Originally posted by Chrawnus
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
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostCan 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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostMy 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?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOf course you do! You seem hypersensitive to racism across the board.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI'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.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 PostAs 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.
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.
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYa 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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt'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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAGAIN, 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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe 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.
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?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 Chrawnus View PostNo, 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.
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.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 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?
There never was such a declaration concerning any kind of spiritual support for slavery. Zero. Nada.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah, 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.
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?
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 Cow Poke View Post"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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI 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)
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSlavery 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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThere never was such a declaration concerning any kind of spiritual support for slavery. Zero. Nada.
And I find myself repeating myself, so I'll leave the last word to you.Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-28-2019, 12:14 PM.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 PostNot officially by the national organization, as I have noted multiple times now.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd that was Tassman's claim
(I just had to post SOMETHING - I was in danger of slipping above a 50% success rate on "last word is yours" )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 PostAnd 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.
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.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
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".The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostHere 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!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 PostAfter 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostAdmitting 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.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThe 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.
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.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 12:53 PM
|
0 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 01:07 PM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, Yesterday, 08:57 PM
|
2 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:08 AM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
|
22 responses
167 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 06:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 10:38 AM
|
14 responses
70 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 03:43 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-13-2024, 09:49 AM
|
6 responses
69 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 10:26 AM
|
Comment