Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[Tassman]

I have searched and searched for any such offer of compromise - and what I discovered was that this separation over missions had already been building because of basic differences in philosophy between the churches of the north and the churches of the south. It's actually turned into quite an interesting study, and I thank Tassman for his idiot allegations that drove me to dig in.

The two missionary candidates who were denied service were just the "final straw" in a growing schism, much of which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

You didn’t search very hard:

“Slavery in the 19th century became the most critical moral issue dividing Baptists in the United States. Struggling to gain a foothold in the South, after the American Revolution, the next generation of Southern Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the leadership of southern society. Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery and urging manumission (as did the Quakers and Methodists), they began to interpret the Bible as supporting the practice of slavery and encouraged good paternalistic practices by slaveholders. They preached to slaves to accept their places and obey their masters. In the two decades after the Revolution during the Second Great Awakening, Baptist preachers abandoned their pleas that slaves be manumitted…”

Heyrman, Christine Leigh (1998). Southern Cross: The Beginning of the Bible Belt. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. cited Wiki.

IOW: This is totally in keeping with my argument that that scripture is interpreted according to the social mores of the day. This has been true of many Christians at one time justifying slavery via scripture (see above), women being subordinated to men and etc. And most recently homosexuality, as per the OP re Buttigieg.

[Cow Poke]

You didn’t search very hard:

“Slavery in the 19th century became the most critical moral issue dividing Baptists in the United States. Struggling to gain a foothold in the South, after the American Revolution, the next generation of Southern Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the leadership of southern society. Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery and urging manumission (as did the Quakers and Methodists), they began to interpret the Bible as supporting the practice of slavery and encouraged good paternalistic practices by slaveholders. They preached to slaves to accept their places and obey their masters. In the two decades after the Revolution during the Second Great Awakening, Baptist preachers abandoned their pleas that slaves be manumitted…”

Heyrman, Christine Leigh (1998). Southern Cross: The Beginning of the Bible Belt. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. cited Wiki.

I had already found that. You were too lazy to provide a link, so when I googled specific sentences, Google told me "You've visited this page 7 times. Last visit: 4/25/19. That does NOT answer the challenge, and it does NOT support your ignorant claim that it was the Southern Baptist Convention did this. There was no official Southern Baptist teaching, policy, dogma, doctrine.... And it does NOT show that there was any indication that there was an offer of compromise.

IOW:

Having failed to provide proof, you're about to go one step further in your dishonest smear campaign:

This is totally in keeping with my argument that that scripture is interpreted according to the social mores of the day.

That wasn't your argument.

This has been true of many Christians at one time justifying slavery via scripture (see above), women being subordinated to men and etc.

That wasn't your argument.

And most recently homosexuality, as per the OP re Buttigieg.

Feel free to come back when you actually have anything truthful to say.

[Cow Poke]

Tassman, because you are either incredibly forgetful, or incredibly dishonest, let me remind you what you had said...

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.

Not only did you get the date wrong (still laughing at your idiot claim that it was a typo) you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this was an official teaching, policy, doctrine or position of the Southern Baptist Convention. And it was clear that the SBC was founded to send missionaries, in spite of the fact that the Northern Churches refused to fund them because of the slavery issue.

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.

Now you get the date right for the renouncing of the SBC's handling of slavery, but you still have not provided any proof that it was an official teaching, policy, doctrine or position of the Southern Baptist Convention.

As you so often do, you get your big empty head filled with hateful untrue rhetoric, and you just keep repeating the same old thing over and over.

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.

False. But, with ZERO regard for the truth, same thing over and over...

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".

You're about as good at this as you were defending ILGA!

Now, you can keep claiming your argument was X, and I'll keep posting what your argument actually was.

[Cow Poke]

Here's another incredible WHOPPER from the Tassman anti-Christian bigotry campaign....

My argument was that the interpretation of scripture varies e.g. the likes of Buttigieg, as a practicing Christian, interprets scripture in such a way that homosexuality is OK with a loving God.

You have yet to back up this claim - from all appearances, Buttigieg doesn't "interpret" scripture with regards to his decision to live in sin - he totally ignores it.

Is it even POSSIBLE for you to say something like, "OK, you're right, I should have said....."? No, you just attempt to distort the record by claiming you said something else, and argue like a used car salesman at the end of the month.

