Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[Cow Poke]

Feel free.

I wonder in what context the idiom would be approriate though. Is it kind of like when you're searching for your glasses and can't find them no matter how much you search, and after a while you realize they've been on your head the whole time?

Lemme work on that.

[carpedm9587]

Can you demonstrate where it's actually being taught as a doctrine? Just because somebody expresses their personal opinion does not a teaching or doctrine make.

As I said, CP, there is no evidence of these scriptural defenses in the formal documents of the SBC. It appears widely in the public writings of many, many of the early leaders of the SBC and the leaders and theologians and trustees of the seminaries. Yes, you are technically correct that they were "speaking as individuals." But they were speaking publicly and were known to be leaders in the SBC. And it is a bit hard for me to believe that these ideas did not appear in their classrooms and make their way to the pulpits of the various communities. Given that many of these views were widely held in the south, it is not a position that would have been rejected by most of the people in the churches. Alas, there is no documentation of sermons or lectures given that I can find, which renders all of this speculative. But I think to suggest it did not happen (i.e., these scriptural defense taught in seminaries and preached from pulpits) requires an interesting stretch of the imagination, especially given the basis for the founding of the SBC.

My point, exactly!

They are entitled to their personal opinions, yes, however wrong those may be.

Of course I am!

Then Tassman should have said that, rather than imply that it's an official SBC position, like he did in the quote I showed from 2014. You realize that's what this is all about, yes?

Which is why I noted that I find a degree of truth in both of your positions. "Technically," you are correct. But your position, IMO, is too strong. It leaves the impression that these scriptural defenses were not put forward by the SBC, and I think the evidence suggests it is very likely they were a strong thread in SBC communities.

Of course you do! You seem hypersensitive to racism across the board.

I think all people of good conscience should be "hypersensitive" any time a person or group is unjustly disadvantaged, whether it is by race, creed, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I'm not. It's wrong, inexcusable... the "Racism is wrong regardless of party, religion, blah blah blah...." is simply my way of... it's WRONG. Period. But that never seems to be enough. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, it's wrong if either political OR independent party does it...... but there's always some goofus who, no matter how much you say it, will still find a reason to get their panties in a twist.

Perhaps because there are too many people too quick to dismiss incidents of these kinds of injustice, and to ignore the long-term impacts of these acts. We live in an age when racism is again on the rise, and an age when many of the historical impacts of racism have still not been addressed and continue to ripple forward in time. I am impatient with the young person who says "I'm in this situation because my ancestors were enslaved" without lifting a figure to change their circumstance. I am equally impatient with the person who says, "it's in the past and I'm not responsible" without taking a moment to acknowledge the privilege they enjoy because of that past. Both people are saying true things. Both people are refusing to look at what is and ask themselves, "what can I do to help make this situation better?"

[Cow Poke]

As I said, CP, there is no evidence of these scriptural defenses in the formal documents of the SBC.

Ya got THAT right!

It appears widely in the public writings of many, many of the early leaders of the SBC and the leaders and theologians and trustees of the seminaries.

They are entitled to their personal opinions.

Yes, you are technically correct that they were "speaking as individuals."

You bet, but you won't be able to stop there.

But they were speaking publicly and were known to be leaders in the SBC. And it is a bit hard for me to believe that these ideas did not appear in their classrooms and make their way to the pulpits of the various communities.

So, assumptions, rather than evidence.

Given that many of these views were widely held in the south, it is not a position that would have been rejected by most of the people in the churches. Alas, there is no documentation of sermons or lectures given that I can find, which renders all of this speculative. But I think to suggest it did not happen (i.e., these scriptural defense taught in seminaries and preached from pulpits) requires an interesting stretch of the imagination, especially given the basis for the founding of the SBC.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that I said it never happened. I have maintained very stubbornly that there was no official teaching of the SBC on the matter, contrary to Tassman's ignorant claim.

Which is why I noted that I find a degree of truth in both of your positions. "Technically," you are correct.

Truth is truth.

