “tak[e] Scripture seriously.” Moreover, I am not aware that colleges like GA, Wittenberg, or the like, are trying to pass themselves off as Christian colleges. After all, does anyone sit around thinking of Duke as a Methodist college? Get serious.
Report comment to moderator
#12 RSD “Cheaney cheers the kind of bullying…”
Oh please. No one will be taking post #12 seriously, I can assure you.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously RSD that is a stupid logic.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, but reading some of these comments here are appalling. I am a student, a senior, at Gustavus Adolphus College. How much do any of you really know about our school to be making such drastic judgments of it and how much of you really know what this orientation is like? Did you go through it? I did. The person who posted these clips was sure to cherry pick and pick out the so called “worst” aspects.
And for all of your information. We are ASSOCIATED with the ELCA. That does not mean we are an all out Christian college that only provides a Christian education. If you are looking for one of those in Southern Minnesota, then you would attend Bethany Lutheran College. However, there are plenty of groups on campus including bible studies, a Tuesday night contemporary worship program called Proclaim, daily chapel from 10:00-10:30 every day when no classes are scheduled, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and much much more. Then again, none of you would know that because you are judging the WHOLE college based on this ONE orientation activity.
Let’s be real. Nobody is being brainwashed into believing anything. In fact, this event is NOT mandatory like you may have been directed to believe. I know PLENTY of people who skipped it my freshman year. I’d rather have people knowing that there is a safe way to have sex, then having a bunch of unplanned pregnancies on campus. I’d rather have people be accepting of the homosexuals on campus instead of making them feel like outsiders or telling them they are just confused. Our mission statement says that we are accepting of people from diverse backgrounds. If we went around telling people it was not okay to not be Christian or whatever it may be, that’s discriminatory. And as a Christian school, discrimination wouldn’t be a very Christian-like quality.
I write this as someone who is VERY strong in their Christian faith, but is liberal in my politics (It IS possible, Joel Mark). I do not “parade” myself as a Christian. I am. And as a Christian I believe that I need to love all people and not just use my religion and the Bible as a means of hate and discriminate. You guys have got this all wrong and have no right to even begin to make some of the comments you are making. I will continue to love Gustavus and love thy neighbor as thyself whether Straight, gay, republican, democrat, black, white, atheist, Christian, etc.
Again, this is such a small fraction of the whole presentation and is so distorted. And by the way Janie, it is actually a bit more than $43,000 to go here. I could show you my tuition statement if you’d like. This is a great school and I am proud to go here. GO GUSTIES!
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for post 15; I believe you have helped make the point intended by the blog post.
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt wrote; “I’m sorry, but reading some of these comments here are appalling.”
Gacbritt, “appalling” is the perfect word, less for the comments on this thread than for the actual video seen on this thread. Can you understand and appreciate that?
One does not need to go to Gustavus or go through that orientation to be legitimately appalled, young man. You complain that it was “cherry-picked” and that only the worst parts were shown, but you have no defense for those parts and you admit they were included.
At long last, have you no decency, young man? This is way over the top morally and it is scary that you are too morally jaded to realize it. In fact you even excuse it.
Report comment to moderator
#15 – “And as a Christian school, discrimination wouldn’t be a very Christian-like quality.”
It depends on the nature of the discrimination. When our Lord Jesus separates the ‘wheat’ from the ‘chaff’ and the ’sheep’ from the ‘goats’ (Matthew 25), that’s ultimate discrimination. Discriminating between good and evil is essential discrimination. Discriminating on the basis of race is unjust and unfair discrimination. So, it depends.
Report comment to moderator
#15 – Gacbritt asked me if it is possible to be strong in your Christian faith and be liberal in politics. That is a totally different topic, and I never implied anything about Gacbritt’s politics. I would rather keep this on point, sir. This is about morality.
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt wrote, “And as a Christian I believe that I need to love all people and not just use my religion and the Bible as a means of hate and discriminate.”
Great! No one even began to suggest otherwise, except where decent and fair moral discrimination is needed and is compatible with Christian love.
Gacbritt wrote, “I will continue to love Gustavus and love thy neighbor as thyself whether Straight, gay, republican, democrat, black, white, atheist, Christian, etc.”
No one ever suggested that you stop loving your neighbor, Gacbritt. Please do not do that either. And don’t imply that those who disagree with you or are different from you are animated by hate. That would be unfairly judgmental on your part. I believe it is entirely fair to judge that video for waht it is. But it is not fair for supporters of that video to presume that non-supporters are motivated by hate.
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt, please read Romans one in the New Testament–the entire chapter, especially the last verse:
“…they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Please don’t let that last verse apply to you, young brother.
Report comment to moderator
This video illustrates the recruiting nature of homosexualist strategies over the last few decades–targeting children and young people– and the appalling results of their recruiting and propoganda efforts on impressionable young minds.
This breaks God’s heart. Accordingly, Jesus said; “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6).
Ouch. Jesus loved children far too much to tolerate such recruitment into sin and sinful approval.
Report comment to moderator
#15 GacBritt, Thank you for your comments. Your first hand knowledge and experience are very valuable to the discussion.
You say, “I do not “parade” myself as a Christian. I am. And as a Christian I believe that I need to love all people and not just use my religion and the Bible as a means of hate and discriminate.”
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to imply that those who would criticize this video or disagree with the school’s decision to do it are using the Bible as a means of hate and to discriminate.
As I said in my post #10, my criticism was not out of fear or disgust, but of sadness that a Christian college would seek affinity and relevance with the world even if what they are teaching is false. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a behavior not an innate trait. Shouldn’t Christianity be about truth? Shouldn’t a Christian college teach it?
I think the whole world needs to hit the reset button on this issue and get back to that fundamental truth. The world will not, but one would expect Christians to part ways with the world when the choice is between truth and a lie.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me Joel Mark, I am actually a female. If you want to take this down to good and evil, there was nothing “evil” about that presentation. I did not “admit” anything. Because to me, this presentation is nothing more than a humorous way to EDUCATE students on serious topics. We could sit there and lecture them on safe sex or how to deal with a homosexual/atheist encounter, but nobody would listen or take anything away from it. I am not morally jaded at all. I sat through this presentation and I’m not out having sex, I’m not promoting atheism or homosexuality. I didn’t touch alcohol until after I was 21. I could keep going. The point is, you can either make sure people are making safe decisions and know what they may/may not encounter or you go about pretending that none of these things happen on college campuses and contribute to the ignorance of society. We may be a Christian college, but that doesn’t mean we are not accepting of things and shouldn’t acknowledge that there are people that fit these labels at our college. We don’t ONLY accept Christians at Gustavus. Making judgments about a college as some have done based on four minutes of a presentation (which several people do not even bother to attend, others do not pay attention, and some are legitimately educated about the REALITIES of college) to me, is absurd. To me, morality is to treat everyone equally and to love everyone equally and to turn the other cheek if someone strikes me. I will stick to that.
Report comment to moderator
#24 “To me, morality is to treat everyone equally and to love everyone equally and to turn the other cheek if someone strikes me. I will stick to that.”
Jesus taught grace and truth. You are talking about grace, which is good, but what about truth?
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I appreciate your response. However, I will make the point again that we are affiliated with a Church, meaning we incorporate religious aspects into college life (the examples I gave such as bible studies, worship, daily chapel services, etc). But we are also accepting of people that go here who are not Christians and who are not all heterosexual. And to not address the issue of homosexuality in a presentation, when it is an issue that people do encounter, especially a lot more in a college atmosphere, nowadays, would be ridiculous. The bible clearly states a LOT of things, but people like to cherry pick out of it what suits their needs. They will tell you the bible directly says homosexuality is a choice, but then if you point out other parts of the bible that say to not wear certain fabrics together or that people that disobey their parents should be killed, etc, they all of the sudden pull out historical context or some other excuse. Again, it would be a LARGE and highly inaccurate statement to believe that every student even agreed with the implication that it is “innate”. I have encountered several people within the classroom here on campus who completely disagree that it is a choice. And this is a student group that prepares that presentation. It is not like we go into our classrooms and our professors sit and tell us what is and what is not right to believe. We are VERY accepting of ALL viewpoints. If you ask people why they choose to come to Gustavus or what they love about it, almost everyone will tell you the sense of community. Again, if a student disagrees strongly enough and feels that the religious nature of the college is not suitable for them, then they have every right to transfer or leave.
