Posted on 12/28/2015 11:25:02 AM PST by presidio9
A professor’s extra credit question on a recent final exam asked students whether Donald Trump … is the Anti-Christ.
Options on the multiple-choice extra credit question included: a) a fool; b) already in hell; c) a clown; d) all of the answer choices for this question are correct; e) an evil man; or f) the Anti-Christ.
The exam question was first reported by Hypeline, a project of Turning Point USA, which noted the query stemmed from Creighton University’s Dr. Fidel Fajardo-Acosta and his World Literature I: Antiquity to the Renaissance course.
Students reportedly earned five bonus points if they answered the question.
The Blaze reports that “World literature is part of Creighton’s ‘Magis Core Curriculum’ program,
-SNIP-
(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegefix.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3377767/posts?q=1&;page=51
The display starts at post #78. The back-and-forth looks a lot like yours on this thread...
We must resolve in the New Year to help people that may have aging issues, memory problems, and the like.
That's why I implore you to "be considerate". ;-)
Maybe there are "irritation triggers" in play with his "condition".
Certain phrases, etc., cause these overreactions on his part?
To be honest, I wasn't even pissed off the first time I posted to you. Irritated was more like it. So I used appropriate conversation.
The entire balance of this conversation has been all about you and your wounded feelings about being reprimanded. That and your tragic rectiphobia.
And, by all means, please continue as long if you need to. These little diversions are a nice change of pace from endless debate about which conservative isn't really a conservative all the time. So thanks for the respite.
Jesuits are not Catholic?
A buddy of mine who is southern baptist like me as well attended Spring Hill college in the 70s before he came to Ole Miss grumbled about having to attend mass frequently and the rigidity of the Jesuits in general then
That sounds Catholic to me....but in a good disciplined way
Not that I care I mean you guys have a lib pope and fairly rotten examples of academia at Notre Dame and Georgetown et al so you have your hands full
As do many religious founded schools now regardless of denomination
SMU
BELMONT
MILLSAPS
LOYOLA
BAYLOR
it’s a long assed list of religious founded schools gone to seed
I bet even Mississippi College may be on it
Oh, an old buddy of yours told you.
I see.
With evidence like that, you are clearly an expert.
What else can you tell us about the Jesuits?
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with you that most so-called "religious" institutions of higher learning have gone to seed, but that is an entirely different conversation.
I would also point out that this topic has also been touched on in this thread, but it seems that we are no longer permitted to remind people to read threads (not your fault), so I will leave it at that.
No offense to the OP but I’m with you
That statement was a Clintonian parse
At this point, about as much as two dead flies.
Your attempt to claim a Jesuit college has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is dishonest
And the friend I alluded to I’ve known since 1971 so yes I tend to believe him besides having graduated Fairhope High School in 75 on the eastern shore of Mobile bay and attending a funeral last year at the Catholic Church affiliated with the college I’m kind of familiar with it
It was once a vaunted rigorous school to be honest...more than I wanted to deal with
Jesuit college
Mass required attendance
Sounds Catholic to me
And they advertise as such too
Why not just own it?
It’s a Catholic College....with a libtard professor....whooptedo
It happens everywhere trust me.....
He forgets things, gets irritated for no apparent reason, or if he takes issue with a word or phrase that you have posted.
I think you're seeing some of that here.
We should be considerate of those with such conditions.
I've made a New Year's resolution to "help" him on FR in this difficult period of his life, and to make sure that others understand these outbursts.
Check the last 50 or so posts on this thread [starting at #78], and you'll see what I mean:
Trump once wrote Hillary Clinton would be 'great president'
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3377767/posts
It's kind of sad, actually, to see the beginning dissolution of such a once-brilliant mind. No matter! We'll do our best to help our fellow FReeper! Happy New Year! Forward! :)
The fraying bands of memory can be so cruel...
Yup.
When was Trump RC? He was raised Presbyterian. Was married in an Episcopal church. Did we miss his Catholic phase?
Lutheran-Missouri Synod: http://www.lcms.org
It's the catholic church, reformed -- to return it to the church as established by the Apostles.
