Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[Cow Poke]

Exactly

Glad you finally came around.

You seem indifferent to the moral bankruptcy of starting a Christian denomination based primarily on economic necessity rather than biblical injunctions.

That's because you're viewing me from your extreme leftist anti-Christian bias. The "Christian denomination" was started to support missionaries to spread the Gospel, in SPITE of the fact that the northern churches would not allow missionaries who owned, or had owned, slaves. And, since I actually voted FOR the Resolution in 1995 at Atlanta, your 'observation' is a typical Tassman steaming pile of horsie poo,

What happened to the maxim: "Let justice be done though the heavens fall"?

It frequently gets quoted by people who have no idea what it means in an attempt to justify something they want to believe.

Many have justified slavery in the past based on scriptural texts such as Ephesians, VI, 5-7 and Romans 13 et al.

Yes, we've actually agreed on that numerous times. You just make the error of falsely claiming that "the Southern Baptists" used those, or any other scripture (usually, it's the "curse of Ham") to justify slavery, because you don't mind falsely accusing a whole bunch of people who were members of those churches who did NOT have those views.

Wrong - and your deception is progressive.

FIRST you wrongly and ignorantly claimed:

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in the Southern United States for the very purpose until Aug 28, 2009.

Then you got schooled on the truth, and you had to adjust your goofy claim...

Finally, after being schooled once again, at least you get the year correct....

Yes, it is the interpretation of scripture that makes the difference, e.g. the Southern Baptists once interpreted scripture in such a way as to justify slavery, renouncing it officially only in 1995.

Tass, you're just being a vicious little gossip trying to dig up dirt and not even checking it for truth. Maybe Jimmy let you borrow his "liberal talking points for idiots"?

Does this mean you would not have supported the split by the slave-owners from the Northern Baptist Church?

Neither of us knows exactly what they would have done 150 years ago in a totally different world. Only one of us, however, will be honest enough to admit that.

It took 150 years to get there and has nothing to do with the origins of the SBC.

You have yet to demonstrate that the SBC ever had any official teaching, policy, directive, edict, instruction, doctrine --- NOTHING justifying slavery on a biblical basis. Again, THAT was your claim, though it took you no less than three attempts to get there.

Values have changed.

The world has changed. Drastically. Some changes good, some bad.

What is a"deplorable sin" in 1995 was not that in 1845...at least not for the SBC.

You have the reasoning powers of squid poop. If somebody cheats on their wife, for example, it's not because they didn't know it was a "deplorable sin" -- but because they wanted to do it and, for whatever reason, decided to risk the consequences. It was a "deplorable sin" when they did it, and a "deplorable sin" when they confessed.

Unless you're suggesting the the SBC wantonly split from their brethren in the North in full knowledge of their "deplorable sin".

I'll leave the hate-filled anti-Christian gossip to you - it's one of the few areas where you excel.

[Tassman]

Glad you finally came around.

Glad you agree that the Northern Baptists, unlike their colleagues in the South, considered slavery to be morally wrong.

That's because you're viewing me from your extreme leftist anti-Christian bias. The "Christian denomination" was started to support missionaries to spread the Gospel, in SPITE of the fact that the northern churches would not allow missionaries who owned, or had owned, slaves. And, since I actually voted FOR the Resolution in 1995 at Atlanta, your 'observation' is a typical Tassman steaming pile of horsie poo,

Yes, as I said, the Southern Baptist Convention was started to support missionaries, despite refusing to renounce slavery as demanded by the Northern Church, because it was believed by them to be immoral.

It frequently gets quoted by people who have no idea what it means in an attempt to justify something they want to believe.

Yes, we've actually agreed on that numerous times. You just make the error of falsely claiming that "the Southern Baptists" used those, or any other scripture (usually, it's the "curse of Ham") to justify slavery,

Yes. There are many scriptural verses that have been used to justify slavery in the past, is the point being made. This along with the fact that they are no longer quoted to justify slavery because the moral values of society have changed. Slavery is no longer acceptable.

Tass, you're just being a vicious little gossip trying to dig up dirt and not even checking it for truth.