But your position, IMO, is too strong. It leaves the impression that these scriptural defenses were not put forward by the SBC, and I think the evidence suggests it is very likely they were a strong thread in SBC communities.

You're being a real horses's patootie in this. AGAIN, you have no grasp of the fact that the SBC - the organization - exists for the primary purpose of sending missionaries. The "Cooperative Program". It is a "bottom up" organization that does not formalize doctrine. The member churches decide that, and establish seminaries.

The SBC never had any policy, teaching, doctrine or statement that endorsed the misrepresentation of the "curse of Ham" as justification for the sin of slavery. THAT was the jackass claim of Tassman.

[carpedm9587]

Ya got THAT right!

They are entitled to their personal opinions.

You bet, but you won't be able to stop there.

So, assumptions, rather than evidence.

I have acknowledged, several times, that I have only circumstantial evidence that defending slavery on the basis of the bible happened in seminaries and from the pulpit, based on the writings of the leaders producing those preachers and teaching those classes. I have also acknowledged that there is no trace that I can find of a scriptural defense of slavery in the official SBC documents.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that I said it never happened. I have maintained very stubbornly that there was no official teaching of the SBC on the matter, contrary to Tassman's ignorant claim.

Truth is truth.

Again, I have not claimed "you said it never happened." I have noted that your position is a bit too strong, leaving an essentially false impression. There is no official scriptural defense in offical SBC documents that I can find. There is significant cause, IMO, to believe it was taught in the SBC seminaries and very likely preached from SBC pulpits.

AGAIN, you have no grasp of the fact that the SBC - the organization - exists for the primary purpose of sending missionaries. The "Cooperative Program". It is a "bottom up" organization that does not formalize doctrine. The member churches decide that, and establish seminaries.

I don't think anything I said disagreed with this, so I'm not sure why you see fit to emphasize it. Just so you know, I was aware of this.

The SBC never had any policy, teaching, doctrine or statement that endorsed the misrepresentation of the "curse of Ham" as justification for the sin of slavery. THAT was the jackass claim of Tassman.

So I guess it comes down to what each of you mean by "the SBC." As you note, it is a bottom-up organization, yet it has an overarching charter, and is nationally organized with a website and everything! And while seminaries are apparently spawned by churches, as best I can tell there are only six of them nationwide and they produce all of the ministers and missionaries. So if the "SBC" means "the national organization with the official documents," then you are 100% correct. If "the SBC" means "the member churches and their leadership," then Tass is likely correct - it as likely taught and preached in SBC seminaries and from SBC pulpits - though I acknowledge that all we have is circumstantial evidence of it (so far).

I guess I'm a bit surprised you disagree with this (assuming you do). Given the SBC statement on its history with racism, why would it be out of the norm to expect that such scriptural links, for a community that is VERY scripturally based, would not have been made?

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm pretty sure I hid the nail right on the head. There's no justification for you to claim that Jesus actions were hypocritical unless you can show that his actions were in conflict with his own personal views on what constituted loving behavior.

That his actions happened to be in conflict with what you personally consider to be loving behavior doesn't make him a hypocrite, not even close.

After some thought, I have to admit, you're right. We all judge "hypocrisy" against our own moral frameworks in situations like this. My moral framework does not include "name calling" and "trashing a synagogue" and "ridiculing" as "loving" behavior. That does not mean I don't think we call a thing what it is, but we can do that without denigration and ridicule. Doing that only lowers the name-caller to the level of the name-called. That this kind of behavior is increasingly widely accepted and even modeled by our leaders is a travesty, IMO.

But it is my opinion. I think Jesus failed to consistently live up to his own ideal. That didn't make him evil. It just made him human. We all fail to live up to our own ideals.

[Cow Poke]

So I guess it comes down to what each of you mean by "the SBC." As you note, it is a bottom-up organization, yet it has an overarching charter, and is nationally organized with a website and everything!

"The SBC" has, as has been mentioned numerous times, the "Baptist Faith & Message". There is not, nor has there ever been, a scriptural rationale advanced by the SBC defending slavery, even though all other items in the BF&M are heavily supported with the scriptures pertaining to them.