Report comment to moderator
The truth is that sins are equal in the eyes of God. And we are all sinners.
Being affiliated with a Church does not deem us a “Christian College” as many are assuming here. Our school has a Swedish heritage. And as many people know, in the 1800s when the college was founded, there was a large Swedish-Lutheran connection. That is where our ties with ELCA come from. If you would like to know the differences between religious-affiliation and Christian College, you can feel free to google that. There is a lot of information out there about the differences. At many “Christian Colleges” going to church services is a requirement, religion is incorporated into all disciplines, certain Christianity-related religious courses are required, you may need to profess to being a Christian to be admitted, etc. That is not Gustavus and people need to understand that. I may be more understanding of some of these comments if that were the case.
Report comment to moderator
“At 18 years old, I feel like its time for a kid to learn to deal with the real world.”
In the real world he wouldn’t be having his room and board paid for by his parents.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, not all college students have their parents pay. I had to wait till I had saved some money myself and then work nearly full-time during the school year (25-30 hours my last couple years); my brothers went younger (16-18), but still worked their own way through.
Report comment to moderator
#27 – “The truth is that sins are equal in the eyes of God.”
I understand your point but I don’t think the Bible necessarily teaches this. Sins are indeed equal in that they ALL must be answered with our repentance. However, the Bible often outlines diverse levels of punishment for particular sins, clearly implying that some are worse in the temporal sense than others.
Jesus spoke of an unforgiveable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit–Matthew 12) and such a sin would indeed be far worse than others which can be forgiven. Jesus also averred that the sin of causing others to sin (Matthew 18:6ff) may be worse than the sin itself, but this is subject to more discussion.
Also, in Romans 2, Paul made a distinction between those who sin apart from the law and those who sin under the law. The implication is that God will consider each type of sin differently as He sees fit, as our judge. So in God’s sight, all sins may not be equal.
James speaks of sin that is “full-grown” and as such, it leads to death. This implies a spectrum of less grown and full grown sin.
James also wrote: “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” (James 4:17). This implies that God considers our level of moral knowledge in assessing the extent of our sin.
As far as the sin of homosexuality goes, it is indeed one that is forgiveable for those who repent.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing decent, Christ-like or even sane about being “VERY accepting of ALL viewpoints.” All viewpoints are simply not equally acceptable. That should be obvious to anyone not in a moral coma.
Report comment to moderator
#26 GacBritt “The bible clearly states a LOT of things, but people like to cherry pick out of it what suits their needs. They will tell you the bible directly says homosexuality is a choice, but then if you point out other parts of the bible that say to not wear certain fabrics together or that people that disobey their parents should be killed, etc, they all of the sudden pull out historical context or some other excuse.”
Since you are accusing people here of taking the video out of context, you obviously realize the importance of reading things in context.
Your argument seems to be that if you find things in the Bible which you find objectionable or don’t understand, then it is OK to disregard them. But what if the Bible is true? What then?
Whenever I come across something in the Bible that I object to, and believe me there are many, then I try to give God the benefit of the doubt and seek to understand why he said or did something.
For example, people have objected to God’s command to Abraham to kill his promised son for thousands of years. Whole books were written on the subject. Rabbis argued incessantly about this and they are still arguing about it. What kind of God would promise to give a barren couple a son and then have the father slit his throat. How cruel and detestable!
Now you may say that this is a God you want to have nothing to do with. Or you may say that because you object to this that you can pretty much do whatever you want. Or you could accept the challenge to try to really understand what God was up to.
The answer is in Galatians 3. It explains that God was preaching the gospel to Abraham. The gospel is a message of God’s love, offering his only begotten son for the sins of the world. It just so happens that this occurred on Mt. Moriah where Jesus was killed 2000 years later. See how something which seems cruel and gruesome at first glance becomes the greatest love story ever written?
The Bible is deep and profound and supernatural. All of the answers are right there for anyone to discover. The key to understanding all the mysteries of the Bible is Christ, realizing the Bible is about him and not about you.
People who want to find any excuse to do whatever feels good will find lots of rationale to do so. But want the truth, it is available right there in front of them. If you seek you will find. And all of your hard questions will be answered.
God explains quite clearly how many different kinds of people there are. There are precisely two: male and female. A homosexual is not a new kind of person. The Bible also explains quite clearly that there is precisely one race, Adam’s race, i.e. the human race. Modern anthropologists are finally coming around to this truth, now dividing people by ethnicity which is Greek for family group. You see, if the Bible is true, science and anyone else seeking truth will eventually find it.
Christianity is apolitical. But it can affect your politics. Racism and homosexuality are two major political issues pushed by the left, but if you see the truth of the biblical position then you can see that they are built on a false premise. If people would come around to the truth on these matters then the problems of racism and so-called gay rights would evaporate.
Report comment to moderator
#26 One other thing GacBritt. You say, “But we are also accepting of people that go here who are not Christians and who are not all heterosexual.”
Jesus was a friend of sinners. He knew everything about the woman at the well and treated her with kindness. Befriending people and treating them with kindness is Christ-like. However, that is not the same as being “accepting”. Jesus didn’t change his standards, he simply exercised grace.
I think Christians tend to make too big a deal of homosexuality, especially in light of all the other sins we do. Jesus was more critical of the self-righteousness of the religious folks than of sinners. However we should not set aside our understanding of the truth to accommodate behavior which is harmful to people we supposedly care about. We should seek to impart true understanding rather than helping them promote a lie.
Report comment to moderator
#15 gacbritt,
You say you are a Christian and a liberal politically. I have found that combination to be an oxymoron. Could you elaborate on what you mean by liberal politically? What positions or policies does that support? Social justice? Homosexual marriage? More socialism and government control of private enterprise Vs capitalism? Abortion and euthanasia? universal government health care? Redistribution of wealth via taxation? Greater degree of progressive taxation? Do you believe scripture to be inerrant?
Thank you
Report comment to moderator
GacBritt: Your school reflects the culture at large in wanting to preach love, yet equates love with acceptance and tolerance only, with passing out moral blank checks. Love demands truth (Biblical truth), or it is not true love. As Jesus says, it is the truth that sets people free.
Report comment to moderator
When people stop believing in transcendent truth, debates about various ideas become power struggles. Power games dominate, b/c if there is no truth, then we can’t persuade each other by rational arguments. Whatever group has the most power imposes its will on everyone else. Unfortunately, this reality has become characteristic of too many college campuses (Christian or otherwise) when they deny the existence of universal truth or morality.
Report comment to moderator
rsd (12): I suppose that Cheaney cheers the kind of bullying that went on at Rutgers — bullying that led a confused young man to commit suicide.
Frank: On what evidence do you suppose this?
To criticize a Christian college that actively affirms godless sexuality is not the same as cheering on bullying.
Report comment to moderator
This matter underscores the importance of college guide books such as the one NATIONAL REVIEW and maybe a few other organizations publish regularly. If parents are to shepard their kids to the right school (a big if given the current role of govt grants, financial aid SallieMae etc and how all have sorta DISPLACED parents in the higher ed process for their children) perhaps a website could come along to provide ratings/reviews.
Sad but not at all surprised to see a church-affiliated/founded school stray so far. A new rule I give unto you: schools which arent explicitly Christian at their founding will invariably morph into indoctrination camps for young heads filled with mush. I believe the Methodists exerted added control/influence over SMU in Dallas but that came about only after a NCAA pay for play scandal in their football program.
