When leaders don't follow the rules those below them must follow, the word for that is CORRUPTION.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Liberty - not worth supporting
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
When leaders don't follow the rules those below them must follow, the word for that is CORRUPTION.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
So are parents corrupt for not following rules they place on their children?
Children have different rules BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN. They lack knowledge and their judgement is poor. It's absolutely invalid for you to defend Falwell by equating adult students with immature children.
In most, or all, states it's legal for children to drink in certain circumstances, such as if a parent is present. I think it's counterproductive for drinking parents to prohibit their kids from drinking, where it's legal.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
So now you are stepping your comment back? It's not a matter of what you think is counter productive. The fact is, not following rules (that do not apply to you) for people underneath you is not corruption.
I haven't stepped back anything. It's a bad idea for drinking parents to prohibit their children from drinking, but if they do prohibit their children from drinking IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHILDREN BEING UNDER THEM. It has to do with their children being children.
Hypocrisy better fits.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
So yes, you are walking back. And by the way, college students may be legal adults but very few are mature and most act like children. Ever considered that?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I don't think this fits either. Again, back to the Parent/Child example
I like Liberty and I like the Falwells. This policy/example is hypocritical. If faculty can drink and go clubbing, students over 21 should be able to also.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
You are welcome to hold that opinion, we disagree. I think it is right to have a standard policy for all students and I also believe it is acceptable to have a different policy for staff as long as the policy does not leave the realm of Christian Liberty and into actual sin.
Now that being said, I do have a problem with the night club scenario given in this thread if all of the facts given are true.
Yes, Falwell can live by a different set of rules than the other adults in the room. But, he can also be condemned for it, as he is being. And, I can express the opinion that for his double standard on drinking, and many other reasons, he should be booted from Liberty. Even if some people disagree. I hope the alcohol he's drinking is worth it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Again, what is wrong with drinking alcohol? Jesus did, the disciples did, Paul did, Timothy did......
Jesus, Paul, and Timothy didn't' tell other adults not to drink. Duh. They didn't even tell children not to drink.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Why do you want to defend such a jerk? You know it's not comparable to prohibiting children from doing something adults do, yet that's your argument. That argument is nonsense and insulting.
Most fundamentalist baptists aren't as approving as drinking as you are. And, most of the rest of us aren't as approval of double standards as you are. Enrollment at Liberty is going to start hurting as more people become aware of what a hypocritical clubbing jerk Falwell is. He needs to go, and good riddance.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
It is absolutely comparable and the exact same thing. So if you are insulted by it that is your problem. How would you know Falwell is a jerk? Have you ever met him?
I don't drink, but I don't make up this false idea that it is unbiblical and a sin either. Fundamentalists take things to an extreme. I am a biblical Baptist. There is a difference.
It’s not any major thing but a string of little things that just seem a little off putting and result in bad optics.
Like this for example.
Hugh Freeze finds shelter at Liberty after Ole Miss scandals
I don’t know if the staffers are all telling the truth but we’ve established that Falwell has lied before while being confronted with the pictures while also accusing the publisher of fabricating them which is also an attack on that person.
It isn’t crazy to think there might be some truth to the article if one is being objective.
Like this for example.
Hugh Freeze finds shelter at Liberty after Ole Miss scandals
I don’t know if the staffers are all telling the truth but we’ve established that Falwell has lied before while being confronted with the pictures while also accusing the publisher of fabricating them which is also an attack on that person.
It isn’t crazy to think there might be some truth to the article if one is being objective.
Perhaps it is important to look at the reason Liberty does not permit students to drink.
If it is to maintain student discipline I believe there should be a difference (if students have a curfew that does not mean the faculty shoukd have the same standard).
But if it is to maintain a Christian witness as determined by the school I think this is important for both the student and faculty as all represent the university in some form.
Does Liberty give a reason for the rule?
Liberty's coach was cheating at football and hiring prostitutes, before he was fired and came to Liberty. There's no reason for anyone to think he has repented.
Another issue about Liberty's desire to win football games at any cost is giving free rides to punks who wouldn't be caught dead at a Christian college, if not for the free ride provided by football.
Off-campus students don't have curfews. I don't expect to run across any reason for Liberty's ban on students drinking, but I'm sure it has to do with many Baptists thinking drinking is a sin.
Faculty, especially the President, should live by higher standards than the students.