[Tassman]

That does NOT answer the challenge, and it does NOT support your ignorant claim that it was the Southern Baptist Convention did this. There was no official Southern Baptist teaching, policy, dogma, doctrine.... And it does NOT show that there was any indication that there was an offer of compromise.

Christine Leigh Heyrman, makes the point, which is in line with my argument, that the “Southern Baptist preachers accommodated themselves to the leadership of southern society. Rather than challenging the gentry on slavery and urging manumission (as did the Quakers and Methodists), they began to interpret the Bible as supporting the practice of slavery and encouraged good paternalistic practices by slaveholders"

Whether or not this was official SBC Policy or merely commonly accepted practice makes little difference. This is what actually happened, as reinforced by the above historian.

And this has been my argument throughout, namely that Christians (not just slave--owners) have a history of interpreting scripture according to the social mores of the day.

That wasn't your argument.

This has been my argument as far back as #110 “there’s often a conflict of scriptural interpretation between Christians

That wasn't your argument.

See above

[Tassman]

Here's another incredible WHOPPER from the Tassman anti-Christian bigotry campaign....

So funny!

You have yet to back up this claim - from all appearances, Buttigieg doesn't "interpret" scripture with regards to his decision to live in sin - he totally ignores it.

That’s’ merely your opinion, no doubt Buttigieg would disagree with it. He said “It was God who Made Me Gay”.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pete-b...ho-made-me-gay

(And the majority of US Christians nowadays, according to Pew Research, have a similar understanding of scripture re homosexuality.)

[Cow Poke]

Christine Leigh Heyrman, makes the point blah blah blah

Regardless of your anti-Christian bigotry, Buttigieg does not use scripture to justify his decision to live in sin. He just totally ignores those scriptures, and makes up his own Jesus.

He's touted as a "practicing Christian", yet he appears to only attend Church occasionally, has no regard for the Bible, and ignores anything in it that speaks against his conduct.

And, yeah, as you suggested, just like Trump.

[Cow Poke]

That’s’ merely your opinion, no doubt Buttigieg would disagree with it. He said “It was God who Made Me Gay”.

Which proves he ignores what the Bible actually says and makes up his own jackass theology, and suckers fools into believing him. He could as well say "It was God who Made Me a Child Molester" or alcoholic or kleptomaniac...

[Cow Poke]

BACK ON TOPIC again...

From an opinion piece in Bloomberg - What Would Jesus Do? Pete Buttigieg Has No Idea

“Christian faith is going to point you in a progressive direction,” he told USA Today.

Actually, it's his version of "faith" that might do that, because he tends to simply ignore the parts of the Bible he doesn't like, and make up his own version of Jesus.

Then there's this part...

For Buttigieg, the basic mistake of conservative Christians is “saying so much about what Christ said so little about, and so little about what he said so much about.” His interviewer, journalist Kirsten Powers, calls it an “insightful formulation” and specifies that abortion is one of those topics Jesus ignored.

Actually, the basic mistake of what liberal Christians like Mayor Pete is that they tend to cherry pick the things the want Jesus to say, ignoring statements like "go and sin no more". Or the fact that Jesus had some harsh words about those who would harm a child, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones, and "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven".

Meanwhile, Mayor Pete defends third trimester abortion. Third trimester is WELL beyond the "blob of tissue" claimed by some, even here on Tweb. Only 10% of Americans support that extremist view.

So, while Mayor Pete claims to be reluctant to criticize the faith of others, he does exactly that.

He appears to rarely attend Church
It will be interesting to see, if and when his tax returns are made public, how much he believes in giving to charity
He has no regard for the Bible as authoritative
He doesn't base his decision to live a sinful lifestyle on his own interpretation of the Bible (as Tassman has repeatedly claimed) - he simply ignores it
He creates his own version of Jesus who is not just loving and accepting, but quite tolerant of sin
The loony left loves him
The anti-Christian bigotry society accepts him as their own

It's not looking so good for Mayor Pete's 'faith'. Faith in what? Or whom?

[Sparko]

Franklin Graham Delivers More Biblical Truth to Gay Democrat Pete Buttigieg

Evangelist Franklin Graham is once again challenging the comments about Christianity and homosexuality that were made recently by Democratic presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Buttigieg has been critical of Christian leaders like Vice President Mike Pence who stand for the biblical definition of marriage. Buttigieg is a homosexual and is married to another man.

