Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[Cow Poke]

I haven't found anything that calls your exposition into question - and I've stopped looking, any qualms based on the same lines of those expressed by CarpeDM being unfounded it seems.

I've been a Southern Baptist for a lot of years (not quite 150, of course) and I have NEVER heard of any official or institutional attempt to rationalize or justify slavery with scripture. When I've heard the "curse of Ham" issue discussed, it's always been in a mocking "I can't believe they used that" manner. "They", of course, being the individuals who did, indeed, try to justify slavery with a really bad interpretation of out-of-context scripture.

[carpedm9587]

Sure, but there's no argument at all on my part that slavery was THE issue that birthed the SBC. That was obviously a very divisive time in our nation, triggering the War of Northern Aggression, causing brother to war against brother, etc.

Here is an article from NPR on the matter. They're obviously no bastion of conservative thought.

Here's an article in Wikipedia, saying pretty much the same thing.

The North would not allow missionaries from the South to be appointed and funded, so the Southern churches organized their (our) own convention in Atlanta to fund what became the Cooperative Program in 1919, sending missionaries all over the world.

I think, having made the claim, it's really incumbent upon Tassy to show that there was, indeed, any official scriptural position held to justify slavery. It already existed - at least a dozen of our US Presidents were slave owners at one point in their lives. It was an evil in society that was justified, not by scripture, but by money.

So, I have done a bit of reading, and I find elements of truth, as well as elements of fudging, in both your positions.

The origin of the SBC in the desire to include slaveholders in their mission work is fairly clearly documented. Interestingly, however, there is no mention of slaves or slavery in the original constitution of the group. There is also no place where I can find any specific scriptural justification in any formal SBC documents. On that point, CP seems to be correct.

However, there is significant reporting of scriptural defenses being given by individual members of the SBC, and some of those were the theologians and trustees of the seminaries of the SBC. They range from defenses based on Paul's described actions in Philemon, practices of the Isrealites in the OT with respect to "foreign slaves," Noah's prophecy about Canaan (with African's fulfilling the role of Canaan), and the list goes on. Examples of these are found in this report from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on the history of racism as related to the seminary. I found that as a link in a broader report about the seminary owning their history. So yes, technically it is not in the formally documented position of the SBC, but it was taught by highly placed individuals, including in the seminaries, of the group. There were numerous, public articles and papers from many of these players. So "it was never the official position of the SBC" is technically correct, but ignores a great deal of history.

If I may offer an analogy, if the Catholic Pope makes a comment in a speech that runs counter to normal Catholic theology, one can safely say, "that was never the official position of the church." It does not change the fact that the leader of that church just made that statement, which has profound impact on both members and nonmembers. Likewise, if the teachers and leaders of a seminary are publicly putting forward such positions, then I think we can safely assume that they are repeating those things in the classroom, and they are finding their way to the pulpit. It may not be the "official" position of the church, but if it is being taught by the leaders of that church to the membership, and there is widespread acceptance, aren't we splitting hairs just a tad?

I have no comment about "liberals" beyond noting that there are racists at both ends of the political spectrum. Which end has more? I have no idea.

[Cow Poke]

So, I have done a bit of reading, and I find elements of truth, as well as elements of fudging, in both your positions.

The origin of the SBC in the desire to include slaveholders in their mission work is fairly clearly documented. Interestingly, however, there is no mention of slaves or slavery in the original constitution of the group. There is also no place where I can find any specific scriptural justification in any formal SBC documents. On that point, CP seems to be correct.

However, there is significant reporting of scriptural defenses being given by individual members of the SBC, and some of those were the theologians and trustees of the seminaries of the SBC. They range from defenses based on Paul's described actions in Philemon, practices of the Isrealites in the OT with respect to "foreign slaves," Noah's prophecy about Canaan (with African's fulfilling the role of Canaan), and the list goes on. Examples of these are found in this report from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on the history of racism as related to the seminary. I found that as a link in a broader report about the seminary owning their history.

Yes, never disputed that INDIVIDUALS expressed their own opinions, including 4 very influential founders of the SBC. There was, however, no SBC position attempting to justify slavery based on scripture - that has been what I have been saying all along.

So yes, technically it is not in the formally documented position of the SBC, but it was taught by highly placed individuals, including in the seminaries, of the group. There were numerous, public articles and papers from many of these players. So "it was never the official position of the SBC" is technically correct, but ignores a great deal of history.

Not at all -- it's all there - anybody can see it -- we, the SBC, published it ourselves, and laid it out in the "whereas" sections of the resolution.

I have no comment about "liberals" beyond noting that there are racists at both ends of the political spectrum. Which end has more? I have no idea.

Racism is wrong regardless of party, religion, blah blah blah....

[JimL]

Franklin Graham
✔
@Franklin_Graham



32.5K
11:15 AM - Apr 24, 2019

https://www.theblaze.com/news/frankl...inst-buttigieg

Now go back and see what this political con man said about Trump and his treatment of women.

