Confession of a Biola Student

[Cooleo21587]

Biola! And biola is credited, great bible education.

[fallinforyou123]

Hmm I;m applying to both. Sister's at biola. Which one? ha

[muhscone22]

Hahaha, Ok I'm from Biola but that was funny!

[kwalityc]

BU...YOU KNOW!

[pinkspacefish]

i go to Biola and i support this song. i honest don't think that APU and Biola are that different from each other

[RwatJ]

@pinkspacefish

no. there is a huge difference between these two

Biola is not credited.

[marvy3]

lol ! i go to Biola and i luv this vid haha

[boxrokmysox]

he recorded it from his moniter :O

[meganobrien09]

you do know that most of the lyrics are making fun of APU's own stereotypes right? so we're poking fun at ourselves too. it's just a fun song of laughing at all the funny stereotypes. if biola did a song like this about APU i think it would be absolutely hilarious.

[melaknee29]

how Christian of you to poke fun at another school.

[Cinni5567]

This was all done in fun as a part of orientation weekend fall of 2009 at opening chapel.

[aznkent29]

hahahaha!!! this must suck for biola!! the administrators must have felt embarassed after this!

lol i go to hope international university, and its a good school.......is biola a good university??? cuz this student seems to regret going to biola...haha! how is biola like???? =)

[Chozengirl1290]

First of all, the person doing this song was not actually a Biola student, he was just doing it for APU's chapel. But, i am a current Biola student, and i absolutely love going there and it's a great school with everything a student could want at a Christian campus, and a plus is that the campus is beautiful! :) I love it there, but APU is a good school as well. I actually have friends that go there, and they are both great school's to choose from! :) I had a hard time choosing between the two.

[aznkent29]

lol wut the......thats weird!!! and how do u know this info??

did he do this to show that apu is better than biola?? thats awkward.....y would anyone want to do this in the first place?????

[aznkent29]

i c......thats so weird though..... an apu student doing this song at an apu chapel meeting......thats weird! oh well w/e..

[Chozengirl1290]

i know what you mean, i was pretty surprised myself when i first heard about it. But like you sad, whatever, it's just supposed to be all fun and games.

[aznkent29]

lol how did u even find out about this?

[Chozengirl1290]

my friend that was there told me about it, and i forgot about it until i was just looking around youtube and stumbled upon it once again. And then here i am now commenting.

[silvereagle51203]

So I heard that your guy's rivalry is worse than UW WSU and Oregon OSU... I thought that would be pretty difficult, but apparently APU Biola could pull it off lol.

[jamieclaire09]

Why is there so much hate between Biola and APU? We are brothers and sisters in Christ, right? Then we should act like it. Just because we have different preferences on where we want to go school doesn't make one school better than the other. Am I the only who feels this way?

[silvereagle51203]

yes

[NightRaven81]

It's not a violent rivalry. More fun and mocking than anything.

[tkjaros]

NightRaven81, I didn't know Christians mock each other.

[NightRaven81]

@tkjaros you don't jokingly mock your friends?

[ohmygawdwhat]

Why are the APU kids so arrogant and bitter in their mockings?

[Azusa2012]

Hey, just so all you BIOLA people know, even though there's the whole rivalry thing, we love you here at APU. We really do ; ] Don't let this song bug you; it's just a funny song that's sung during orientation week about how much we love our school.

Love and respect to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[tkjaros]

Azusa2012, I can feel the love in " we really do ; ] "

Nobody likes being pranked or made fun of when they are the ones being attacked.

[savageninjachickens]

Imposter, He's Azusa, it's written on the wall, He thinks Azusa is better because he's never been to Biola.  Lyrics=Lies... FAIL

[archon88]

Assuming one counts morons such as Craig and Moreland as philosophers at all, which is rather an insult to the tradition of Plato, Descartes, Spinoza and Kant.

[tkjaros]

Archon88, sure Craig and Moreland aren't as popular as the greats that you mentioned, but you have to give credit where credit is due. Craig travels the world to defend the gospel and does so marvelously.

