Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[JonathanL]

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



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.

Your statement was, and I quote, "I think Jesus failed to consistently live up to his own ideal". That's not measuring Jesus' behavior according to your moral framework, it's making a claim about his ability to live up to his.

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.

I can dish out the occasional snide remark if I feel like the situation warrants it. It usually depends on the kind of person with which I'm having a discussion. If it's clear to me they're not even slightly interested in honest dialogue, but are just here to troll/antagonize or for some other less than honest reason, then the respect and courtesy I'm willing to extend to them is minimal.

I think maybe the reason you haven't seen me engage with someone with less than the usual amount of respect I'm willing to extend is probably because the people I've been discussing with recently have been persons who I feel that, while they might hold positions that I strongly disagree with, or even find baffling, they still seem to be interested in honest discussion.

[Tassman]

"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.



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)



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]

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.

I suggest that you look into the difference between being "nice" which is essentially focused on outward appearances and consequences (a desire to minimize conflict) and "kindness" (a genuine concern for others and a desire for their well-being). You can be "nice" while simultaneously loathing the person you're being nice to. Being "kind" means that you genuinely want to help folks not just say "have a nice day" and walk away. And sometimes you have to be harsh in order to help them. To get them to open their eyes and change the path that they're on. As we see in John 3:17, Jesus told us that He didn't come here to "condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

When you can grasp this you realize that any supposed hypocrisy on His part are non-existent.

[carpedm9587]

Your statement was, and I quote, "I think Jesus failed to consistently live up to his own ideal". That's not measuring Jesus' behavior according to your moral framework, it's making a claim about his ability to live up to his.

I think Jesus was very likely conflicted on this score. He expressed a desire to "love his enemy," but there were certain enemies that triggered him and he could not stay in that "loving" space. He descended into name calling and ridicule. But you are right - my statement "his ideal" is misplaced since I cannot know what was in his mind. Indeed, I cannot even know he said the things he is claimed to have said. I am basing my observations on the disconnect between his words and his deeds, as measured against my moral framework.

I can dish out the occasional snide remark if I feel like the situation warrants it. It usually depends on the kind of person with which I'm having a discussion. If it's clear to me they're not even slightly interested in honest dialogue, but are just here to troll/antagonize or for some other less than honest reason, then the respect and courtesy I'm willing to extend to them is minimal.

I think maybe the reason you haven't seen me engage with someone with less than the usual amount of respect I'm willing to extend is probably because the people I've been discussing with recently have been persons who I feel that, while they might hold positions that I strongly disagree with, or even find baffling, they still seem to be interested in honest discussion.

Don't get me wrong, Chrawnus - I don't have a great deal of respect for trolls either. I hope I can tell the difference between someone actually interested in exploring issues and someone just looking to bait and argue. But my philosophy is a simple one, and another one borrowed (with a twist) from Jesus of Nazareth - I don't think that anything said about a person can dishonor them - only what they themselves say and do can accomplish that. And, to borrow a thought from "Rob Roy," honor is a gift a person gives to him/herself. A person either sets out to live honorably - or they don't.

[carpedm9587]

I suggest that you look into the difference between being "nice" which is essentially focused on outward appearances and consequences (a desire to minimize conflict) and "kindness" (a genuine concern for others and a desire for their well-being). You can be "nice" while simultaneously loathing the person you're being nice to. Being "kind" means that you genuinely want to help folks not just say "have a nice day" and walk away. And sometimes you have to be harsh in order to help them. To get them to open their eyes and change the path that they're on. As we see in John 3:17, Jesus told us that He didn't come here to "condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

When you can grasp this you realize that any supposed hypocrisy on His part are non-existent.

At no point did I confuse "being nice" with "being loving." I doubt my sons would accuse me of "being nice" when I was holding them accountable. But I can hold someone accountable without denigrating and ridiculing them. Jesus failed to do this, despite his calls to "love your enemy." I find his behavior, in this regard, hypocritical. I doubt he had any idea he was going to be deified, and his example would ripple down through time, but that is indeed what happened. So that disconnect has given generations of people a rationale for simply sinking into the muck and slinging insult and ridicule with abandon, all the while justifying their behavior by pointing to Jesus.

But then again, maybe he wasn't actually hypocritical. What we have is Jesus as seen through the eyes of the early faith community, but decades after his life. So perhaps these stories don't reflect what Jesus actually said or did, but rather reflect what the early community that worshiped him wished he had said or done. That is a question I suspect we will never have an answer to.

[Cow Poke]

And yet the Southern Baptist split from the Northern Baptists for the very purpose of retaining slavery ....

