Which Ivy League is the best for Christians?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Indeed,it is quite narrow,even extreme. And totally exclusive. As JC noted, only ONE WAY. And what does he say of “luke warm?” You know, I trust. Delusionists.

And you are so right. And that is the very reason for confused threads like this. People think they can believe humans evolved from monkeys from frogs from fish from some kind of chemical cosmostic accident …that as we know …has never been replicatable, merely speculated about …and somehow then still believe in a Creator creating us. If one really examines that premise (you may wish to do so sometime), you’ll realize the fundamental problem in a secular world is NOT that people won’t buy the Cross and all it represents, but rather that they simply cannot fathom how His story got to that point to begin with. Rather, most have bought the company myth that evolution is somehow “science” and therefore “fact.” Not so. But those issues are for another place, but once one gets the issue, one realizes how totally intolerant Christianity is of other beliefs. In fact, all others, according to Jesus, are not eligible for eternal life with Him.</p>

<p>We all need to grasp that we are each entitled to our own opinions. But in “fact”, that’s all they are. To find out the Truth, you and I must get beyond the pain of realizing how bogus our human selfish opinions are. And if it’s really true? Then it must be true for you, for me, for all. Or it’s just your opinion, or mine. So you need not take my word for any of this. But you must take His Word. And it’s all there. </p>

<p>What did Christ (the one and only central figure of Christianity) say his sole/soul purpose was in coming? What did he say to Pontius Pilate? Check out John and report back. (I’ll save you the trip …he said “I came to testify to the truth!” (exclamation pt. is mine). When one “testifies” what does that imply? Better be telling, as we recall from Perry Mason, " Do you SOLEMNLY swear to tellTHE TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, so help you GOD?" :eek:)</p>

<p>So you are absolutely right except for one thing …it is not MY DEFINITION. It is the definition of He who I presume you claim to worship and believe as the totally truthful, infallable One. I do. And at the risk of appearing strong or overbearing or obnoxious …so should you. He has zero tolerance for muddled thinking that leads to luke-warmness of our faith. That reality usually shocks and offends those convicted by its notion. And …sadly, your point nails precisely THE ISSUE of why the mainliners are on the fast-track to fossilization (if I may borrow a concept from the evolutionists). :wink: </p>

<p>So full circle …until you know from whence you’ve come and how you came, it’s difficult to make any sense of the Cross. Where did you come from? How so? From the slime? Or from God’s hand? And if you think the former is somehow more “factual” than the latter? Got some ocean-front property for sale-on-the-cheap for you in Des Moines.</p>

<p>You see, you and many want to have it both ways. More correctly, YOUR way. That’s precisely what Adam and Eve wanted. Do you believe they existed? Do you believe the screwed up and that’s ultimately why you do the same? (me too, btw) How does that “fit” with your notion that they were the 1st non-apes? I don’t think God needed to do that to make them. Do you? </p>

<p>So yes, you should be very sorry. But not for me.</p>

<p>P.S. You touch on another false notion …that if you or I are called on our mushy, felonious thinking, then it’s somehow "argumentative’ or adversarial. To the contrary, unless you and I honestly and vigilantly pursue really KNOWING AND BEHAVING (and that means calling baloney when it’s presented as somehow a valid Christian truth) as the faithful Followers you and I claim to be, then it’s merely philosophical navel-lint pondering and picking. For you and for me, Christ wanted more than that, might we agree.</p>

22

<p>You will not win many converts with that condescending attitude, I’m sorry to say. I’m quite familiar with the Scripture you cite, as well as the interpretation of it you adhere to, so I don’t need to check and “report back.”</p>

<p>But let me ask you this–do you insist that “real” Christians must believe in “young Earth” creation, or can we believe that it happened a few million years ago?</p>

23

<p>Sorry. It’s not mine to convert anyone. Simply share the truth. If you find that condescending then you should examine the message vs. your opinion. Conviction makes me feel lesser because I am. Especially when that is His conviction of what I’ve screwed up on. </p>

<p>No, you do not have to answer to me. But answer, we all must. </p>

<p>The answer to your question is no. I don’t insist anything. But He does. He is insistant that you and I really work at understanding why we are convicted and knowing HIS Truth. And getting beyond our own opinions. Conviction is not a great feeling, we agree. Ask any convict, lest there be any doubt of this.</p>

<p>Now to your question …according to the Scriptural Word of God …what is HIS answer?</p>

<p>And more so, what irrefutable evidence do you have to the contrary? I know the answer to #1, but you can help w/ #2.</p>

24

<p>

Let me address this comment, not to defend my view nor to edify the specific topic of this thread of trying reconcile the overwhelming secularity of the Ivies with prospective Christian student matriculation and/or on-campus development. Rather, this is about the common, abundantly misunderstood tone and underlying logic of Hunt’s reaction and response to my notion that literal, even conservative, radical, extreme biblical interpretation is front and central to every Christian, whether we/he/she like it or not. </p>