[archon88]

Philosophy isn't a popularity contest. And perhaps Craig "defends the gospel" as well as that could be done (which is not saying much), but apologetics is hardly worthy of being called philosophy.

[tkjaros]

Archon88, I understand philosophy isn't a popularity contest, but YOU happened to mention some of the most prominent philosophers in the history of philosophy. Why didn't you mention lesser known philosophers such as Jean le Rond d'Alembert?

You think defending Christianity is easy, huh? Could you help explain to me the concept of the Trinity? Perhaps how God became man?

Maybe we should not call it apologetics, but philosophy of religion.

[archon88]

I didn't claim it was easy, merely that it wasn't worthy of being called philosophy because it is ultimately not a productive enterprise. Philosophy aims at the discovery of truth, whereas apologetics aims to convince others that a pre-established dogma is true; open-ended pursuit of truth plays no part. As Voltaire said, there is an eternal rivalry between those who seek the truth and those who are sure they have it.

[archon88]

There are infinitely many pointless intellectual shell games that can be played, of which apologetics is one. Consider the sheer waste of Aquinas's Summa - an entire lifetime dedicated to meaningless non-questions which add nothing to our understanding of the Universe or the welfare of our species. Contrast the legacy of a millennium of medieval Christian philosophy with that of 400 years of modern science, and there's no doubt which is the real intellectual enterprise.

[archon88]

Of course it isn't easy to "explain" incoherent or nonsensical concepts; it's impossible - the very design of such ideas precludes understanding. Such are the manufactured mysteries of obscurantism and esotericism.

Philosophy of religion is a field of academic philosophy quite distinct from apologetics: the former is essentially secular, aiming at natural explanations of religion, whereas the latter is explicitly sectarian, defendin a particular religious view exclusively.

[archon88]

And if you insist on pressing the issue, I think d'Alembert is a perfectly respectable philosopher - as a proponent of the Enlightenment, a physicist and a philosophe I do of course admire him, and I don't doubt that his contributions to human knowledge (especially in relation to the wave equation) will far outlive those of Craig et al. I chose the names that I did not only because they were more familar, but because those thinkers made genuine & original attempts to understand the world.

[tkjaros]

You choose the names because "they were more familiar." Maybe you say that the term "popular" could be used in place of "familiar"?

Genuine attempts eh? Do you happen to know what Descartes purpose behind his meditations was? What was his goal?

[archon88]

Re popularity: OK, but my point was that I chose them not solely because of their renown, but because their thought represents a sincere attempt to reach truth (as with less known thinkers like d'Alembert), not merely a defence of the religious status quo of their times, as with apologetics (contrasted with Craig etc).

I don't understand your point about Descartes, but he was a pioneer, not an apologist for received/established opinions.

[tkjaros]

I follow on the popularity topic, now.

Re: sincere attempts to reach truth, what are your thoughts on the very non-philosophical Lee Strobel. Hahahaha Do you consider him a "pioneer" because he was sincere in seeking truth?

Descartes' goal was to eventually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God existed. He was a Roman Catholic who saw the crises of the Church (indulgences and wickedness among the clergy) and wanted to show it reasonable that faith in God is good & true.

[archon88]

My opinion of Descartes follows from that of Schopenhauer, that he was a great pioneer, but in his doctrines there is not one word of truth. It's possible to be sincere and wrong - the difference is that in Descartes' day there simply wasn't a better alternative to such futile argumentation. Craig and Moreland, coming after Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, Dirac and so many others, do not have this excuse.

[tkjaros]

I'm sorry but I don't see the mutual exclusion of science and faith. I can't recall Craig saying he disbelieved in macro-evolution.

It's possible to believe that God created the universe and that he did it through the process of macro-evolution. The error comes when the popular scientist no longer plays scientist, but philosopher, when he comes to certain metaphysical conclusions, i.e. the existence of God, and people listen to him because he is a scientist. Science can't answer all questions.

[archon88]

Where has evolution come into this? Craig is a fellow of the Discovery Institute (CSC), with its trojan horse of cryptic pseudo-creationism, so I wouldn't hold him up as an exemplar of religious reconciliation with science.