And while seminaries are apparently spawned by churches, as best I can tell there are only six of them nationwide and they produce all of the ministers and missionaries. So if the "SBC" means "the national organization with the official documents," then you are 100% correct. If "the SBC" means "the member churches and their leadership," then Tass is likely correct - it as likely taught and preached in SBC seminaries and from SBC pulpits - though I acknowledge that all we have is circumstantial evidence of it (so far).

I think the vast majority of slave owners just continued selling cotton and maintaining their wealth, for which slaves were seen as a necessary evil, and weren't focused at all on any scriptural basis for that. It's the ECONOMY, stupid! (not calling you stupid, just calling forth an old political declaration)

I guess I'm a bit surprised you disagree with this (assuming you do). Given the SBC statement on its history with racism, why would it be out of the norm to expect that such scriptural links, for a community that is VERY scripturally based, would not have been made?

Slavery was due to the economic benefits it brought IN SPITE of the sin of it. It was wrong. Since the SBC has become associated with slavery - and quite rightly so - the SBC OFFICIALLY wanted to apologize and present its OFFICIAL statement on slavery.

There never was such a declaration concerning any kind of spiritual support for slavery. Zero. Nada.

[rogue06]

Yeah, when I get some time, I want to look at some source material on this. Jesus certainly showed love and compassion for the lost, but he was not very tolerant of those who would keep them lost.

Mark 9:42 immediately springs to mind.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.

Which is reiterated in Matthew 18:6 and Luke 17:2. In the former it continues with

Woe to the world for temptations to sin!b For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

I believe that it has already been noted that Christ often used insults Himself to drive home His message. While there are times that people can be won over with gentle words, He understood that sometimes it was necessary to speak plainly and directly, to explicitly call out something as it is by its right name rather than sugar coat it. Paul, John the Baptist and some of the prophets likewise did this.

They did not shrink from using harsh language to make their point and did not beat around the bush because they were scared they might upset someone's delicate sensibilities. Jesus did not come to make "nice" but rather was honest and forthright

For instance, look at what Christ said in Matthew 23:33 to the Pharisees:

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

In the same exchange He repeatedly and explicitly referred to them as "hypocrites," as well as "whitewashed tombs" (looks good on the outside but full of rot and uncleanness on the inside), "blind fools" and even "child of hell" (in John 8:44 He even said "You are of your father the devil"^[1]). Basically Matthew 23 is a chapter long rant where he calls the hypocritical religious leaders of His time everything but a child of God.

Earlier, at His baptism, He called the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7) and again after casting out a demon He said "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?" (Matthew 12:34).

And often the insults were much more subtle (at least to us in the 21st century) but just as telling. For instance in Matt. 12:5 when Christ asks the Pharisees "Or have you not read in the Law..." this was a very serious slap in the face for the Pharisees had spent a great deal of their time reading and studying the Law so to ask them "have you not read" was akin to calling them morons and imbeciles for being incapable of understanding what they read.

Moreover Jesus did far more than merely use strong language. In the cleansing of the Temple account we are told in John 2 that Jesus made a whip or scourge out of cords and used it to drive out the money-changers (who's tables He overturned in the process).

This was not some fit of uncontrolled rage since He took the time to fashion the whip from cords and told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away" -- to take their birdcages out so that the birds would not be injured. He was chastising the wrong-doers, not committing wanton destruction.

While Jesus is called the "lamb of God" we often forget that He is also the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Revelation 5:5).

Many want us to believe that Jesus was all about hugs and saying things like "can't we all just get along?" in order to browbeat us into submission and meekly accepting whatever drek they try to cram down our throats. These sort of folks would likely condemn Jesus as acting in an unchristlike manner

The point is that Jesus was not concerned about being "nice." He was far more concerned with righteousness. He wanted to wake people up to their cruelty and hypocrisy -- and give them a chance to repent and do better.