Neither of us knows exactly what they would have done 150 years ago in a totally different world.

You have yet to demonstrate that the SBC ever had any official teaching, policy, directive, edict, instruction, doctrine --- NOTHING justifying slavery on a biblical basis. Again, THAT was your claim, though it took you no less than three attempts to get there.

The SBC had no biblical justification for slavery and yet it promoted slavery even whilst knowing (according to your analogy further on)

The world has changed. Drastically. Some changes good, some bad.

See above.

You have the reasoning powers of squid poop. If somebody cheats on their wife, for example, it's not because they didn't know it was a "deplorable sin" -- but because they wanted to do it and, for whatever reason, decided to risk the consequences. It was a "deplorable sin" when they did it, and a "deplorable sin" when they confessed.

See above.

I'll leave the hate-filled anti-Christian gossip to you - it's one of the few areas where you excel.

[Cow Poke]

Glad you agree ...

...that your anti-Christian bigotry is just going to keep repeating the same old crap over and over, when you can't even get your basic facts straight.

Start a thread on this if you'd like, but stop derailing this one.

[Cow Poke]

Back on topic....

Mayor Pete doesn't seem to be continuing his "meteoric rise" to prime time.


Mayor Pete Buttigieg's Weakness Among Black Voters Is a Democratic Party Problem

[Sparko]

Back on topic....

Mayor Pete doesn't seem to be continuing his "meteoric rise" to prime time.


Mayor Pete Buttigieg's Weakness Among Black Voters Is a Democratic Party Problem

Why doesn't he just self-identify as a black gay man. Or better yet a black gay transwoman

[Cow Poke]

Why doesn't he just self-identify as a black gay man. Or better yet a black gay transwoman

Why doesn't somebody list some accomplishment that qualifies him to be a candidate for POTUS other than being a gay man?

[Sparko]

Why doesn't somebody list some accomplishment that qualifies him to be a candidate for POTUS other than being a gay man?

Well he is white!

[Tassman]

...that your anti-Christian bigotry......"

Start a thread on this if you'd like, but stop derailing this one.

You derailed this thread, not I, with your focus on the SBC and its attitude to slavery. My argument was consistent with the OP. There are many scriptural verses that were used to justify the social values of the past, whereas such values are not generally acceptable today. Slavery was one example, homosexuality is another. The moral values of society change over time, is the point.

[Cow Poke]

I repeat

Yes, you do. A LOT.

[Cow Poke]

You derailed this thread, not I, with your focus on the SBC and its attitude to slavery.

Tassman, Truth, to you, is a foreign country where you haven't even learned the language.

Yes, it is the interpretation of scripture that makes the difference, e.g. the Southern Baptists once interpreted scripture in such a way as to justify slavery, renouncing it officially only in 1995.

And the likes of Buttigieg, as a practicing Christian, interpret scripture in such a way that homosexuality is OK with a loving God, just as the likes of the former slavery justifying SBC proclaim the very opposite.

It was this steaming pile of horsie poo with which you began this derail.

[Cow Poke]

BACK ON TOPIC again....



So, aside from being gay and having a "husband", what qualifies Mayor Pete for the office of POTUS?

[One Bad Pig]

BACK ON TOPIC again....



So, aside from being gay and having a "husband", what qualifies Mayor Pete for the office of POTUS?

He's over 35 and breathing?

[seer]

So, aside from being gay and having a "husband", what qualifies Mayor Pete for the office of POTUS?

Obama was black, Mayor Pete is gay - what more is needed?

[Cow Poke]

He's over 35 and breathing?

I've seen some references implying he was a war hero in Afghanistan. One if his claims is that he has "more military experience than George W. Bush", so he is relying on his military record as part of his qualifications to be POTUS/CiC

It appears, however, to be somewhat exaggerated:

Fact Check: Does Mayor Pete have more military experience than George W. Bush

mayor pete military.jpg

[Cow Poke]

Obama was black, Mayor Pete is gay - what more is needed?

Technically, Obama was half black. Bill Clinton was the first black POTUS*!





* In 1998, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas".