Mike Palij wrote:
"It is unfortunate how Prof. Smith edits posts because he edited out
the questions I asked which I reproduce here:"

"...Why he focuses on the summary answer I provide to the question in
the Subject line is beyond me."

Well, Mike, it may be beyond you, but if you look at your own post,
the only question you actually asked was in the subject line. Given
that you wanted me to answer something I took issue with your wrong
answers to that question.

I find it curious though that the majority of your lengthy prose was
to a peculiar end. That is, "I have gone through this review in order
to reach a particular point, namely, the "Statement of Faith" for
Taylor College:"
Why would that be Mike?

Now, in your last post in this thread  (Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM)
you did pose a number of questions which I suppose in your mind you
believed that you asked in the post of Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:31 AM,
but actually did not.

These questions included creationism/Intelligent Design/homosexuality/etc.

This may come as a surprise to some, but, as in the general
population, Christians have varying opinions about these issues and
varying levels of commitment to their opinions (at least in Canada).

Another surprise perhaps:
Being that I work in a Christian institution, I am not required to
present ANY particular view. Note that this is NOT the case at a
secular university where professors are required to teach a particular
view, for example, that homosexuality is not pathological, and that
abortion is a woman's right.

Now of course, it  will be claimed that the teaching of these views
are not so required, but just try teaching that homosexuality IS
pathological and that abortion is NOT a woman's right and see if you
keep your job--so much for academic freedom.

"Correct me if I am wrong on this account.  I do not completely
understand all of the components of the Statement of Faith but it
seems to me that it states that the Bible is an inerrant source of
knowledge which would seem to mean that the genesis account of
creation has to be accepted as fact."

Yes, you are wrong.

--Mike

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to