You're doing that thing where you

A) make a really stupid statement due to your anti-Christian bigotry
2) can't back up that claim with any kind of actual evidence
C) do your best to twist things as your argument has collapsed.
D) repeat

[carpedm9587]

And yet the Southern Baptist split from the Northern Baptists for the very purpose of retaining slavery

The emphasized part seems to be the heart of the disagreement. As best I can tell, any member of the church that owned a slave was barred from missionary work, which prompted the SBC to spin off so it could permit these people to do mission work. There is nothing about slavery in the SBC charter and, as best I can tell, never has been. So yes, the motivation was related to slavery. You appear to be focusing on the slavery and arguing that their primary motivation was to retain slavery and yet be able to engage in what they believed to be their religious mission. CP appears to be focusing on the mission work and arguing that their motivation was to engage in mission work, from which they felt they were unjustly being blocked due to slavery.

Both positions are basically saying the same thing, and both appear to me to be true. Many present-day organizations have a history that is associated with slavery and racism. Many of our heroes were racist and held slaves. Washington himself spoke against slavery, but kept slaves until the day he died, even chasing (not physically) one of them who had escaped until the end of his days.

I'm curious to know, Tass, what impact on the present you think this situation in the past has? Why does it matter to you, today, that slavery was at least part of the motivation for the founding of the SBC?

[Cow Poke]

The emphasized part seems to be the heart of the disagreement. As best I can tell, any member of the church that owned a slave was barred from missionary work, which prompted the SBC to spin off so it could permit these people to do mission work. There is nothing about slavery in the SBC charter and, as best I can tell, never has been. So yes, the motivation was related to slavery. You appear to be focusing on the slavery and arguing that their primary motivation was to retain slavery and yet be able to engage in what they believed to be their religious mission. CP appears to be focusing on the mission work and arguing that their motivation was to engage in mission work, from which they felt they were unjustly being blocked due to slavery.

Didn't you promise you were done? But, yeah, it goes beyond that -- the anti-Christian bigot actually had declared that "the Southern Baptists" misinterpreted scripture to support slavery. That's a lie. He has to hang onto that lie in a lame attempt to claim that a Christian's biblical opposition to homosexuality is "the same". That's apples and alligator poop.

Both positions are basically saying the same thing, and both appear to me to be true. Many present-day organizations have a history that is associated with slavery and racism. Many of our heroes were racist and held slaves. Washington himself spoke against slavery, but kept slaves until the day he died, even chasing (not physically) one of them who had escaped until the end of his days.

You've allowed yourself to be drawn into his deception, Carpe --- it is CRUCIAL to his argument that "the Southern Baptists" (as a body) used a misinterpretation of scripture to justify something they wanted to do.

I'm curious to know, Tass, what impact on the present you think this situation in the past has? Why does it matter to you, today, that slavery was at least part of the motivation for the founding of the SBC?

He really doens't care about the slavery issue, and you would have known this if you hadn't jumped in without reading (by your own admission) what this was all about.

His "point" is that "the SBC" misinterpreted scripture to justify slavery, just like "the SBC" is misinterpreting scripture to 'justify homophobia'.

[carpedm9587]

Didn't you promise you were done?

I believe I said "last word to you." I wasn't responding to you - I was responding to Tass.



And now I just responded to you...but not about the topic we were discussing... so I'm still good...

[Cow Poke]

I believe I said "last word to you." I wasn't responding to you - I was responding to Tass.

But I'll get you to respond to me, you just wait!!!!

And now I just responded to you...but not about the topic we were discussing... so I'm still good...

[carpedm9587]

But I'll get you to respond to me, you just wait!!!!

Good luck with that...

My goal is to get my success rate with disconnecting from discussions above 90%!

[JonathanL]

I think Jesus was very likely conflicted on this score. He expressed a desire to "love his enemy," but there were certain enemies that triggered him and he could not stay in that "loving" space. He descended into name calling and ridicule. But you are right - my statement "his ideal" is misplaced since I cannot know what was in his mind. Indeed, I cannot even know he said the things he is claimed to have said. I am basing my observations on the disconnect between his words and his deeds, as measured against my moral framework.

Your approach seems completely backwards to me. You're claiming a conflict between Jesus' words about "loving your enemy" and his actions of calling his enemies names and "ridiculing" them, but instead of trying to determine if the concept of love that Jesus held to is in conflict with such behavior you're using your own modern definition of the word "love" to force a conflict that doesn't exist in the text itself.

There is no disconnect between Jesus words and deeds in the text itself. The disconnect lies in the fact that you personally consider to be unloving behavior what the text itself does not. I.e the disconnect lies between your conception of love, and what the gospel texts present to us as Jesus' conception of love, not between Jesus' conception of love and his deeds.