<p>Hunt’s implication is that my view is narrow, unattractive and even "condescending (i.e. looking “down” upon others including him/her obviously), implicitly wrong perhaps, and certainly off-base from his/her spin on Holy Scripture. And that it was most definitely exclusive, elitist, and repellent to those in need of “conversion.” And specifically, he/she fails to grasp the essential notion that crystal clear conviction about the Creation is critically important to diminishing confusion about Christianity. When one looks seriously at the issue, there is zero doubt, from an orthodox Christian viewpoint, that Creation as described and defined in Genesis is in total contradiction to the theory of evolution (note: not facts, just theory …there is no way to “prove” evolution, unlike being able to do so for Genesis Creation. But I digress for this is not to dissect or discuss that issue either.) I’m confident many in today’s luke-warm, feel-good pursuit of Christian faith would quickly, fully agree with Hunt.</p>

<p>But now to my point that is merely a refresher from Philosophy and Logic 101.</p>

<p>Hunt’s statement and his/her implications, while intended to portray a more open, gentle, loving, accepting concept of Christ and his Christianity, and that there are many interpretations (there are, for sure) …are somehow less or even non-dogmatic than my explanation. Several points:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>His/hers is just as dogmatic, i.e. suggesting that somehow the only true way to do this is anything but one True way. </p></li>
<li><p>To Believers, while his/hers is obviously a confused and ultimately false truth, i.e. that evolution and the Genesis Creation may some how be partnered, accommodated, combined. They simply are irreconcilable with each other.</p></li>
<li><p>That kind of statement of belief is no less condescending and offensive to Believers than mine is to him/her. </p></li>
<li><p>But in the end, only one of us can be correct, i.e. truthrul. There cannot be multiple truths. And here’s the difference …We can all read and understand the Bible. And if we are Believers, that is God’s Word. It’s THE TRUTH, not A Truth. It is our basis of faith. Conversely, to believe otherwise is based upon what? We all know evolution and its tenants have been around for centuries, was popularized by Darwin, and embraced by scientists dying for a non-God theory of where we came from along with all else. And the implied condescension of evolutionists is that somehow Genesis is poetic, symbolic, or simply myth and that those who believe it are somehow simple, dare we say less evolved in their thinking. In other words, evolution is merely another religion, muddled with a few provable facts.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>So, yes, believe what we will. But realize that in the end, there will be only one that can be …True. Otherwise, it’s not.</p>

25

<p>Here’s what I usually tell people who are concerned about political views at a campus and how it might affect their Christian beliefs:</p>

<p>“I don’t think God is concerned over who is going to win the election or which party is better. He didn’t send Jesus to die for the Republican Party, he sent Jesus to save lives.”</p>

26

<p>GOD is everywhere and in everything:) Just attend wherever you are accepted and enjoy:)
P.S. I hate it when people automatically assume that if one is Christian that one is closeminded. I have met very closeminded atheists and liberals. To be openminded is a personality trait that is not necessarily dependent on one’s religious affiliation.</p>

27

<p>

This is because these institutions of higher learning employ logical thinkers.</p>

<p>I have heard, though, that JC frequents the frathouse keggers at Dartmouth!</p>

28

<p>Whistle Pig, your posts are condescending because of their tone, not their content. Just as a tip, for example, don’t tell people to go read the Scripture and report back.</p>

<p>And sorry, you really don’t get to say that your interpretation of the Scripture is clear and simple truth, while mine is “spin.” That’s pretty condescending, too.</p>

29

<p>I’m going to preface my entire post by saying I’m an atheist and a liberal, but one who also believes religious life is very important for most people and should be available on most college campuses</p>

<p>i know this conversation is about Ivies, but I just want to relate it to where I’m going to school next year: Smith. Smith is arguably one of the most liberal/secular/gay colleges in the US. This does not mean that religion isn’t present for those who want it. There are Catholic services, mosque services, temple services, and other Christian churches all around the area. I don’t understand why the school itself impedes on anyone’s ability to be a practicing Christian/muslim/whatever. Sure, you might have people who don’t believe what you do, but that’s ok. If you are truly strong in your belief, that shouldn’t matter. As long as you can freely practice your religion(and I"m sure you can at ANY Ivy), you will be fine.</p>

30

<p>Smith eliminated the chaplains, rocket6louise. I think that you are hardly in a position that your school fosters religious life. And the Catholic services, from what I’ve seen on the Smith sub-forum, are hardly Catholic. More like UU or something.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a total lie in every sense of the word. I constantly hear about incredibly offensive tension between the abstinence group at Harvard and some of the progressives on campus, which from all accounts I have read has not been started because one group is disrespectful in particular, but rather because of mere ideological difference.</p>

<p>To say that people respect others is absurd. Whether they should is another question altogether. For example, a creationist would not be respected at most universities, regardless of how respectful he is.</p>