Even Catholic colleges are afflicted with the same PC nonsense we see in this video.
Report comment to moderator
RSD#12
I havent read much. This may have been this man’s initiation into sodomy. Young folks are often remorseful after sex at such a young age be they straight or gay.
Add to the anxiety his tryst probably engendered his likely PRE-EXISTING depression and suicide was probably inevitable. I just cannot accept the malarky about the video cam YouTube of his act causing him to jump off the GW bridge. I could see him beating up the perps as a more likely outcome
Report comment to moderator
One of the store checkstand tabloids (US, People) ran a story about “gay kids” who were bullied and committed suicide. The idea that anyone would be self-identified as gay at 13 or 14? Not sure how to respond to that. What we need are teachers/counselors who would say to such youth “You’re only 13!! At this point in your life YOU DONT KNOW what you are or what you will be!”
Report comment to moderator
#38, sawgunner;
you said: Even Catholic colleges are afflicted with the same PC nonsense we see in this video
You may or may not realize how accurate this observation is. PC is properly known as Cultural Marxism that came from the Frankfurt School and imported to the US in 1933. This worldview has infiltrated into every institution in our nation, including many Christian churches, colleges and seminaries. Liberal theology has allowed this infiltration. This is a full fledged agenda to destroy traditional culture and replace it with Marxism. Our government schools are pumping out “new communist men/women” like crazy now regardless if they have a Christian background or not.http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005_docs/PC1.pdf
Report comment to moderator
The ELCA church long ago decided that the bible was not the Word of God, but rather contains the Word of the God. Therefore, man needed to pick through that Word and find what each thought really was the Word. Cherry-picking, indeed. It is not the way the bible is to be read and it leads to acceptance of anything anyone wants. Many of the schools and camps of the church body now embrace that idea.
I wonder how many donors to the college would like to see the college present this? Many of the latter donors may find it wonderful. Many of the earlier donors would be dumbfounded and aghast.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, 12. Haven’t you recently lamented a lack of seasoned speech on these boards? Your #12 is awful.
Report comment to moderator
@Xion: The faculty still appear to have a strong Christian ethic, but the school itself … actively recruits lesbians … they are all required to attend chapel and take religious courses, which from what I can surmise are still conservative.
So I’m curious. You seem to feel that the school shouldn’t admit lesbians and the fact that it does is a reason your daughter might regret attending. This while the faculty and clergy associated with the school are still unapologetically conservative.
Why should the school not admit lesbians (or any other particular breed of sinner)? Why is their presence a negative for your daughter?
I can somewhat understand the argument for Christian private secondary schools, since they deal with younger students, but if your daughter is in college then she’s presumably an adult.
@CherylD: In the real world, one isn’t likely to have binge drinkers throwing up outside one’s bedroom door, or have one’s roommate have a sex partner in the next bed.
Possibly. Mainly because one can filter room mates. Then again, having to deal with a room mate like that would provide an excellent education in how to live in a sinful world while not being of it, and in how to respond to others’ sin in an appropriate fashion.
You seem to want an environment where you will never be confronted by another person’s external sin behavior. I’m not sure that’s healthy.
I think it’s totally appropriate for a student to ask his or her room mate not to bring people back to the room while he or she is in it and, if the room mate isn’t willing to comply, to use whatever framework the university has in place for getting a new room mate.
We live in a sinful world. Sometimes people will do things that affect us, such as throwing up on our front door. Vomit is gross. But, at the end of the day, is it such a big deal that I’d want to completely disassociate myself from anyone who might ever get drunk?
1 Cor. 5 might apply here:
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.
Report comment to moderator
Those who deny that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice are dehumanizing homosexuals, in my view. I might agree if you said that animals or robots do not have a choice with regard to who and how they “love” or are attracted to and are sexual with. But we are talking about human beings. Of course they have a choice.
Report comment to moderator
“You seem to feel that the school shouldn’t admit lesbians and the fact that it does is a reason your daughter might regret attending.”
I think your local butcher would be proud…
You would have done better to question how he would know that the athletics dept cares about a females orientation. Where as there are certainly plenty of lesbian atheletes, I imagine it is not actively recruited for their lesbianism, but their accomplishments on the field.
And frankly, I think that is the point against what you raised instead. A school shouldnt be actively pursuing someone for their orientation, video game preference, race, etc. They should be pursuing character and good scholastic students. To actively recruit for something unrelated to academics (or sports) for a school is just silly.
Report comment to moderator
Over the last few decades, colleges and television have generally been the most corrrupting and degenerative influences in our culture. Aggressive secularists and leftists dominate colleges and TV and too many Americans have for too long been profoundly dependent upon those two impoverished resources for cultural development and input. The result is long-standing and increasing cultural decay, aesthetic poverty and spiritual depravity. It is not an accident either.
Report comment to moderator
Then again, having to deal with a room mate [who has sex in the next bed]… would provide an excellent education in how to live in a sinful world while not being of it.
It’s a curious twist to try to sound magnanimous, liberated and wizened by arguing the advisability of being thrust into (but not “of”?) debauchery, and to cast concerned parents or elders as prudish fuddies. But when I pray, “Lead me not into temptation,” I shouldn’t then Google ‘hardcore porn’ and try to avert my eyes in an exercise for how to live in a sinful world. As if it’s a difficult task to find sin around us in which to live in the first place, apart from college dorm life.
Report comment to moderator
@JoelMark: Those who deny that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice are dehumanizing homosexuals, in my view. I might agree if you said that animals or robots do not have a choice with regard to who and how they “love” or are attracted to and are sexual with. But we are talking about human beings. Of course they have a choice.
You’re mischaracterizing their argument. They don’t suggest homosexuals are automatons with no choice but to engage in homosexual acts. They’re saying that same-sex attraction is (at least in some cases) innate and biological. As human beings we can, of course, choose not to gratify our innate biological impulses, and sexual attraction is no different in that regard.
Its quite reasonable to argue against an innate biological basis for same-sex attraction, but I don’t think its reasonable to level claims of “de-humanization” against anyone who disagrees with you on that point.
@Thorn: You would have done better to question how he would know that the athletics dept cares about a females orientation.
I assumed the college was recruiting based on ability, and just overlooking the fact that some athletes were gay. And that that’s what Xion was criticizing: the decision to ignore sexual orientation when recruiting athletes.
@Macrutabaga: I shouldn’t then Google ‘hardcore porn’ and try to avert my eyes in an exercise for how to live in a sinful world.
I totally agree. My claim is more like, “If I want to learn how to live properly in a sinful world, I shouldn’t isolate myself in a sinner-free bubble.”
If my room mate were bringing women back to our dorm room and having sex with them while I was in the room then I’d view that as a huge temptation and would ask him not to do it. If he persisted I’d get a new room mate. What he does when I’m not there, or what he does somewhere besides the room we share? That’s his business, not mine.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
You are incorrect. I did not mischaracterize anyone’s argument. I simply made my own argument and statement. If the proverbial shoes I described don’t fit, then don’t wear them. But my point stands on its own.
But perhaps you missed my argument, which also applies to same-sex attraction. I believe our choices also shape our patterns of attraction. We choose our values as well. Thus, if homosexualists are only saying that attraction is not a moral choice, then I disagree with that as well.
We are not choiceless atomotrons. We play a huge part in shaping our attitudes, attractions, personalities, ehtical postures and values. These are not simply inate, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Hi BuddyGlass: Would you construe a parent’s wish to keep his or her child out of a college dorm (for reasons discussed variously throughout this thread) as an attempt to isolate the child in a sinner-free bubble? I’m entirely certain a child (or person of any age) living in even the most pious, God-fearing household could learn all he or she needs about living “in” the world and not of it. Why should I not think that?