And the "process of macro-evolution" has nothing to do with the origin of the Universe; it accounts solely for the diversity of living species.

Where have I claimed that science can answer every question?

[tkjaros]

Fascinating! The trinity and the incarnation are "incoherent" and "impossible" to explain, yet you wrote that defending the gospel, which faces such objections, is "not saying much" (meaning that it is easy to do).

I don't hold to either obscurantism or esotericism, as I believe that even the average joe citizen can understand 1 essence, 3 persons.

You've got to be BSing me that phil of religion is "essentially secular." Did you go to APU or a secular school?

[archon88]

By "not saying much" I meant not that it was easy to do (in truth, it cannot be done), but that doing it "as well as could be done" was not saying much, i.e. that the best in the field still isn't particularly impressive.

And if it's so trivial to understand, why are Christians no closer to agreement on it now than at any point in the past? More generally, Protestant, Catholic and (Eastern/Oriental) Orthodox theologies show no signs of convergence on such matters.

[tkjaros]

It seems that you have a bad taste in your mouth about Christian apologetics because you, who admire discovering truth, don't seem to support it when it comes to Christian theology. You wrote, "it cannot be done." Maybe you should be more consistent with your beliefs.

[archon88]

I daresay that the discovery of truth isn't possible within the constraints of Scientology or Ufology either - does that make me dogmatic, or merely realistic? There is, as the adage goes, such a thing as being so open-minded your brains fall out. When a system of thought fails consistently, there is no dogmatism in discarding it, but only in holding to it regardless of its failures.

[tkjaros]

I agree with you, and Chesterton, as the saying goes. Yet I think it to be the case that Scientology and Christianity are claiming different things. Hubbard didn't claim to be God, Jesus of Nazareth did. It can be show that some systems are impossible to test. But the beauty of Christianity, is that you CAN test to see its validity. Was Jesus right or wrong? What does history tell us?

[archon88]

Interesting that you think religious claims can be falsifiable. What do you mean by Jesus being right or wrong? About what? All I see is two millennia of haunting silence, with scant signs of a Second Coming, despite the occasional "Great Disappointment".

[tkjaros]

Sad to see that you didn't learn your Christian history at APU or wherever you went. All orthodox Christians accept the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Jerusalem, and the First Council of Ephesus. The Council of Chalcedon is accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants. It seems that your assertion of "no signs of convergence" pertaining to the incarnation and the Trinity doesn't hold ground.

[archon88]

Have I missed something, or have Arians and Unitarians suddenly accepted the doctrine of the trinity? I assume you class them as heretics.

Regarding convergence - I meant this in a more general sense: e.g. Rome and Constantinople still can't agree on the filioque clause - one sentence that has caused much grief over more than a millennium.

[archon88]

Add the thousands of other theological discrepancies no closer to being resolved, and the plethora of new sects springing up everywhere, and you have a theology in chaos.

[tkjaros]

Note my words "all orthodox Christians." Where we currently disagree is on the question, "What does it mean to be a Christian?" Suppose person A answers, "Follow Jesus." Person B says, "Follow Jesus and Mohammed, the last prophet of Allah."

I would argue that person B is not a Christian. Wouldn't you agree?

It seems that we can make judgement calls.

The Arians and Unitarians hold to positions that were overwhelmingly voted false back in the first 500 years of Christianity.

[archon88]

"Voted false" - this is fantastic. The person who is so keen on truth being immutable and eternal apparently thinks it is subject to democratic election. Pray tell, what result would a vote on geocentrism/heliocentrism have yielded circa 500AD? Why on earth would any rational person trust a vote of iron age religious prelates - people ignorant to an extent neither of us can possibly imagine in the 21st century - on any matter of importance?

[tkjaros]

A truth may be immutable and eternal, but the trouble comes in identifying it.

I'd say let's open the debate back up to geocentrism/heliocentrism. Similarly, let's open the debate back up to unitarianism/trinitarianism and the hypostatic union of Christ. Christians should, or at least for you, the elite Christian minds, be able to defend themselves on these two positions, as they did back in the first 500 years.