[Cow Poke]

Now go back and see what this political con man said about Trump and his treatment of women.

Jimmy, that's no way to talk about Mayor Pete.

[carpedm9587]

CP, there is a difference between 1) noting a discrepancy between a persons claimed beliefs/actions and their actual ones, and 2) telling someone what they have to believe to be X.

Personally, I think Jesus (as portrayed in the NT) was hypocritical on this point. On one hand he is reported to have said "love your enemy" and "pray for those that persecute you" and on the other he is reported to have acted in ways that are hardly "loving." That disconnect has left a huge hole through which anyone looking to justify unloving behavior can pass. So parents can hit their children "out of love." People can respond to name calling with more name calling "out of love." People can adopt the MM/JPH/Pix/Sparko philosophy of "ridicule your foes" and claim they are acting "out of love" and "in keeping with Jesus' teaching." One of the dangers of hero worship is there is a risk you will adopt the heroes bad examples along with their good ones.

For this, I prefer Jesus words and MOST of his attributed actions (eating with sinners, etc.) to his invective. I try to live to the former, not the latter. I am not always successful, that much is sure. But inside I know the difference between how I feel about myself when I jump down into the mud and sling invective back at the invective slingers, and how I feel about myself when I stay focused on the discussion at hand, and walk away when it just gets to be pointless to continue.

I think, sometimes, we forget that what we say primarily reflects on the speaker - not the one spoken to. I cannot be dishonored by anything someone else says about me. I can only be dishonored by my own words and actions. I forget that too often (like the discussion about threads and people promulgating misinformation about me).

[carpedm9587]

Yes, never disputed that INDIVIDUALS expressed their own opinions, including 4 very influential founders of the SBC. There was, however, no SBC position attempting to justify slavery based on scripture - that has been what I have been saying all along.

Alas, my tendency to edit my posts has hosed things up again. I added this as you were responding:

If I may offer an analogy, if the Catholic Pope makes a comment in a speech that runs counter to normal Catholic theology, one can safely say, "that was never the official position of the church." It does not change the fact that the leader of that church just made that statement, which has profound impact on both members and nonmembers. Likewise, if the teachers and leaders of a seminary are publicly putting forward such positions, then I think we can safely assume that they are repeating those things in the classroom, and they are finding their way to the pulpit. It may not be the "official" position of the church, but if it is being taught by the leaders of that church to the membership, and there is widespread acceptance, aren't we splitting hairs just a tad?

Not at all -- it's all there - anybody can see it -- we, the SBC, published it ourselves, and laid it out in the "whereas" sections of the resolution.

The list of "whereas" speaks to the racism that occurred within the SBC over the years. It does not speak to the issue of "using the scripture to justify." I find no place where scriptural defenses were made in any official SBC document. However, I find significant evidence of leaders, including within seminaries, doing exactly that (using scripture to defend slavery). I have not located any class lectures or sermons, but it does not seem to me unreasonable to assume that, if the seminary leaders were speaking this way publicly, then they were likely teaching this way as well, and that ministers were preaching this way from at least some pulpits. So "official" - you are correct. But these scriptural defenses were offered by many, many SBC leaders over the years - a fact which "never official SBC position" more or less ignores.

Racism is wrong regardless of party, religion, blah blah blah....

Given the significant issue racism continues to be, I find this an...well...odd response.

[tabibito]

However, there is significant reporting of scriptural defenses being given by individual members of the SBC, and some of those were the theologians and trustees of the seminaries of the SBC. They range from defenses based on Paul's described actions in Philemon, practices of the Isrealites in the OT with respect to "foreign slaves," Noah's prophecy about Canaan (with African's fulfilling the role of Canaan), and the list goes on. Examples of these are found in this report from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on the history of racism as related to the seminary. I found that as a link in a broader report about the seminary owning their history. So yes, technically it is not in the formally documented position of the SBC, but it was taught by highly placed individuals, including in the seminaries, of the group. There were numerous, public articles and papers from many of these players. So "it was never the official position of the SBC" is technically correct, but ignores a great deal of history.

I'm not sure that the problem would be so easily assessed when it comes to them there Baptists - they seem to be very jealous of their autonomy. Congregations pretty much have final authority - and if the teachers don't teach what the congregation finds acceptable, the pastors won't get away with spouting it from the pulpit. (but maybe I have a somewhat starry eyed view of the Baptist system - except that I can't handle leavened bread and grape juice at communion). For example the SBC decided against women pastors not too long ago, and the Japanese Baptists told them that if they wanted a continuing association, they could shove their no women in church authority edict where it fits (which is not in Japan).

If I may offer an analogy, if the Catholic Pope makes a comment in a speech that runs counter to normal Catholic theology, one can safely say, "that was never the official position of the church." It does not change the fact that the leader of that church just made that statement, which has profound impact on both members and nonmembers. Likewise, if the teachers and leaders of a seminary are publicly putting forward such positions, then I think we can safely assume that they are repeating those things in the classroom, and they are finding their way to the pulpit.