Report comment to moderator
The following is from the website of Gustavus Adolphus College:
“Faith
The conviction that religious faith enriches and completes learning, is the bedrock of community, ethics, and service, and compels one to excellence in a divinely ordered world informs our whole enterprise. Without expecting conformity to a specific religious tradition, we encourage an honest exploration of religious faith and seek to foster a mature understanding of Christian perspectives on life.”
Really?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass wrote; “..but I don’t think its reasonable to level claims of “de-humanization” against anyone who disagrees with you on that point.”
But I never said that “anyone who disagrees with [me] on that point” is dehumanizing homosexuals. I specifically defined the point of view that I thought was dehumanizing. People who disagree with me on that point may have a variety of alternative points of view. The point of view that I believe dehumanizes homosexuals is the one that avers they had and still have no choice regarding their homosexuality. That reduces them, in my view, down to mere animals or robots in the realm of sexual attitudes, attractions, behaviors and preferences.
If you disagree, fine. But please don’t pretend that I think ANYone that disagrees with me on that point is dehumanizing homosexuals. I made my point specifically.
Report comment to moderator
I see I got several responses, to which I will not reply at this time due to more important things, like the superb education I am getting here at Gustavus. However, I’m not sure if I want to respond considering Marxism is coming up in these discussions, which is just absurd.
Report comment to moderator
It is terrible when someone will excuse a sin out of “grace” and allow that person to be condemned for eternity because they don’t know there are other options.
I strongly recommend:
http://www.fbca.org/livinghopeministries_1
http://exodusyouth.net/
It may not feel like a choice (and it isn’t really, because of who you and how your environment shaped you), but neither are you born a homosexual.
There is hope to get out of this sin and to have the relationships that God intended you to have.
Loving your neighbor means telling him or her the Truth and giving him or her HOPE.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, despite great attempts to find it, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is innate. None.
Now, does the propensity form early? Yes. Does it get reinforced or fed during puberty? Yes. Can it feel as if it is innate? Certainly.
But, it is not, because it can change. There are thousands of ex-gays out there that prove the point.
Report comment to moderator
@JoelMark: You are incorrect. I did not mischaracterize anyone’s argument.
Point taken. You didn’t mischaracterize their arguments. Though, I think your basis for characterizing arguments as dehumanizing is kind of weak.
You seem to assert as axiom that humans can choose their sexual preference. With that in place, you conclude that to deny this ability to choose is to treat them as less than human. If the axiom is in fact false, then so is the conclusion.
@JoelMark: if homosexualists are only saying that attraction is not a moral choice, then I disagree with that as well.
I think what they’re saying is essentially this:
1. For most people, sexual preference has a biological basis.
2. Regardless of sexual preference, human beings are capable of choosing to have sex with nobody at all, with those of their same sex or with those of the opposite sex.
3. Lifelong celibacy or limiting one’s self to relationships that run counter to one’s sexual preference is extremely difficult,
4. and it can only make one miserable.
I think the jury’s out on #1, fully agree with #2 and #3, and disagree with #4.
@JoelMark: We are not choiceless atomotrons. We play a huge part in shaping our attitudes, attractions, personalities, ehtical postures and values. These are not simply inate, in my view.
I agree that there is a lot of choice. I also think lots of things are biological. Here’s a thought exercise for you. You seem to feel sexual preference is a choice. Could you, then, choose to “turn off” your sexual attraction toward women? Because I sure can’t. Origen couldn’t. I can choose not to act on that attraction, but I can’t just say, “I’m going to choose not to be attracted to women anymore,” and have it be so.
@Macrutabaga: Would you construe a parent’s wish to keep his or her child out of a college dorm (for reasons discussed variously throughout this thread) as an attempt to isolate the child in a sinner-free bubble?
Honestly, by the time your kid’s in college, I feel like he should be the one choosing to live in the dorm or not. He’s an adult.
Personally, I would look askance at someone who chose not to live in a dorm because it might put him in close proximity to unrepentant sinners. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone not wanting to have a gay room mate (of the same sex).
On the other hand, I’ve had two gay room mates. Both were closeted during the period we lived together. I’ve got no complaints, other than that one guy wasn’t as neat as I might have liked.
Also, if I could amend what I said earlier:
“Sinners” was a poor word choice. We’re all sinners. Every student at every university everywhere is a sinner. A better choice might have been “unrepentant sinners”.
Report comment to moderator
@Tammy: BTW, despite great attempts to find it, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is innate. None.
Check out the section of the wiki page about biology and sexual orientation.
There is no smoking gun, but the list of physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals certainly seems to suggest biology plays a part.
Tammy: But, it is not [biological], because it can change. There are thousands of ex-gays out there that prove the point.
God can heal. That homosexuals repent and are healed of same-sex attraction doesn’t disprove biological basis unless one also discounts miraculous healing.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #53, give me a break. “Those who deny that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice” are most assuredly “anyone who disagrees with you on that point”. They are the same people. It’s a distinction without a difference. Nobody has to “pretend” you said anything. Sometimes you need to swallow your pride and move on.
Report comment to moderator
#59 – “They are the same people.”
Not necessarily. But it mischaracterizes my point nevertheless to say that “disagreement with me” means that you dehumanize homosexuals. I never said that. I just want people to word it fairly and straight up. After all, Kwatson, some people disagree with me and by so doing fall even farther to the right than I .
Report comment to moderator
Frank (37),
Thanks for the comment. Given that the recent prominence of the Rutgers story, I think it’s implausible that this article was not intended as a backhanded way of applauding (or at least downplaying) the kind of bullying that gay youth, such as the Rutgers student, face on a regular basis. Hundreds of colleges have for some years conducted corny diversity programs that differ little from that at GA. So, why did this program at a small school in rural Minnesota at this time attract the attention of the WorldMag editorial board? Was it just happenstance? Sorry, but I have trouble accepting that. Its contrast to the Rutgers story is just too stark for me to accept that this was anything but an implicit way of justifying the actions of those who bully gay kids.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, #44:
@CherylD: In the real world, one isn’t likely to have binge drinkers throwing up outside one’s bedroom door, or have one’s roommate have a sex partner in the next bed.
Possibly. Mainly because one can filter room mates. Then again, having to deal with a room mate like that would provide an excellent education in how to live in a sinful world while not being of it, and in how to respond to others’ sin in an appropriate fashion.
You seem to want an environment where you will never be confronted by another person’s external sin behavior. I’m not sure that’s healthy.
It’s not healthy to not want to be in on an unmarried person’s sex life (even if she’s discreet enough never to get caught by me)?! Huh? Where do you live that people have to deal with sex in their own bedrooms (even if they’re away at the time of the sex) and that’s OK? I currently have a housemate, not a roommate, and even for her, part of our agreement is that neither of us will have unrelated men spend the night (even on the couch). I can’t change what my neighbors do, but yes, I can definitely care what happens in the intimacy of my own bedroom!! People who share bedrooms are usually siblings or spouses; in college that often extends to roommates. At least some level of courtesy should be involved in such a setting, and needing to make sure I’m gone for the next two hours because there might be a guy in, or an illegal drug party, etc. goes way beyond what should be expected of courtesy.
As to my wanting never to be confronted by others’ sin behavior? Do you forget I do ministry to children and teens, that I lived among some pretty vile behavior voluntarily for a lot of years? Not wanting it in my HOME, and my own bedroom, is a totally different situation. Parents often make such a distinction themselves, and I simply don’t see any reason to put up with the immorality of a stranger under my nose–part of the reason I chose a college that expected Christians to act like Christians.
