Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[KingsGambit]

Buttigieg puts a public face for the "gay Christian" movement. I really hope he doesn't get nominated because I fear it would be disastrous for Christianity in the US.

[Cow Poke]

Buttigieg puts a public face for the "gay Christian" movement. I really hope he doesn't get nominated because I fear it would be disastrous for Christianity in the US.

And I think the Media is falling all over themselves showing how wonderfully accepting they are of this wonderful gay man, in spite of the fact that he really has no other claim to fame.

[Tassman]

It's a moronic argument - he's not "interpreting scripture", he's bastardizing it.

Like slave-owners once bastardized scripture, you mean?

So, you're abandoning your goofy claim that the SBC actually TAUGHT that?

My argument was not about the SBC per se, but the historical fact that the interpretation of scripture varied according to the social mores of the day. This includes certain biblical passages being used to justify slavery.

[Tassman]

Tass, here's something you don't seem capable of grasping....

Rationalizing and Justifying...

There are things which Christians tend to want to do, and often they will either find a way to justify it by scripture, or simply ignore scripture.
That's what slave owners who were Christians did. Many simply looked for any biblical support they could to justify their sinful actions.
They weren't holding slaves "because the Bible said it was OK" - they were forcing the Bible to allow them to do that which was sinful.

But you overlook the fact that the SBC was founded on the determination to own slaves. Extraordinarily, your own argument seems to be that one of the largest Christian denominations in the USA, was founded in full knowledge that it was committing sin. Furthermore, it didn’t renounce this notion (at least officially) until 150 years later. Seriously, are you arguing that the denomination of which you’re a Pastor was grounded in sin, rather than scripture?

Mayor Pete is going well beyond that. He's ignoring scripture that declares homosexual conduct a sin.

So, you believe. But he, as a practicing Christian, denies that homosexual conduct a sin. We all know from history what happens when religion (any religion) takes an intransigent position on scriptural interpretation. The bible has throughout history has been interpreted in such a way as to support the social values of the day. Attempting to justify slavery was an obvious example and so was keeping women subordinate to men in society...to name but two.

Here's a pretty good explanation of the subject for you to ignore and/or mock:

[box]Is homosexuality a sin? What does this mean?

God's design for natural sexual relationships is part of His plan. Homosexuality falsifies what God designed. Sin often means not only rejecting God but denying or rejecting how and why we are made. Though it may be considered acceptable by some today -- even in some churches -- it is not acceptable to God. And we need to take that seriously.

The likes of Mayor Pete seem to sincerely believe they are good Christians and obviously disagree with your interpretation of these texts. Always a problem when one interpretation of scriptural beliefs contradicts another interpretation of scriptural beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

But you overlook the fact that the SBC was founded on the determination to own slaves.

Because that's a lie. The SBC was founded on the determination of southern churches not being prevented from sending missionaries.

[Cow Poke]

So, you believe. But he, as a practicing Christian, denies that homosexual conduct a sin.

Of course he does - he wants to identify as a Christian AND live a homosexual lifestyle - he has no choice, then, to rationalize homosexuality as acceptable to God in spite of scriptures that clearly say it is not.

The likes of Mayor Pete seem to sincerely believe they are good Christians and obviously disagree with your interpretation of these texts.

He's entitled to be sincerely wrong, and the fact that an anti-Christian bigot is defending him says quite a lot.

[tabibito]

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.

It may be that therein lies the rub: a possible tactical error on the part of the abolitionists, and their own violation of scriptural warrant. The SBC didn't get evicted but walked out, which is to say, they were permitted to remain in association with the abolitionist group (if only for the sake of those who did not own slaves) and rejected the opportunity . The members of the SBC would not have been permitted to participate in mission even if they relinquished their slave holdings - no more than a current slave-holder could a former slave holder participate in mission. What might have happened if the abolitionists had accepted repentance is of course a matter of conjecture, but a rash of relinquished slave-holdings would not be out of the realms of possibility - as CP has said, and as my own research confirms, mission is the raison d'etre of the Baptist churches.

[Cow Poke]

Like slave-owners once bastardized scripture, you mean?

Actually, as I dig further into this, Mayor Pete simply ignores the scriptures he doesn't like. He doesn't seem to pay much attention to scripture at all, and has pretty much admitted he doesn't have any kind of a prayer life at all.

My argument was not about the SBC per se, but the historical fact that the interpretation of scripture varied according to the social mores of the day. This includes certain biblical passages being used to justify slavery.

Tassman - This is an outright lie! Your argument has been EXACTLY 'about the SBC per se' as documented by your own words:

Most probably, if you'd been around in the 19th century, you would have supported slavery as God's will, as the Southern Baptist Convention did. OR in the mid 20th century supported miscegenation for the same reason, namely "God alone has decided these things".

December 2015

I specifically referred to traditional areas of difference such Christianity’s attitude towards the role of women, homosexuality, and race relations, e.g. regarding the last, miscegenation was specifically rejected on biblical grounds and slavery remained biblically justified by the Southern Baptist Convention until the 1990’s.