[archon88]

For your sake I'll assume you were being facetious; as a physicist I assure you geocentrism/heliocentrism hasn't been a subject of serious debate since the 17th century. Since the centre of mass of the earth-sun system is actually inside the sun (the sun is that much heavier than the earth) the earth orbits the sun, not vice versa. This is 17th century (Newtonian) physics.

[tkjaros]

As college kid with an interest in theology and world religions, among other things, I assure you the unitarianism/trinitarianism and hypostatic union of Christ hasn't been a subject of serious debate since the 5th century.

;-)

Why do you hold that certain conclusions 1,500 years ago must be wrong because they come from an "iron age religious prelate"?

[archon88]

I'd go further, and say they've never been a subject of *serious* debate at all - how could any rigorous, objective method decide whether the doctrine of the trinity is true or not?

But this overlooks the key point: the bishops who participated in these ecumenical councils were people who, by our standards, knew nothing about anything of importance. Would you entrust your life to their opinions on medicine? Would it reassure you if they had a vote?

[archon88]

Moreover, formal debates and votes have little bearing on truth - our best guide to truth is a consensus of informed experts, which by necessity develops over time as knowledge accumulates. A vote on any issue based on the knowledge that existed in the iron age is simply beneath irrelevance.

[tkjaros]

Newton & Einstein will eventually become "Iron Age" if this universe continues to exist. You cannot use the argument that what they believe is just "out-dated."

To the contrary, if Jesus existed 4 BC- 30 AD, wouldn't the experts on who Jesus was be the ones that lived at the same time as he did? So the best experts were the ones closest to that time, not the ones we have today. Follow? Perhaps you need to use a different name, like Darwin or Newton. 2,000 years passes. Who are the experts then?

[archon88]

The argument is not that they are old (strictly speaking, age is irrelevant), but that their knowledge (the knowledge generally available in the iron age) was so limited that they had essentially no chance of arriving at any accurate understanding of reality. My point about medicine was that you simply wouldn't trust their expertise in any other field - why attach so much importance to a few votes held over a millennium ago?

[archon88]

By contrast, an ancient mathematical proposition like Pythagoras' Theorem is no more in doubt today than it was then, because a formal proof has been provided for it (and we didn't even need a vote).

[tkjaros]

My word choice of "vote" was poor. I should have wrote that it was vastly agreed upon that God is one essence with three persons. By vastly, I mean 99.8%. Over 300 people, and only two dissented.

[archon88]

Yes, this was the outcome of a single vote circa 1500 years ago, and no doubt if the hierarchs assembled at these councils had voted differently (for whatever reason), the majority of Christians today would believe differently. The point is that the propositions they debated are not (that I can see) linked by any rigorous argument to observable reality (or abstract entities as in mathematics), so they are not objectively meaningful.

[archon88]

Like the doctrines of any religious sect, they are extremely important to those who buy into it, and at best mildly amusing to those who don't. What they are not is a reliable description of any objectively-accessible reality (how on earth could you determine objectively whether God exists in three persons, as opposed to one, or sixty-one?)

[archon88]

This is why I say that theology has no objective warrant for the propositions it asserts to be true. At most, it can say what an ancient (Biblical) author thought on a subject, but this hardly establishes whether that author's opinion is actually true - it's a kind of textual criticism and exegesis with a hugely inflated sense of its own importance.

[tkjaros]

I find your insult to religion not amusing. These were serious issues, enough that people died over what they believed, and still do! Take for example the terror the Nero brought upon first century Christians.

Santa Claus punched Arius at the Council of Nicea, hahaha.

The objective method was to see if the statements Jesus made were valid. Was he who he claimed to be? Could that be a reasonable position to hold?

[archon88]

"people died over what they believed" - you vastly underestimate the scale of human credulity. Given a sufficiently persuasive proponent, (some) people can be brought to believe in (and die for) just about anything - witness the success of Tamil nationalist ideology fused with a kind of Marxism in convincing people to blow themselves up in Sri Lanka, or Japanese nationalism/emperor worship being used to inspire Kamikaze pilots...