Report comment to moderator
“…which is just absurd.” -GACBritt
Yup. I keep telling myself that I should stop commenting here. But it’s kind of entertaining…like watching Borat.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed, RSD. The outlandishness that I see, while being deemed to be in a “moral coma” or be told it is an oxymoron to be liberal and Christian, etc, is craziness. I am a Christian and there is nobody on here or on this planet that can take that away from me. Who are we as humans to even judge things or whether someone is a good Christian or not or what the “right” way to be a Christian is. I believe that is God’s place, not ours. A lot of things are sins, but I’m not going to condemn people for being sinners when I have sinned too. That would be quite hypocritical of me.
Report comment to moderator
We’re honored by your presences, RSD and GACBRITT.
Report comment to moderator
@RSD: Was it just happenstance? Sorry, but I have trouble accepting that. Its contrast to the Rutgers story is just too stark for me to accept that this was anything but an implicit way of justifying the actions of those who bully gay kids.
I think the timing of this post may have something to do with the spate of news stories recently having to do with homosexuality, but I think it’s a gigantic stretch to say that the poster (or WMB staff) are trying to “justify” gay bullying. Given what you know of the staff, do you think they approve of secretly taping one’s roommate having sex and then posting it on the internet?
@CherylD: It’s not healthy to not want to be in on an unmarried person’s sex life (even if she’s discreet enough never to get caught by me)?! Huh?
It’s unhealthy to be so concerned about the possibility of learning that one’s room mate has pre-marital sex that one limit one’s self only to universities that strictly enforce biblical behavior.
Honestly, my assumption is that everybody who isn’t either extremely unattractive or extremely devoted to a faith that prohibits pre-marital sex is…having pre-marital sex. If I had a room mate who wasn’t a believer I would be surprised if he or she weren’t having pre-marital sex. And, honestly? It’s no skin off my back if they are, so long as they don’t rub my face in it.
@CherylD: I can definitely care what happens in the intimacy of my own bedroom!!
I guess that’s the difference between us. As long as I’m not present, it doesn’t keep me out of the room when I want to be there, they don’t do it in my bed, and I don’t have to deal with any strange smells or paraphernalia, I don’t really care what my room mate does on his side of the room. Or especially what he does in somebody else’s room.
@CherylD: Not wanting it in my HOME, and my own bedroom, is a totally different situation.
Then room with someone who shares your convictions? It’s not like they don’t exist at secular universities. Or live off campus?
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
I don’t know Cheaney personally, so, apart from this post, I have no basis of knowing whether she is the kind of person who smiles on the bullying of gay teenagers. It’s probably more accurate to say that she is ambivalent to it. After all, if she were the kind of person who frowned on such conduct, I doubt that she would have felt the need to pillory the well-intentioned efforts of students at GA in the way that she did.
Report comment to moderator
@RSD: if she were the kind of person who frowned on such conduct, I doubt that she would have felt the need to pillory the well-intentioned efforts of students at GA in the way that she did.
I guess I don’t see the one as following from the other. That is to say, I think one can be very much against gay bullying and simultaneously criticize diversity programs advocating “acceptance” of homosexual behavior.
For instance, I’m very much against bullying. Of gays or anybody else. And yet I would probably be a more than a little irritated at a diversity presentation that told me “there’s nothing wrong with being gay”. Why? Because the question of whether there’s anything “wrong” with being gay is a moral judgment, and I don’t want my university dictating morality to me.
That make any sense?
Report comment to moderator
RSD: Quit while you’re behind, already!
Report comment to moderator
#64 gacbritt,
You’re right that nobody but God knows really what’s in your heart, but yet we are told to judge the fruits and discern truth of what is said and done and to take captive false philosophy and make it conform to Christ, etc. If a Mormon said he/she were a Christian I would have very grave doubts to the truth of that claim as most of us here would. The same goes for somebody who is a liberal as most liberal policies conflict with the truth claims of God. So it would cause somebody to question if a liberal truly knew God. Barna has proven that many identify themselves Christians but lack a Christian worldview or much of any knowledge of the Bible and most expressed and practiced very liberal beliefs (John 17:3). You just maybe heavily syncretized. Wayne Grudem says this about liberal churches including the ELCA: “Are there false churches within Protestantism? If we again look at the two distinguishing marks of the church, in the judgment of this present writer it seems appropriate to say that many liberal Protestant churches are in fact false churches today.”?
True believers do not normally develop in false churches and stay there.
Report comment to moderator
Christian colleges are not identified by their historic church ties, but rather their membership in the Council for Christian Collegs and Universities (CCCU).
Report comment to moderator
#66 – “As long as I’m not present, it doesn’t keep me out of the room when I want to be there, they don’t do it in my bed, and I don’t have to deal with any strange smells or paraphernalia, I don’t really care what my room mate does on his side of the room. Or especially what he does in somebody else’s room.”
This is sad. Too many people see ethics ONLY in relation to themselves and how it does or does not directly affect them. IOW, it’s ALL about them. The basis of Christian ethics goes far beyond the self and it cares deeply for others and their long term welfare as fellow humans. Too many Americans today define ethics, however, purely in terms of a self-centered mindset. Very sad.
The operative phrase in Buddyglasses comment is “I don’t really care…”
Report comment to moderator
I should have been more literal. I do care in the sense that this person is most likely lost and far from God. To that extent, their sin is a great tragedy.
However, nothing in that general lament gives me any reason not to room with the person, which is what Cheryl was putting forth as a perfectly reasonable response.
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK,
I’m sorry, but no matter what you say I can be a liberal and a Christian. And unless you are God, you have no right to tell me otherwise or that I’m confused and am not actually a Christian. I know people that claim to be Christians and are not. There are policies on BOTH sides that you can argue go against Christianity. Conservatives are often associated with the moral and family values, so they boast that they are the most Christian. However, just as you probably believe every policy/philosophy on my side is anti-Christian, I can find many on the conservative end that I believe to be the same. Especially when it comes down to social issues. You can feel free to disagree with me politically, but as a Christian, you are my brother/sister in Christ. You should not be judging what kind of Christian I am, especially when you do not even know me as a person.
Report comment to moderator
74 gacbritt,
You’re right that I can’t tell you that you are or are not a Christian and I have not done that. I look at the outward signs and raise concerns which I have done with you. I have asked questions about how you reconcile the disparity between your liberalism and the truth claims of God as most, if not all, liberal policies are contrary to God’s truth claims. As fellow believers we do have obligations to point out where we believe one has errored. Sorry, but I have not said I am a Republican nor conservative. I don’t do politics the way you imply. I do it from a Christian worldview and determine what policy conforms to God’s will; both parties have errored, one more than the other, though. And contrary to the implication that politics and Christianity are separate, they are not. God has given us his will in scripture about what His design for government should be about. The way you do politics should conform to God’s will being a Christian. What you do to reconcile this with God is fully up to you.
Report comment to moderator
If you have truly repented of your sins, Gacbritt, and surrendered your life to Jesus Christ, died with him in a water grave and was raised up with him as a new man, filled with God’s Holy Spirit, then you are a Christian as best as any of us can know.
But one reason I have a hard time reconciling liberalism with Christianity is because over the last 50 years of life, I have seen liberalism increase poverty in the USA. In 2009, for the first time since the ‘60s, one in seven working-age Americans live in poverty. The American poverty rate has climbed from 13.2 to 14.3 percent in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. That means 43.6 million Americans live in poverty. 2010 could be worse when those numbers come in.
But liberalism does not stop there in promoting poverty (often unintentionally). It also has, in my view, fueled more…
* Aaesthetic poverty (decadence & ugliness in the arts).
* Moral poverty (decline of decency & truth).
* Spiritual poverty (marginalizing and stigmatizing Christians & church).
* Poverty of family and especially fatherhood.
All these forms of poverty are in many ways worse than the alarming rise of physical poverty and food stamp usage we have seen in the USA in the last year or two.
