Talk:Patrick Henry College

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Wikipedia seems to have plenty to make a full-scale article

It seems that Wikipedia has a crazy snarky article already to begin with... this place seems to be insanely qualified for our mission... who wants to help me expand the article?! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Necro-editing much? Replying to a five year old comment by a long gone editor ain't exactly rational. Pippa (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement of faith

There are many organizations with this sort of thing (e.g., The UCCF). The question is, how far can you take the implicit specifics. I.e., can you really make the leap from "I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God" to "I believe gays should be stoned (well, it helps, that's all I'm saying!}"? It's just that not every individual may agree with those specific beliefs, even if they have signed up to the general case of it. It would just be a reductio ad absurdum, but in the fallacious sense, to say someone signing up to a statement of faith is automatically a homophobic YEC. ^moral 02:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I switched it to the Statement of Biblical Worldview, which holds specifically: "Human sexuality is a great blessing created by God to be enjoyed within the context of a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman; any sexual conduct outside the parameters of marriage is sin", and switched the text to state that it's simply a sin. The text also states: "All those who have been saved from the penalty of sin are new creations in Christ", which indicates that there are "penalties of sin". Of course, what are those penalties? The Statement stays silent about it... The "should be stoned" notion was just SPOV... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As for how far we can take the implicit signing? Well, they've apparently fired a few different people for failing to uphold the views, even when they're perfectly valid Christian viewpoints for non-Americoprotestant dogmas. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to baptismal regeneration is not uniquely American; the Church of Scotland denies it as well, as well as other denominations with their roots in the more radical strands of the Reformation — Calvinism, to be precise, which makes Patrick Henry College's treatment of Prof. Noe all the more amusing. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)