Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...
Collapse
X
-
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSure, 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.
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.Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-26-2019, 10:19 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo, 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.
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.Last edited by Cow Poke; 04-26-2019, 10:06 AM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFranklin Graham
✔
@Franklin_Graham
32.5K
11:15 AM - Apr 24, 2019
https://www.theblaze.com/news/frankl...inst-buttigieg
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNow go back and see what this political con man said about Trump and his treatment of women.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
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).The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
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.
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?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNot 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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostRacism is wrong regardless of party, religion, blah blah blah....The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostHowever, 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.
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.Last edited by tabibito; 04-26-2019, 10:56 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
no rogue Pope to make pronouncements or take action that contaminates the entire group
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostPersonally, 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.
That seems more than a bit arrogant to me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI'm sure that you could have found a better way to express that1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostWell, yes. But where would the fun have been in that?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostCP, 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.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostDon't come crying to me when you wake up with your feet having their big toes switched around.
harrier pigeons.gif1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Postpfft. my airforce awaits.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]36674[/ATTACH]
Be afeared.
Be very afeared.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Slave4Christ, Today, 07:59 PM
|
0 responses
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 07:59 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:49 PM
|
18 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 02:31 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-28-2024, 11:42 AM
|
39 responses
204 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 02:57 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-28-2024, 10:24 AM
|
23 responses
165 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 07:16 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-28-2024, 10:22 AM
|
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Slave4Christ
Today, 07:07 PM
|
Comment