__________________
Report comment to moderator
#44 BuddyGlass “So I’m curious. You seem to feel that the school shouldn’t admit lesbians and the fact that it does is a reason your daughter might regret attending. This while the faculty and clergy associated with the school are still unapologetically conservative. Why should the school not admit lesbians (or any other particular breed of sinner)? Why is their presence a negative for your daughter?”
My position on the matter is that sin is sin and we are all sinners. If you let one kind of sinner into a school, then you should let other kinds in too. Homosexuality in my view is simply one more kind of sin. Therefore, of course they should be admitted. The fact that we let our daughter attend shows that it isn’t an issue for us. The reason it is not an issue is because Christianity is still faithfully represented.
My problem with Gustavus Adolphus College is not that it admits homosexuals so-called, but that it misrepresents Christianity and compromises truth presumably for financial gain and worldly accolades.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, as a general rule one’s closest friends share one’s deepest convictions, right? In the intimacy of sharing a room, it seems to me that the idea of not “being unequally yoked” applies. Sure, one may be around habitual drunkards, adulterers, thieves, etc., but that isn’t really who you want to spend living space with.
Xion, I think schools should admit people with temptations to all sorts of sins, including sexual ones. But it’s perfectly reasonable for a Bible college to hold expectations of what its students will and will not do.
Report comment to moderator
#58 BuddyGlass “Check out the section of the wiki page about biology and sexual orientation. There is no smoking gun, but the list of physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals certainly seems to suggest biology plays a part.”
Biology plays a part in all of the differences between any two individuals. Biology may also play a part in one’s proclivity toward certain sins or affinity for pickup trucks. But that does not mean that a homosexual is anything other than a normal human with a sin condition. Different people may struggle with different things. That doesn’t make it right or good.
Report comment to moderator
#78 Chery, Yes, of course. I agree with that. Schools and the military and any other institution can and should set behavioral standards.
But since Jesus spent so much quality time with sinners, eating with them, living with them, laughing with them (I presume), I am happy to see Christians behave like him. He didn’t let down his standards or compromise the truth and I would hope Christian schools would do the same.
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK,
Sorry. But I really cannot agree with anything you say. I will not say one side more than the other has the right values. You can talk about family values and abortion and homosexuality and all of the “moral issues” all day long, but I can give you a whole other list from the side you are claiming is God’s side, that are NOT in line with Christ’s messages at all. I think you are making some large assumptions. I’m not sure where you live or what liberal people you are meeting, or how often you even encounter them, but your comments seem WAY off to me. And I don’t need to reconcile my politics with God. Because in 7 months when I graduate from college with my degree in political science and go out into the world with HIS purpose for my life, whether it be helping the poor or fighting racism and discrimination or whatever it may be, I know that I am doing it for Him. And not out of greed or for special interests or personal gain or so I can boast. I WILL have an impact on this world because of my belief in Christ. Nobody will take that away from me. So I hope you go about the rest of your day, night and life happily. And I will go about mine with love in my heart and realizing that with what judgment I use, I will be judged the same. And that truly, only God can judge me. Gustavus is a great place and God is here all over campus working in the lives of so many fabulous people here. It’s always a great day to be a liberal, a Christian, and a Gustie!
Joel Mark,
I’m sorry, but I find your comments to be absurd. Maybe you need to meet more people who are Christians and liberals before you make these judgments because I know several individuals, including myself, that are not contributing in any way to these types of poverty you are talking about. Also, you gave no proof that it is “liberalism” contributing to physical poverty. And I don’t need it, because I have an education and physical poverty is probably one of the heaviest issues on my heart. So I know what has contributed to it. And just by the way, they are no longer called food stamps. The program is now called SNAP and many individuals received an EBT card.
Thank you for all of your comments. But I disagree with many of you in several ways and nothing you will say is going to make me think any differently. I know what I know in my heart and actually several of the comments I have seen on here have not been very Christian-like in their nature. To those who now have formed a negative opinion of Gustavus based on 4 minutes of edited footage, that’s okay. Because until you are here or have seen that full presentation, your judgments are not valid to me. We don’t want you to send your kids here if they are not suitable. There are plenty of colleges out there that are. And for the last time, Gustavus has an affiliation with the ECLA, it is not a Christian college.
I am a liberal and I am a Christian. And I love my school. And most importantly, God loves me. And there is not one person here that is going to change that or take any of that way from me.
Report comment to moderator
“If you have truly repented of your sins, Gacbritt, and surrendered your life to Jesus Christ, died with him in a water grave and was raised up with him as a new man, filled with God’s Holy Spirit, then you are a Christian as best as any of us can know.” -Joel
Not all of us believe in the gospel according to Chuck Finney. Some of us opt for the one taught by Christ and the apostles. The normal means of God’s saving of His people is through their birth as covenant infants into a Christian family, their becoming members of the covenant via baptism, and their participation in the means of grace during the course of their life’s journey. We are not saved by works, but by God’s objective, unmerited favor toward us.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, RSD.
Report comment to moderator
#78 and #79
Amen and Amen!
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “Not all of us believe in the gospel according to Chuck Finney.”
Who said that your or anyone did? Your statement is a non-sequiter. It has nothing to do with the core truth that I wrote about Christians–all biblically defensable without any regard to Charles Finney.
What I said is rooted soundly in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. You and anyone else cannot honestly be a Christian on God’s terms unless and until you repent of your sins and trust in Jesus for forgiveness. It’s not biological, it’s spiritual and eternal.
“We are not saved by works, but by God’s objective, unmerited favor toward us.”
Amen to that. The agent of salvation is God’s grace, forever and always. And there is no biblical embrace of this grace until the sinner admits his sin and that he cannot save himself (which defines our repentance).
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt wrote; “You can talk about family values and abortion and homosexuality and all of the ‘moral issues’ all day long, but I can give you a whole other list from the side you are claiming is God’s side, that are NOT in line with Christ’s messages at all.”
Huh? Okay, we are listening. Give us this alleged list of moral issues from the side that some claim is “God’s side.” But at the moment, I have no idea what you are talking about. No one here is saying that any of us are free from the call to repent. What I am saying is that homosexuals and abortionists must honestly repent of their sins of homosexuality and abortion and trust God’s Holy Spirit to transform them and stop living in slavery to sin and selfishness. If someone you think is on the right is also sinning and needs to repent, your are probably right. So what? It does not change the truth of God for you to point out that some on the right are sinners (if that is what you are trying to say).
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt wrot: “Maybe you need to meet more people who are Christians and liberals before you make these judgments…”
Young man, I have not only known far more Christians and liberals than you could possibly have known in your lifetime (I am a highly social and active 56-year-old pastor, past college professor, artist and more), but I myself was a liberal Christtian back in the Jimmy Carter days. I have matured since then and grown in my learning and understanding.
When I speak of liberalism and its impact, I am not talking about you personally, Gacbritt. But the moral, aesthetic, spiritual and physical poverty I have seen grow over the years still comes, in my view, from liberal attitudes and policies.
Gacbritt wrote; “…nothing you will say is going to make me think any differently.”
That’s too bad. But I still comment on this blog because I believe there actually are some open-minded people here.
_____________
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt wrote; “Because until you are here or have seen that full presentation, your judgments are not valid to me.”
I have hope for you, Gacbritt. At least you have not bought into the liberal nonsense that ALL human judgments are equally valid.
Gacbritt wrote; “We don’t want you to send your kids here if they are not suitable.”
Again, at least you have not bought into the notion that everyone is equally suitable.
_________
Still, the best way to help the poor is to fight the Democrat Party which I believe hurts them worse than any other influcne or group in America. Poverty has risen since the Democrats took congress in 2006. The most dramatic fall in poverty in the USA (especially for African-Americans) took place during the Reagan administration.
Democrat policies tend to harm the poor and needy.
Report comment to moderator
@CherylD #78: as a general rule one’s closest friends share one’s deepest convictions, right? In the intimacy of sharing a room, it seems to me that the idea of not “being unequally yoked” applies.