It may not be the "official" position of the church, but if it is being taught by the leaders of that church to the membership, and there is widespread acceptance, aren't we splitting hairs just a tad?

The analogy runs into a major problem with regard to the Baptist Churches ... there is very little by way of hierarchy beyond the local congregation. No decisions by anything that looks like a higher authority are binding on individual congregations. Being a loose knit federation has its upside (no rogue Pope to make pronouncements or take action that contaminates the entire group) and its downside (no real way to deal with rogue congregations like Westboro).

I have no comment about "liberals" beyond noting that there are racists at both ends of the political spectrum. Which end has more? I have no idea.

probably about equal number of racists from what I can tell, but the left seems to be overrun with many more ists.

ETA: CP would be more aware of the actual workings than I am - all I have is a small bit of research last year (and more the JBC at that) and two hours/week contact as a TESOL teacher.

[rogue06]

no rogue Pope to make pronouncements or take action that contaminates the entire group

I'm sure that you could have found a better way to express that

[JonathanL]

Personally, I think Jesus (as portrayed in the NT) was hypocritical on this point. On one hand he is reported to have said "love your enemy" and "pray for those that persecute you" and on the other he is reported to have acted in ways that are hardly "loving." That disconnect has left a huge hole through which anyone looking to justify unloving behavior can pass. So parents can hit their children "out of love." People can respond to name calling with more name calling "out of love." People can adopt the MM/JPH/Pix/Sparko philosophy of "ridicule your foes" and claim they are acting "out of love" and "in keeping with Jesus' teaching." One of the dangers of hero worship is there is a risk you will adopt the heroes bad examples along with their good ones.

For this, I prefer Jesus words and MOST of his attributed actions (eating with sinners, etc.) to his invective. I try to live to the former, not the latter. I am not always successful, that much is sure. But inside I know the difference between how I feel about myself when I jump down into the mud and sling invective back at the invective slingers, and how I feel about myself when I stay focused on the discussion at hand, and walk away when it just gets to be pointless to continue.

So what you're basically saying is that Jesus is a hypocrite because His behavior doesn't line up with your personal/subjective opinion of what "loving" behavior is, regardless of what His own views on the matter might have been?

That seems more than a bit arrogant to me.

[tabibito]

I'm sure that you could have found a better way to express that

Well, yes. But where would the fun have been in that?

[rogue06]

Well, yes. But where would the fun have been in that?

Don't come crying to me when you wake up with your feet having their big toes switched around.

Smiley squirrel.gif

[tabibito]

CP, there is a difference between 1) noting a discrepancy between a persons claimed beliefs/actions and their actual ones, and 2) telling someone what they have to believe to be X.

Personally, I think Jesus (as portrayed in the NT) was hypocritical on this point. On one hand he is reported to have said "love your enemy" and "pray for those that persecute you" and on the other he is reported to have acted in ways that are hardly "loving." That disconnect has left a huge hole through which anyone looking to justify unloving behavior can pass. So parents can hit their children "out of love." People can respond to name calling with more name calling "out of love." People can adopt the MM/JPH/Pix/Sparko philosophy of "ridicule your foes" and claim they are acting "out of love" and "in keeping with Jesus' teaching." One of the dangers of hero worship is there is a risk you will adopt the heroes bad examples along with their good ones.

There is a disconnect in our milieu which seemingly didn't exist to the chroniclers of the Bible. In the absence of any attempt to explain the seeming discrepancy by the NT writers, I take the view that they simply didn't see a conflict - and more significantly, didn't expect their audience to see a conflict. There is also the problem posed by translation from Semitic languages to Koine Greek, which may have resulted in a loss of nuance - though it is only a minor problem.

For this, I prefer Jesus words and MOST of his attributed actions (eating with sinners, etc.) to his invective. I try to live to the former, not the latter. I am not always successful, that much is sure. But inside I know the difference between how I feel about myself when I jump down into the mud and sling invective back at the invective slingers, and how I feel about myself when I stay focused on the discussion at hand, and walk away when it just gets to be pointless to continue.

I note that the targets of Jesus' invective were singularly people who were expected and required to behave in a God honouring fashion by virtue of their posts. Even with them, Jesus was more inclined to teach than to scold. Nor can it be denied that Paul's admonition, "in as far as possible, in as much as it depends on you, be on good terms with all persons," expires when there is no more "possible" and no more "it depends on you." That admonition does impact on the application of "love those who hate," and "pray for those who persecute." It doesn't provide excuses for people who want to use excuses.

[tabibito]

Don't come crying to me when you wake up with your feet having their big toes switched around.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36671[/ATTACH]

pfft. my airforce awaits.
harrier pigeons.gif

[rogue06]

pfft. my airforce awaits.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]36674[/ATTACH]

No match for the hover dog air corp

00000000000000a000a.gif 00000000000000a000d.gif

00000000000000a000b.gif 00000000000000a000e.gif

Be afeared.

Be very afeared.