November 2017

No, in OUR world owning and beating slaves is wrong. We make laws against it. It is YOUR world that fought a civil war against the Deep South and Southern Baptists, who demanded to retain it.

June 2018 - lied about acknowldging slavery.

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in the Southern United States for the very purpose of maintaining slavery. It didn’t acknowledge they were wrong about it until Aug 28, 2009.

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.

You can't hide from your own words, Tassman!

[Sparko]

Actually, as I dig further into this, Mayor Pete simply ignores the scriptures he doesn't like. He doesn't seem to pay much attention to scripture at all, and has pretty much admitted he doesn't have any kind of a prayer life at all.



Tassman - This is an outright lie! Your argument has been EXACTLY 'about the SBC per se' as documented by your own words:

December 2015


November 2017


June 2018 - lied about acknowldging slavery.

You can't hide from your own words, Tassman!

no but he can ignore them and repeat himself!

[Cow Poke]

no but he can ignore them and repeat himself!

Which is all he's got!

[Cow Poke]

The likes of Mayor Pete seem to sincerely believe they are good Christians and obviously disagree with your interpretation of these texts.

Then you can show where he ever actually addressed these texts? He makes no attempt to address the scriptures at all - he simply ignores them, like he pretty much ignores God.


Mayor Pete’s Woke Intolerance

In an April interview with CNN, he expanded on that vision, saying that Christianity is essentially synonymous with the virtue of tolerance. “It is one thing to practice one’s faith as one sees fit. It is another to harm somebody else in the name of that faith,” Buttigieg said, in reference to questions about the dangers of politicizing Christianity. He then pointed the question at Pence: “Is this really the biggest thing we should be doing to accommodate religion right now: making it easier to harm people in its name?”

Yet Buttigieg never appeals to authority to explain his own interpretation of Christianity. Yes, he attends an Episcopalian church. But unlike the scores of evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox whose beliefs Buttigieg so often condemns, he does not claim that Scripture or a Magisterium gives his own beliefs validity.

Instead, Buttigieg lives by the dictum that Christianity means tolerance. Yet when asked if his repeated attacks on the vice president are their own sort of political weapons, Buttigieg becomes slippery: “I’m not a master fisherman, but I know bait when I see it, and I’m not gonna take it,” he told CNN host Anderson Cooper last week, to thunderous applause from his audience. “God does not have a political party,” he continued, before outlining how his own view of Scripture trumps the “chest-thumping and self-aggrandizing, not to mention abusive behavior” that marks the current administration’s view of Christianity.

Buttigieg preaches a limited vision of the Christian life. The least he could do is live by it.

CNN - Pete Buttigieg on faith...

Beck: You describe your faith as more liturgical than theological. So does that mean that you don't consider yourself having private, individual spirituality or a life of prayer outside of that gathered community?

Buttigieg: I don't know why I wound up liturgically conservative other than maybe habit, but I do feel that way. If there's going to be music, I want an organ, not a guitar. ... And I've always struggled with prayer as a concept, just because the idea that when you address the Almighty, we do it, grammatically, in the imperative mood. It's an interesting thing.

Granted, in a literal sense, it's asking for things, but that's problematic, too, as though we encounter God, and he hasn't already figured out what we need. So I guess in that sense I do find that ritual organized prayer makes sense because it is a way to tune my own heart to what is right.

A "practicing Christian" who has no meaningful prayer life. He pretty much ignores God.

And on late term abortion?

Beck: What about late-term abortion?

Buttigieg: Ironically, an issue like this is mostly for me about freedom from government. It is being aware that there are these incredibly painful, morally complex, but often also medically complex situations. And the question is: How do we make sure, as people navigate this in a really painful human way, that there are as few undue pressures on them as possible?

At the end of the day these are, as I understand it, measures that are designed to preserve the life and health of the mother, who is only getting to that point, I imagine, for the most part, if she had every intention of carrying a pregnancy to term. And I just don't see how my intervention as a government official, making rules about what she can and can't do, is going to help.

And who is Beck, the guy doing the questioning? He's CNN's "go to Priest", who is way outside the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, but they can always count on him to give the answers liberals want to hear.

[seer]

This is your opinion. Buttigieg obviously disagrees.

No Tass, it is not my opinion - it is what the text ACTUALLY says. You can read those passages yourself:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God...1 Corinthians 6:9,10

How does one interpret that to mean that homosexuality is moral? What does that look like?

[Cow Poke]

No Tass, it is not my opinion - it is what the text ACTUALLY says. You can read those passages yourself:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God...1 Corinthians 6:9,10

How does one interpret that to mean that homosexuality is moral? What does that look like?

I can't find a single place where Mayor Pete makes any attempt to address the relevant scriptures (or pretty much any scripture) at all. He simply ignores them.

[seer]

I can't find a single place where Mayor Pete makes any attempt to address the relevant scriptures (or pretty much any scripture) at all. He simply ignores them.

Exactly, he did suggest that God made him that way. I guess the rapist or pedophile could claim the same.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly, he did suggest that God made him that way. I guess the rapist or pedophile could claim the same.

And the alcoholic, kleptomaniac, pathological liar, sociopath, liberal....