This assumes my room mate need be my closest friend. Until I moved in with a group of friends who did in fact share my beliefs, none of my room mates were close friends. We were just two guys who slept in the same room. I think the exercise of learning to co-exist with someone in that situation is very beneficial.
All this is beside the point, though, since attending a secular university doesn’t require you to room with someone who doesn’t share your beliefs. University housing programs have a vested interest in pairing students who are going to get along. There’s usually a questionnaire everyone fills out, and a process for getting a new assignment if there are irreconcilable differences between two room mates.
There’s also private off-campus housing.
@CherylD #78: it’s perfectly reasonable for a Bible college to hold expectations of what its students will and will not do.
Agree, with a caveat. If the college requires students to sign a statement of faith affirming they’re believers, then I think it’s okay of them to have behavioral requirements. In this case expelling someone for recurring unrepentant sin would be roughly biblical, since all students claim to be believers.
At the same time, I think it’s silly for them to require a statement of faith, and if they don’t require one then I think their behavioral requirements should be purely practical as opposed to religious.
@Xion #79: Biology may also play a part in one’s proclivity toward certain sins…
That’s all I was saying. This was in response to Tammy’s post #56 where she claims unequivocally there is no biological basis.
Report comment to moderator
@JoelMark: The most dramatic fall in poverty in the USA (especially for African-Americans) took place during the Reagan administration.
This is demonstrably false. See this report:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Table B-1 starting on p44:
1980 poverty rate, all people: 13.0%
1988 poverty rate, all people: 13.0%
1980 poverty rate, black: 32.5%
1988 poverty rate, black: 31.3%
Let’s compare this with Clinton’s presidency:
1992 poverty rate, all people: 14.8%
2000 poverty rate, all people: 11.3%
1992 poverty rate, black: 33.4%
2000 poverty rate, black: 22.5%
Report comment to moderator
The welcome growth of prosperity in the USA under Reagan is not disputed by honest people.
From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points. This is good news that should not be ignored.
In both cases, unemployment rates dropped significantly during the Reagan administration. The rich got richer and the poor got richer on Reagan’s watch.
Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus the white household income increased of 68 percent. Both gained.
The number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 percent rise versus a 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States. Receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled, from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion.
Cato Institute figures:
* “Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.”
* “Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.”
___________
Report comment to moderator
Statistics can be cherry-picked and drawn out of contact. My observations are rooted in the big picture and they stand up to scrutiny. Poverty rates over the long-term grew terribly after LBJ’s war on poverty, which was a failure. The “misery index” was horrific under Jimmy Carter. Unemployment has risen dramatically under the Demcorat controled congress in our day.
I have observed all of this in my life first and second hand and experienced much of it myself. I still honestly call it my opinion. Pundits and popularists have spun this view inside and out to suit their own views too.
I still do not think that politicians are the main factor in creating wealth and prosperity. Working citizens are. But the right should and sometimes does know better than to use socialism and big gov’t to crush the rise of employment and prosperity in general.
The current administration shows they have not learned the obvious lesson and they are living on spin.
Report comment to moderator
And again, beyond pysical poverty, moral, spiritual, aesthetic and intellectual poverty are also have risen due to liberal policies and attitudes, in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
“Maybe you need to meet more people who are Christians and liberals before you make these judgments because I know several individuals, including myself, that are not contributing in any way to these types of poverty you are talking about. Also, you gave no proof that it is “liberalism” contributing to physical poverty.”
You mean we dont meet enough liberals on this blog?
Sure you can be liberal and still be a christian. I have met many who have a great desire to help the poor. Most often their response is clearly out of a strong desire to honestly make things better.
Liberalism exepcts taxes to be collected via the government, and the government to divy out the support to the poor as the best means of distribution. Correct?
It is a noble ideal, as it ought to be effecient on the front end.
However, it fails due to its capacity to create more dependents. The more dependents you create, the greater burden, not just on the people but now on the country as a whole becomes to heavy. When the dependents outweigh the independents, collapse is inevitable. Over the last 60 to 70 years, that is what we have been creating, dependents, for the most part.
If you can create a program via the government that creates independents, I think you would find many conservatives willing to meet you on it. But doing so from a federal level will still be less effecient than on a local level. Doing so from a federal government that is more concerned with politics than actual results for its people, and itll be even less efficient regardless. It will also be devoid of the joy that comes from personal giving.
Regardless of whether you lean liberal or conservative, someone you should read is Bastiat. http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/bastiat_en.pdf
Report comment to moderator
“And that truly, only God can judge me.”
Actually, as Buddy mentioned the 1 Cor 5 reference. Paul is not only judging the unrepentant sinner, he is judging those in the church who thought they were great for being tolerant of the unrepentant. They thought that being liberal in this case was great. It wasnt. And Paul, being a christian and in authority, had every right to judge them for it.
So as a christian you are subject to the rebuke of fellow christians. Why? Because you were bought with a price and unlike the pagans, you are called to live like it.
To tolerate unrepentant sinners as members of the church is akin to tolerating a conservative in a liberal party or vice versa.
As for a college, do you honestly need a video telling pagans its okay to be pagans? Is that like a pat on the back? Why would we ever wanna congradulate sin?
Report comment to moderator
@JM: The welcome growth of prosperity in the USA under Reagan is not disputed by honest people.
Yeah, but that’s not what you said. You specifically spoke about the poverty rate. About as many blacks were living in poverty when Reagan left office as when he took office. Not only is that not a great reduction in poverty, it is most certainly not “the most dramatic fall” given the reduction we saw just a few years later during the Clinton presidency.
JM: From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points.
That’s because white unemployment was never that high to begin with. You’re also choosing to count from 1982, which was the peak of unemployment. A peak that arose during Reagan’s presidency. See figure 13.1 here:
http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec13.pdf
Unemployment among blacks started at 14.3% when Reagan took office, spiked to 20.4% in 1982, then declined to about 12% in 1988.
So yes, slightly fewer blacks were unemployed at the end of Reagan’s presidency than were unemployed at its beginning. Their poverty rate, however, was mostly unchanged.
JM: In both cases, unemployment rates dropped significantly during the Reagan administration.
They dropped significantly only after rising significantly.
JM: The rich got richer and the poor got richer on Reagan’s watch.
As has been the case during most presidents’ watches. Certainly this was the case during Clinton’s presidency, and to an even greater degree than during Reagan’s.
But did the poor really get richer during the Reagan years? Let’s see. Referring back to the census document I referenced earlier:
% households with income $500 but <= $10,000 in 1980: 5.9%
% households with income $500 but <= $10,000 in 1988: 5.6%
In other words, about the same % of households were earning less than $10,000 (in 2008 dollars) in 1988 as were earning less than $10,000 in 1980. Their lot did not improve significantly.
JM: Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus the white household income increased of 68 percent. Both gained.
Source? The document I linked gives this (in 2008 dollars):
Median household income, blacks, 1980: $26,779
Median household income, blacks, 1988: $28,694 (7.2% increase)
Median household income, whites: 1980: $46,482
Median household income, whites: 1988: $50,335 (8.2% increase)
JM: Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
I’d like to see CATO’s stats, because real median household income grew by leaps and bounds during Clinton’s presidency. It declined during both Bush Sr’s and Bush Jr’s presidencies.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like my greater than and less than signs were interpreted as html, meaning some of what I wrote isn’t displayed. Here it is:
% households with income <= $5,000 in 1980: 2.3%
% households with income > $5000 but <= $10,000 in 1980: 5.9%
% households with income <= $5,000 in 1988: 2.3%
% households with income > $5000 but <= $10,000 in 1988: 5.6%
Report comment to moderator
gacbritt,
Congratulations in advance for your graduation. May you find God’s truths early in your life as Joel Mark had finally done in his life per post #87.