Don't get me wrong, Chrawnus - I don't have a great deal of respect for trolls either. I hope I can tell the difference between someone actually interested in exploring issues and someone just looking to bait and argue. But my philosophy is a simple one, and another one borrowed (with a twist) from Jesus of Nazareth - I don't think that anything said about a person can dishonor them - only what they themselves say and do can accomplish that. And, to borrow a thought from "Rob Roy," honor is a gift a person gives to him/herself. A person either sets out to live honorably - or they don't.

If we take the issue of "name calling" as an example, I don't see a problem with the practice in principle. It only becomes an issue when the "epithet" doesn't fit the behavior and words of the person in question. If you call a lying and malicious deceiver a "lying and malicious deceiver" for example then you have only spoken the truth, and done nothing that is unloving or dishonorable. But if the person is not a "lying and malicious deceiver", or his words and actions do not reflect the behavior of a "lying and malicious deceiver", then referring to him as such becomes unloving and dishonorable.

Another example would be calling Hitler a "racist and genocidal maniac". I don't consider referring to Hitler in the aforementioned manner is unloving or dishonorable on my part in the slightest. Hitler was a "racist and genocidal maniac" while he was alive and calling attention to that fact is neither mean-spirited, nor inappropriate.

IMO, the issue is not whether you're being mean when you're calling someone a name, or whether they take offense at it, but whether what you're calling them reflects reality or not.

[Cow Poke]

Your approach seems completely backwards to me. You're claiming a conflict between Jesus' words about "loving your enemy" and his actions of calling his enemies names and "ridiculing" them, but instead of trying to determine if the concept of love that Jesus held to is in conflict with such behavior you're using your own modern definition of the word "love" to force a conflict that doesn't exist in the text itself.

That!

[Cow Poke]

My goal is to get my success rate with disconnecting from discussions above 90%!

Baby steps.

[carpedm9587]

Your approach seems completely backwards to me. You're claiming a conflict between Jesus' words about "loving your enemy" and his actions of calling his enemies names and "ridiculing" them, but instead of trying to determine if the concept of love that Jesus held to is in conflict with such behavior you're using your own modern definition of the word "love" to force a conflict that doesn't exist in the text itself.

There is no disconnect between Jesus words and deeds in the text itself. The disconnect lies in the fact that you personally consider to be unloving behavior what the text itself does not. I.e the disconnect lies between your conception of love, and what the gospel texts present to us as Jesus' conception of love, not between Jesus' conception of love and his deeds.

If we take the issue of "name calling" as an example, I don't see a problem with the practice in principle. It only becomes an issue when the "epithet" doesn't fit the behavior and words of the person in question. If you call a lying and malicious deceiver a "lying and malicious deceiver" for example then you have only spoken the truth, and done nothing that is unloving or dishonorable. But if the person is not a "lying and malicious deceiver", or his words and actions do not reflect the behavior of a "lying and malicious deceiver", then referring to him as such becomes unloving and dishonorable.

Another example would be calling Hitler a "racist and genocidal maniac". I don't consider referring to Hitler in the aforementioned manner is unloving or dishonorable on my part in the slightest. Hitler was a "racist and genocidal maniac" while he was alive and calling attention to that fact is neither mean-spirited, nor inappropriate.

IMO, the issue is not whether you're being mean when you're calling someone a name, or whether they take offense at it, but whether what you're calling them reflects reality or not.

As I noted, Chrawnus, I have no problem with calling out what a person does. And I don't disagree with most of what you said above. My comments were about the differences reflected in:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.

You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

and



The latter names a problem and does so clearly and without name calling and ridicule. It focuses on the actions and why they are wrong (to Jesus). It calls the people involved out for what they are doing. The first three do not do this. They resort to ridicule and name calling. Brood of vipers? Whitewashed tombs? Full of bones? Blind fools? Jesus is not depicted here as "calling a thing for what it is" but rather is resorting to ridicule and name calling. How would anyone judge the truth of "full of bones" (setting aside the medical reality). How would someone assess the truth of whether or not a group of people is a "brood of vipers?"

Then you have his apparent instructions,

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and

The two highlighted passages are pretty glaringly in opposition. As far as I can see, they reflect a man who has an ideal, but doesn't always meet his own ideal.

But, as I write this, I realize I have just wandered into a biblical discussion, which I general eschew. There will always be explanations for each of these things to resolve these conflicts to the satisfaction of the reader from the perspective of their beliefs. The preceding use of "brother" will perhaps be used to narrow the scope of application to only those "in the fold," or something of that ilk. That is the nature of basing a belief on a book. I have seldom found it to be useful to engage in these discussions for exactly that reason.

I'll leave the final observation to you, with my thanks for a civil discussion.