1. Paul also called someone (Elymas the magician) "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy" as recorded in Acts 13:10. Should he have hugged him and been cautious of hurting his feelings instead?

[carpedm9587]

"The SBC" has, as has been mentioned numerous times, the "Baptist Faith & Message". There is not, nor has there ever been, a scriptural rationale advanced by the SBC defending slavery, even though all other items in the BF&M are heavily supported with the scriptures pertaining to them.

Not officially by the national organization, as I have noted multiple times now. There has been by high-level leaders at both the national and local levels, and significant circumstantial evidence to suggest it was taught in the seminaries and preached in the pulpits of various congregations. So, again, it depends on what "SBC" means to you in the discussion: the national organization, or the individual churches and seminaries.

I think the vast majority of slave owners just continued selling cotton and maintaining their wealth, for which slaves were seen as a necessary evil, and weren't focused at all on any scriptural basis for that. It's the ECONOMY, stupid! (not calling you stupid, just calling forth an old political declaration)

And yet we have documented papers and articles from leaders within this bottom-up organization that did exactly that, so apparently "the economy" was not all that drove them. Or perhaps it WAS what drove them, but they sought justification for it using their bible.

Slavery was due to the economic benefits it brought IN SPITE of the sin of it. It was wrong. Since the SBC has become associated with slavery - and quite rightly so - the SBC OFFICIALLY wanted to apologize and present its OFFICIAL statement on slavery.

I am actually impressed by that act on their part. By no means do I think the modern church should be held responsible for the choices of their forebears. Everyone (including organizations) slip up and, if they own it and set out to make it right, that should be recognized. Organizations create an odd dynamic. They tend to last a long time, but their membership changes. So how much should the modern church hold itself to making amends for the past? That's a thorny problem. Ultimately, I guess it depends on how they want to fit into the present and future.

There never was such a declaration concerning any kind of spiritual support for slavery. Zero. Nada.

I think you meant "scriptural," and it is (I think) this kind of sweeping statement that Tass (and I) find incorrect. It is simply too broad. It suggests that nowhere, at anytime, was scripture used to justify slavery in the SBC. Since the SBC is, as you note, a bottom-up organization with a great deal of local autonomy, I don't see how you can hold this position. The fact is, none of us know for sure. We DO know there is noting in the official charter or documentation at the national level. We all DO know that many powerful leaders at the local AND national levels, as well as in seminaries, publicly defended slavery using scriptural references. I think your apparent assumption that scripture was never used to defend slavery in the SBC is simply too broad.

And I find myself repeating myself, so I'll leave the last word to you.

[Cow Poke]

Not officially by the national organization, as I have noted multiple times now.

And that was Tassman's claim

[carpedm9587]

And that was Tassman's claim

Hey dude! Wazzzzzuuuup?


(I just had to post SOMETHING - I was in danger of slipping above a 50% success rate on "last word is yours" )

[Cow Poke]

And yet we have documented papers and articles from leaders within this bottom-up organization that did exactly that, so apparently "the economy" was not all that drove them. Or perhaps it WAS what drove them, but they sought justification for it using their bible.

EGGzackly - it wasn't an official teaching of "the SBC" in any way, shape or form. It was individuals who, because it impacted their pocketbooks, twisted scripture to try to excuse something they wanted to do.

To claim this was an official teaching or policy or doctrine of "the SBC" is using a very broad brush to paint those members of the churches that became part of the SBC simply because SOME leaders were trying to justify their own sin.

Usually, you pretend not to like broadbrushing.

[Cow Poke]

Here is an attempt to codify the "official position" of the SBC, as voted by its messengers, on the issue of "the Family"

XVIII. The Family

God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children God's pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them, through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents.

Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15-25; 3:1-20; Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 1:26-28; Psalms 51:5; 78:1-8; 127; 128; 139:13-16; Proverbs 1:8; 5:15-20; 6:20-22; 12:4; 13:24; 14:1; 17:6; 18:22; 22:6,15; 23:13-14; 24:3; 29:15,17; 31:10-31; Ecclesiastes 4:9-12; 9:9; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 5:31-32; 18:2-5; 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 7:1-16; Ephesians 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 5:8,14; 2 Timothy 1:3-5; Titus 2:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Note the format, in which substantial sections of scripture are called out to support the position. You'll find ZERO such "support" for slavery of any kind whatsoever.