[tkjaros]

"by our standards, knew nothing about anything of importance"

What is your standard? What do you consider important? There is more to this life than medicine, Archon88. People die eventually. 3 minutes before you die (painlessly), do you want the doctor or the theologian? I'll take the theologian.

[archon88]

I find your coyness about the importance of medicine alarming, and I don't doubt it would disappear the moment a serious illness visited itself upon you or someone you loved (which I in no way desire, I merely wish to point out the scale of self-deception here). In such an eventuality you would soon realise the futility of theology.

And for the record, I don't particularly want a theologian near me at any point of my life, least of all the last few moments.

[tkjaros]

I am very much in favor of medicine. Jesus said to help the sick! I think some of the first major advances in medicine, and the spread of hospitals in the Middle East have been because Christians have been behind it.

The problem I have is when medicine takes a backseat to a more important issue like the nature of man or where we are headed.

You see, I believe in eternal life. B/c I believe that, I think medicine (finite) only does so much in comparison to living eternally (infinite) w/ God.

[archon88]

I suppose it's ironic that the sick are best healed not by prayers and exorcisms, but by evil, "Darwinist", materialist medicine. And I doubt the closure of public baths throughout the Roman empire (by Christians) was an inspired measure in defence of public health.

At any rate, to put his vision of the "eternal" ahead of the very demonstrable welfare of those around him is the chief characteristic of the religious fanatic.

[sgtpepper915]

this is an unfortunate very dualistic mindset found far to often in evangelical circles. that is, that the body and soul are separate, and that the soul is of higher importance. i tend to think they are far more intricately connected than that.

[tkjaros]

Sgtpepper915, I think Christianity is both the immediate time and the time to come. The Kingdom of God is here but will be in full later. Paul tells us of the resurrection of the dead, both spirit and body.

So I agree with you, that they are more intricately connected than most believe. Most evangelicals believe they will be in heaven for eternity, when Scripture seems to be telling us of a new earth.

[archon88]

It's secular in the sense that, unlike confessional subjects like apologetics or theology, it does not presume any religious affiliation - a Sikh is no less capable of pursuing it than a Mormon, a Bahá'i, a Jain or an atheist.

And since you ask, my education has been completely secular (and I have no idea what APU is).

[tkjaros]

Archon88, why did you even comment on this video in the first place? The video is about the Azusa Pacific University (APU) and Biola University (which I attend) rivalry.

It's all secular until somebody declares their path of philosophy has led them to a religious belief, right? We both know the Academia has had a relativistic, anti-Christian bent. "You can believe anything you want, as long as you don't claim it's true."

[archon88]

"why did you even comment on this video in the first place?"

Fair question. You could say I have an ongoing fascination with the "parallel universe" of Christian academia, and with Craig in particular. I first heard of Biola when I watched a Youtube video of a Christian apologist who said he'd gone there, and I searched to find out more. Then I saw a comment brown-nosing Craig which I couldn't resist responding to, and you know the rest of the story...

[tkjaros]

What was the comment by "TheIrrationalAtheist"? That comment was removed.

[archon88]

It was months ago, and sadly I don't remember in any detail. The gist was that Craig and Moreland were great/exemplary philosophers, which is why I had to submit my "non placet".

[archon88]

"You can believe anything you want, as long as you don't claim it's true." I'd suggest you get your opinion of academia by actually experiencing it, not by rehashing Ravi Zacharias's silly denunciations of it. Academia is no more anti-Christian than it is anti-astrology; it is merely anti-bad-ideas. I'm a scientist, so I'm hardly sympathetic to postmodernism (despite what some claim, PoMo has little to no real influence in real academia - its proponents are literary critics with inflated egos).

[tkjaros]

Actually, I didn't get that from Zacharias. I thought of the phrase myself, as far as my knowledge goes, but went through the public school system, so I have experienced it firsthand.

[archon88]

Sorry, I was put in mind of Zacharias by your earlier use of his stock phrase "origin, meaning, morality, destiny", plus the fact that he is obsessed with the supposed evils of secular academia. You can probably tell I don't have much patience for him - I'm not so good at concealing my feelings, you could say...