<p>That being said, the comment that Princeton was the most religion-friendly was undoubtedly correct. Not only is the ORL well-funded and incredibly active (the Christian groups have many hundreds of students each, and other religious groups (or denomination-specific chaplaincies) are of course also very active), the dialogue is always open on campus if you want it. In addition, the level of disrespect for religious people is the smallest I have ever encountered in my schooling/life. Furthermore, the town has churches of all denominations all over the place.</p>

31

<p>I think one point that’s emerging here is that the Ivies, and most schools, will be respectful and tolerant of religious people and their views, but that respect and tolerance will decline (at least somewhat) to the extent that those views are seen as extreme in the context of that school. So, if you are a typical mainline Protestant or Catholic who believes in God and who goes to church, you will probably never feel disrespected or attacked at any of these colleges. If, on the other hand, you don’t believe in evolution, for example, you will have more issues, because at most of those schools this will be seen as an extreme view. The same is true for political views–you may find it’s comfortable enough to be a Republican at an Ivy League school–but you may find it less comfortable if you argue that global climate change is a fraud (again, for example).
This is something worth understanding about any college or any other context–and it makes it worthwhile investigating what the prevailing tone is at the college, and how important it is to you to fit in.</p>

32

<p>That is true, Hunt, but I did want to clarify your use of examples.</p>

<p>I know that you included the proper caveat, but it is crucial to remember that the examples you listed are factual in nature – global warming exists or does not exist independent of religious truth, evolution as well, and so forth. I know that there are religious overtones, but they are scientific in a way that the existence of God is not.</p>

<p>So, your post is totally correct – but the “extreme” views do not have to be a correct/incorrect view on something that is objective, but rather on something totally unverifiable (gay marriage, existence of God, etc.).</p>

33

<p>I don’t think there’s a college in this nation where believing in the existence of God would be viewed as an extreme position–although I guess there are quite a few where denying the existence of God would be an extreme view.</p>

34

<p>This exchange ^^^ with all due respect to the perpetrator, is like sipping pablum mixed in cold, day-old coffee. Ramblings about little. It may be beneficial to focus it a bit more, starting with Hunt’s thought …

Try saying same but subsituting what Christians would proclaim, using either of the other God-heads …Jesus Christ! Or Holy Spirit/Ghost!!</p>

<p>Exposes how silly and sad such a statement, presumably from a follower of Christ can be, notably w/in the context of this thread is. btw, Baelor, it could and should be argued by Christians that virtually none of Hunt’s feelings, opinions about Ivies and “most schools” is truth. Zilch.</p>

<p>This is not about being argumentative but rather calling contentions such as these what they are. And what they are not.</p>

35

<p>Whistle Pig, they are ramblings about reality. Come join us here.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In the appropriate situation.</p>

<p>Please take your bizarro Christianity somewhere else. I only subscribe to the true Church, so, no, I don’t agree with you on basically anything other than the Trinity, if you even believe that.</p>

36

<p>I can’t tell now whether you guys are fighting with me or with each other.</p>

<p>But I will say that your Christianity is of a sort that will cause you to denounce the beliefs of other Christians as lies, then by all means, don’t go to an Ivy League school. You will get a chilly reception. But you will find that there are many people at Ivy League schools who consider themselves to be Christians, who believe in all three persons of the Trinity, and do not find that they are outcasts among the student body.</p>

37

<p>I’d far rather have a Baelor on my college campus than a Whistle Pig, that’s for sure. Baelor may be quite conservative both socially and politically, but he’s not going about evangelizing and proselytizing to other people. He follows his own convictions and that’s that. THAT’s what gets a poor reception among people, and for good reason. If I wanted your opinion about Jesus Christ, I’d ask you, but til then, keep it to yourself. I find WP’s assertion that he has “The Truth” offensive and it makes me roll my eyes at him.</p>

38

<p>Hunt, you seem to not understand the concept of holding a belief.</p>

<p>If I believed that other people were correct or were telling the “Truth,” I would believe what they believe. It’s inherent in holding a belief that you reject others as “lies” or whatever bizarre extreme you want to call it.</p>

<p>For the record, I haven’t gotten a chilly reception at Princeton. In fact, I would say that, oh, the entirety of humanity pretty much agrees with me on my last paragraph. On the other hand, I am always open to listening to others – I just don’t necessarily agree with them. But even that is not a prerequisite. I know people who are well-liked and who don’t make any effort to seek other views.</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>No, not really. One can hold a belief for oneself that one doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to others.</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>WP, there’s not a college in this nation where believing in the existence of Jesus Christ would be viewed as an extreme position (well, we’ll leave out Yeshiva U for right now, but you know what I mean). What IS the extreme position is the absolute certainty that one knows the absolute truth and that all other religions and belief systems are unequivocally wrong and that you were just enough of a special snowflake that you got the absolute truth. Most sane people realize that what people believe is largely a function of what family they were born in. It just so happens that this person was born into the McNamara family and that person into the Goldberg family (and so forth). Really, are you that special of a snowflake that you know for sure you got it right? You’ve got no proof. None.</p>