And that's what the anti-Christian bigot was trying to establish --- he was trying to claim that scripture is misinterpreted to be "against homosexuality" like it was to "support slavery".

[carpedm9587]

Here is an attempt to codify the "official position" of the SBC, as voted by its messengers, on the issue of "the Family"

XVIII. The Family

God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children God's pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them, through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents.

Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15-25; 3:1-20; Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 1:26-28; Psalms 51:5; 78:1-8; 127; 128; 139:13-16; Proverbs 1:8; 5:15-20; 6:20-22; 12:4; 13:24; 14:1; 17:6; 18:22; 22:6,15; 23:13-14; 24:3; 29:15,17; 31:10-31; Ecclesiastes 4:9-12; 9:9; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 5:31-32; 18:2-5; 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 7:1-16; Ephesians 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 5:8,14; 2 Timothy 1:3-5; Titus 2:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Note the format, in which substantial sections of scripture are called out to support the position. You'll find ZERO such "support" for slavery of any kind whatsoever.

And that's what the anti-Christian bigot was trying to establish --- he was trying to claim that scripture is misinterpreted to be "against homosexuality" like it was to "support slavery".

Get thee behind me you satan! I know you're trying to tempt me to respond after my "last word is yours" post!

[JonathanL]

After some thought, I have to admit, you're right. We all judge "hypocrisy" against our own moral frameworks in situations like this. My moral framework does not include "name calling" and "trashing a synagogue" and "ridiculing" as "loving" behavior. That does not mean I don't think we call a thing what it is, but we can do that without denigration and ridicule. Doing that only lowers the name-caller to the level of the name-called. That this kind of behavior is increasingly widely accepted and even modeled by our leaders is a travesty, IMO.

But it is my opinion. I think Jesus failed to consistently live up to his own ideal. That didn't make him evil. It just made him human. We all fail to live up to our own ideals.

Admitting that you were wrong is welcome, but even after adjusting your position you're still wrong. Seeing as you're a non-believer I do understand that you think Jesus was a flawed and imperfect human just like the rest of us, but the gospels themselves portray Jesus as a person whose words and actions were in perfect concord with each other. The gospels do not depict (whether historically accurate or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, just to nip that derail in the bud) a man who "failed to consistently live up to his own ideal", quite the contrary. If you think otherwise it's simply because you're still imposing your own opinions and ideals on the person of Jesus as depicted in the gospels, instead of letting the texts speak for themselves.

[carpedm9587]

Admitting that you were wrong is welcome, but even after adjusting your position you're still wrong. Seeing as you're a non-believer I do understand that you think Jesus was a flawed and imperfect human just like the rest of us, but the gospels themselves portray Jesus as a person whose words and actions were in perfect concord with each other.

Then I would say the gospels are wrong...but that is, of course, as measured from my moral framework.

The gospels do not depict (whether historically accurate or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, just to nip that derail in the bud) a man who "failed to consistently live up to his own ideal", quite the contrary. If you think otherwise it's simply because you're still imposing your own opinions and ideals on the person of Jesus as depicted in the gospels, instead of letting the texts speak for themselves.

Again - we all measure behavior according to our own moral framework. I presume you have aligned yours with your interpretation of the various books of the Christian scriptures, so your POV is understandable. Frankly, you are coming to your conclusion for the same reason I am coming to mine - you are measuring Jesus' behavior against your own moral framework and apparently assessing it as perfectly consistent. I don't see us as being different on that score.

However, it's interesting to me that you are one of a handful around here who does NOT degenerate into name calling and mocking and ridiculing (at least I don't recall ever having seen it), so your perspective on this is somewhat at odds with your actual behavior - to the positive, IMO.