And I'm interested, what were your experiences of public school?

[tkjaros]

Reflecting back, I didn't like public school. It was indoctrination instead of teaching. Now I have learned to think for myself and evaluate what people say. I can read a book, and not be swayed by whatever the author is proposing. Most people just believe whatever the last book they read was about.

Get rid of the Department of Education, and competition immediately goes up, which means the quality of teaching gets better.

[tkjaros]

You criticize the Summa from the lens of the philosopher, but maybe you have missed the importance of the Summa as a theologian.

Modern science, eh? That's really a shame that you bring that up because science really doesn't help us answer life's questions of origin, meaning, morality, or destiny. In fact, science doesn't help us become wise at all. Science is not philosophy.

[archon88]

Since my contention is that theology is a non-subject, "the importance of the Summa as a theologian" is simply irrelevant to me. It might be important in the history of Christianity, but that's another point.

And if science, the most successful enterprise in human intellectual history, can't address such questions (which I dispute) then theology, with its rather more modest track record, has an exceedingly slim chance of doing so.

[tkjaros]

Suppose that philosophers discover some truth x.

Would it not be the job, so to speak, of the followers to defend that newly discovered but eternally true x? That would seem to then fall under the category of apologetics. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "pre-established."

When Voltaire spoke, was he sure he was right about that statement?

[archon88]

Apologetics is not simply the defence of a position (this is obviously common practice throughout philosophy and science) but the stubborn defence of a dogma, whatever the evidence might say, with no real means by which one's opinion could be swayed. There's a fascinating quote from Craig to the effect that "though evidence can confirm the conviction that Christianity is true, it cannot legitimately over-rule it". That is apologetics in action.

[tkjaros]

Might I suggest that the "stubborn defense of dogma" is not because of apologetics, but because of the person presenting the arguments?

Surely Dawkins is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yahweh does not exist. It seems then, that everybody but the agnostics have a defense, or should, for what they believe.

[archon88]

I assume you are similarly convinced "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that Apollo doesn't exist, so the point is rather moot.

In any case, Dawkins himself is clear to distinguish the absolute certainty granted by formal proof (e.g. of a mathematical theorem) from the empirical certainty of a scientific proposition that has been demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I've yet to see an apologist who wasn't (eventually) dogmatic, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".

[Azusa2012]

This song is great and so much fun to sing! It was a nice touch to the freshman orientation week.

So far APU has been God-sent to this freshman!

[jamieclaire09]

Does he got to APU or something?? I'm confused. Is he for Biola or what?? His song is funny though. lol. I'm just curious if he like APU or Biola. lol.

[Kaledain]

In short what the song is saying that he is a Biola student and when he looked at what they were doing at APU he wished we was at APU instead.

[littlandrea]

He's the director of chapel worship at APU. Just some playful competition between our two schools. :-)

[dayray42]

aw that's fun, I remember the first time I saw him play that, that's hilarious.

what's maybe more hilarious, or kind of disheartening, is how people watching this throw accusations into good fun. spirituality and fun can coincide... my God is a pretty fun guy. :)

kudos for originality! that song is awesome.

[sacredrage]

It was nice when both schools were Christian. Oh well, APU has great sports and no spirituality.

Good trade off. Psh!

[GreenbergBass]

"It amuses me that this is a video representing Biola and you, an APU troll, are here on our thread complaining. Awesome."

I guess I could say the same thing?

And again, judging APU's spirituality in the way you do is disgraceful.

[scoobyisgroovy]

ha ha Brian Taylor......this was like freshman orientation it wasnt even chapel...ha ha....

[lvlancer2010]

Wow its really sad to know that this is what you guys do in chapel.

[wraycofan]

What's with APU and Biola...go get a real education at Wheaton

[ilovemyducky44]

APU IS THE BEST! this son made my day!

[hyperhobbit07]

this is amazing. :)

[BlackoutFan]

ahh... I love APU. and Brian Taylor.