If you haven’t read these already, I truly believe they will help you assess reality and the failures of liberalism due to its ungodly basis.
Life at the Bottom; the worldview that makes the underclass by Theodore Dalrymple
Idols for Destruction by Herbert Schlossberg
Take Care
Hawk
Report comment to moderator
“The welcome growth of prosperity in the USA under Reagan is not disputed by honest people.”
Buddyglass replied; “Yeah, but that’s not what you said.”
So? I said it when I said it. What’s the difference? I did specifically write about the poverty rate in 2009 and that stands too. I am citing a trend that free-market principles tend to promote prosperity and socialist policies (like those of Democrats today) tend to erode prosperity and progress (even leading to greater poverty, in my view).
Again, African-Americans rose in employment and prosperity more during the Reagan years than in any before or since in my lifetime.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, you are being disingenuous in my view. 1982 is a perfect year to begin counting because that is when the Reagan policies began to make a difference. Reagan inherited a horrific economy under Carter and the consequences of Carter’s policies had to extend into the first year of Reagan’s administration.
I recognize that Obama inherited a worsening economy. People can judge for themselves when to begin to apply current consequences to his polices. But there is nothing wrong with counting from 1982 to portray the results of Reagan’s policies honestly and fairly.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, unemployment rates for blacks spiked to high numbers in the first year of Reagan’s first term directly BECAUSE of the legacy of Carter’s policies which Reagan dramatically turned around.
White unemployment was not as high as black unemployment rates but it was high and Reagan’s policies significantly turned it to the better for BOTH blacks AND whites.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass wrote; “They dropped significantly only after rising significantly.”
Precisely! Ther reason they rose significantly was leftist policies by Carter’s crowd gone to seed, extending into the first year of Reagan’s administration. Reagan reversed that, to the gain of rich AND poor, black AND white.
Report comment to moderator
gacbritt,
One other thought. You are right that nobody can take away your salvation and that God loves you. God loves everybody but not everybody is saved because they don’t know God or His will. God makes that judgement based on whether or not He knows you; not on whether you say LORD, LORD to Him.
The following link takes you to one of the most powerful sermons I have heard on what we are discussing. It would be worth your salvation to listen. It is based on Matthew 7:13-27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8
Pastor Paul Washer; Shocking Message
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.
14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.
15 “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves.
16 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but [only] the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’
23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’
Take Care
Report comment to moderator
@JoelMark: So? I said it when I said it. What’s the difference?
Can you not see the problem with an exchange like this:
You: X.
Me: Actually not(X). Here’s some stats.
You: Y.
I presented some stats and claimed they invalidated your original claim. Rather than address them and show why them did not invalidate your claim, you ignored them entirely and started making new claims.
Let’s forget about all the stuff about median household income, unemployment, etc. You specifically said:
The most dramatic fall in poverty in the USA (especially for African-Americans) took place during the Reagan administration.
Let’s examine this. Between which two dates did this dramatic decrease occur?
Once you pick a starting point are you willing to look at how poverty changed from that point to the end of Reagan’s presidency, or are you stopping at some arbitrary point before that? If so, why?
How do you define “poverty”? Census Bureau’s poverty rate or something else?
In measuring how “dramatic” the decrease was, are you using absolute or percentage change?
Report comment to moderator
No, Buddyglass. You are mincing words.
I wrote: “The welcome growth of prosperity in the USA under Reagan is not disputed by honest people.”
You wrote; “Yeah, but that’s not what you said.”
And my response to you was, so what? I simply made two different related and compatible points.
You are playing silly games, Buddyglass. You can disagree or deny all you want, but don’t try to discount points by mincing my words or distorting the line of though in way I never intended.
Report comment to moderator
No games. Did you or did you not say:
The most dramatic fall in poverty in the USA (especially for African-Americans) took place during the Reagan administration.
Answer: Yes.
Did I reference some stats that seem to contradict that statement?
Yes.
Did you respond to those stats?
No.
You instead said what you quoted above:
The welcome growth of prosperity in the USA under Reagan is not disputed by honest people.
For the time being, I’d like us to confine ourselves purely to the first statement with respect to poverty.
Can we do that?
In that context, I’d like you to provide some details about exactly what your claiming. Start date, end date, how you’re measuring poverty, how you’re measuring extent of change, etc.
With those details in place we can start to make unambiguous statements about whether your specific claim is true or not.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, a significant fall in poverty rates in the USA (especially for African-Americans) took place during the Reagan administration. That fact stands and I generally dismiss the abuse of selected statistics out of context, and I said so.
So you are blatantly wrong, Buddyglass. I did indeed respond to your selective citing of statistics. There are lies, there are explitive deleted lies and there are statistics.
I use them too, but I acknowledge that various interpretations may apply and that contraditcary statistics can nearly always be found.
And I also said that the growth of prosperity in the USA under Reagan is not disputed by honest people.
I stand by that too. What’s the problem?
I already provided my reasons and some selected stats, especially at #91. You and others can interpret as you wish. But don’t play games with my responses. They stand for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Gacbritt, do you have an opinion on my response to you at #30?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, thank you for the conversation. That I think liberalism tends to raise physical poverty rates is only one part of my point. I think it increases moral poverty (the Gustavius video on this thread illustrates that all too well), aesthetic poverty (more ugliness, offense and nonsense in the name of art, literature and music), spiritual poverty (marginalizing the church, stigmatizing belief), and intellectual poverty (consider our educational system and its results).
Thes are subjective opinions about trends, but they are mine.
Report comment to moderator
Joel (108):
I’m sure that Britt has better things to do. But so as not to let blatant theological error go unchecked, I’ll respond to your comment in 30.
You are flatly wrong on the doctrine of justification. You said that all of our sins “must be answered with our repentance.” Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said above, God’s grace is not conditional on our performance of any kinds of acts, such as specific acts of repentance. God’s grace is free and unconditional, and comes to us by way of His objective decision to show favor upon His covenant people because of Christ. After all, how do you expect to begin to know all of the ways in which you fail to measure up to the perfection of a holy God? None of us could even begin to list all the ways in which we fall short of His glory, let alone specifically repent for each and every one of them. If you think that your standing before God rests on your ability to enumerate your sins and then repent for each of them one by one, then I can understand why you come off as such a miserable person. Thankfully, that’s not the basis of our rest in Christ. For those who belong to Christ, our sins–the ones that we can enumerate, the ones that we’re not aware of, and even the ones we haven’t yet committed–have all been covered by God’s free, unmerited, objective grace to us in Christ. Period.
You should read “Revelation” by Flannery O’Connor. Whenever I interact with you, I always think of the character of Ruby Turpin from the story.
Peace.
Report comment to moderator
For the last time Joel Mark,
I am a female. Please stop calling me young man.
To others: And I’m not going to go to any of these links, I don’t need to have my views changed. I am a VERY open minded individual, but not to those who tell me that my Christianity is flawed, that I need to come to change my politics, etc. These are just absurd things. I won’t be changing my politics or my religion any time soon.
“God makes that judgement based on whether or not He knows you; not on whether you say LORD, LORD to Him.” – Yes, so when it is God making the judgment, then let God make it, don’t make judgments for him.
Report comment to moderator
gacbritt,
watch out for those ravaging wolves you’re linked to:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it.
14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.
15 “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves.
16 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Report comment to moderator
#111 Britt, “…I don’t need to have my views changed. I am a VERY open minded individual …”
Because you are young, you may have just inadvertently stated with vibrant clarity the mindset of old liberals. As liberals age, they become better and better at hiding the inconsistencies in their logic. They think they are very open minded, but are completely closed minded to other points of view.
Since you are young, you still have an opportunity to meditate on these inconsistencies and perhaps realize that you might not be as open minded as you think. I say this not as a criticism, but as an encouragement to consider some alternative points of view before you become too set in your ways. Peace!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!