Pence had never attacked Buttigieg, but as CBN News has reported, Buttigieg made it sound like he did. "I wish the Mike Pence's of the world would understand, that if you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is not with me," Buttigieg said earlier this month. "Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."

Answering multiple comments Buttigieg made about God, Graham tweeted, "Presidential candidate & South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg is right—God doesn't have a political party. But God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by. God doesn't change. His Word is the same yesterday, today & forever."

Graham continued, "Mayor Buttigieg says he's a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women."

"The core of the Christian faith is believing and following Jesus Christ, who God sent to be the Savior of the world—to save us from sin, to save us from hell, to save us from eternal damnation," Graham said.

This is the second time Graham has confronted Buttigieg over his claims of being a homosexual Christian. A week ago Graham said on Facebook, "Protesters shouting 'Sodom and Gomorrah' interrupted mayor and 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg this week at a rally in Iowa. I don't agree with heckling anyone—I think we should be respectful."

"In response, Buttigieg made the comment, 'the condition of my soul is in the hands of God …' Mayor Buttigieg is absolutely right—His soul is in the hands of God, so is everyone's. He also says that he's a Christian and wants to become the first openly gay president in America's history. What's wrong with that picture? In reality, being a Christian isn't just a title we select or a church membership. It is a faith in God and His Word that transforms our lives to be more like the One we follow—Jesus Christ."

"Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments' (John 14:15). The Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin. 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination...' (Leviticus 20:13). That's what God says and that settles it for me. I stand with the Word of God. I care enough about people to tell them the truth and to warn them about the judgment to come for all sin."


https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politic...pete-buttigieg

[fair warning, this is one of those news articles formats that I hate, someone just repeating other people's tweets. But it gets the point accross]

[Tassman]

Which proves he ignores what the Bible actually says and makes up his own jackass theology, and suckers fools into believing him. He could as well say "It was God who Made Me a Child Molester" or alcoholic or kleptomaniac...

Yet the majority of US Christians agree with Buttigieg according to Pew Research. So are they all making up their "own jackass theology", or merely reinterpreting scripture according to the social mores of today as has been the case throughout history.

[seer]

Yet the majority of US Christians agree with Buttigieg according to Pew Research. So are they all making up their "own jackass theology", or merely reinterpreting scripture according to the social mores of today as has been the case throughout history.

Tassman, again they are not reinterpreting scripture, they are rejecting it. You know very well what the relevant texts say, so don't play dumb it is dishonest. And yes, they are in fact making up their own theology. And as far as the Pew poll we have been through this before - the majority those who study scripture more and who attend services more do not think that homosexuality is acceptable. So you are relying on nominal Christians who don't know their scriptures.

[Cow Poke]

Yet the majority of US Christians agree with Buttigieg according to Pew Research.

First of all - this "majority" idiocy: You seem to have this really warped notion that a majority makes something right. Kinda like Joshua and Caleb being 2 of the 12 spies. Can you name the other 10? The majority was WAY wrong.

So are they all making up their "own jackass theology", or merely reinterpreting scripture according to the social mores of today as has been the case throughout history.

Tassman, you have the credibility of skunk poop. You are allowing your hate-filled anti-Christian bias to prevent you from grasping the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that Buttigieg's problem is in interpretation. He's flat out IGNORING the very scriptures that deal with the issue.

You are dishonest in conflating "interpretation" of scripture with a total IGNORING of it. And all you're doing is proving what an insolent jackass you are.

[guacamole]

Yet the majority of US Christians agree with Buttigieg according to Pew Research. So are they all making up their "own jackass theology", or merely reinterpreting scripture according to the social mores of today as has been the case throughout history.

"Their own jackass theology" pretty much describes much of what the modern church thinks.

[tabibito]

There is sometimes ambiguity in the texts which the unscrupulous exploit to sway the credulous, sometimes the ambiguity will be misapplied by mistake. Sometimes there is no ambiguity and the text will simply be turned into a dog's breakfast - and that will be considered believable by people with an agenda.

In the case of slavery, there is some ambiguity which takes a lot of effort to resolve. In the case of women in positions of leadership, there is some ambiguity which can be resolved with almost no effort. In the case of homosexual relationships, there is no ambiguity ... it is not approved for Christians, which means that a Christian has no business engaging in or giving even tacit approval for the practice..