I take that back. I saw it on a website called catholicvote, and it made sense to me at the time because his first wife Ivan is from a majority Roman Catholic country. Also, he attended Fordham for two years before transferring to Penn.
A little known fact about his daughter Ivanka is that she converted to Judiasm. I have no problem with that, but it would seem to be an indication that religious life was never a priority in the Trump household.
But that's not what I said, was it?
You lifted the quote out of context (which is dishonest, btw). What I said was:
"this story has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
It doesn't.
Now, let's get back to the post that you are responding to. You are angry because I pointed out that the experiences that your friend told you about hardly make you an expert in all things Jesuit. Now you double down by saying that this friend, who presumably graduated from his Jesuit college in 1975 (or thereabouts) was required to attend Mass.
No doubt this school was also not coeducational.
A lot has changed since then, and this article is about a lay professor in 2015.
Twenty years ago, when I attended what was then probably the most conservative Jesuit school in the country, Mass was certainly not required.
And, as I have pointed out on this thread more than once (RTFT), I fulfilled my religious studies requirement with two semesters of Zen Buddhism.
So, again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for sharing.
Clearly you do. My opinions obviously matter to you very much because you are determined to get the last word in -which would indicate that you have changed my mind.
To be honest, I looked at the screen name, and it never occurred to me that you are woman. Now that I realize this, you're starting to make a lot more sense.
Yes; Ivanka runs a strict orthodox Jewish household. It’s probably true that religious life wasn’t #1 in her home growing up.
I have more problems with Ivanka being chummy with Chelsea Clinton. THAT indicates an enormous lack of discernment, IMHO. Glad Ivanka isn’t the candidate.
On many levels, I do believe that the Trump family is shallow when it comes to social issues, and inherent, deep-seated discernment isn’t there. But if The Donald can stop or slow the flow of illegal immigrants, I’m on board. If he can dial back the worship of political correctness, I’m on board. If he can kick ISIS’ ass, I’m on board.
I want to see a wall built, and I agree that Donald Trump is good at building things. So there's that. For a while I believed the bs that deporting illegals was impractical. I now believe that he can and will get this done.
But I suppose that I am in the minority here on FR for thinking that, while it is definitely a major problem, immigration is not the greatest problem facing this country right now.
My main political concerns for the next chief executive are national security and the sanctity of human life. Along those lines, it is also very important to me that I never hear the name President Rodham Clinton. I do believe that Donald Trump can beat her, but then what?
I am not opposed to Donald Trump, but I am not convinced that he is the best candidate for either of these issues.
He talks tough on national security (and I like that), but he is really all over the map when it comes to policy.
On abortion, I appreciate the fact that he has experienced a conversion to the pro-life position. More and more people have in the last decade. But now that George Pataki is gone he is definitely the candidate I would depend on least to get something done to decrease the number of abortions in this country. I just don't see it as high on his priority list.
Luckily, the bulk of GOP primaries do not really begin until March, so there is plenty of time for him to clarify his position without equivocating. My personal experience with the man tells me that he can and does change his mind about things all the time -as long as no one else is demanding that he do so.
I am very concerned that the next president may be replacing as many as three Supreme Court justices, including two right-leaning ones.
I look back at the last decade, and so many things that we on the right thought could never happen have come to pass. Given the wrong set of circumstances, it is entirely possible that ten years from now a woman's "right to choose" could be expanded to the duration of her pregnancy (or even later) for any reason she desires. If that happens, I will not be consoled by the fact that there are a lot less Mexicans in this country.
Yes; the SCOTUS appointments is a huge issue. If Trump is elected, and when he’s appointing Justices, I hope he looks to the correct conservative people to help guide him in his choices. I wouldn’t completely trust him to pick great people on his own, considering his history although it appears he’s trying to do the right thing for us now. He seems to be a bit star struck, and a president needs to get past that. We already have one of them in the White Hut now.
Nothing is guaranteed. Bush appointed dreadful Harriet Miers who, fortunately, was knocked out of the running. We expected better from him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.