Has Jesus ever disclosed the name of GOD?

Post Reply New Topic

Your argument is that Southern Baptists do not maintain a lower opinion of the universe (or of humanity) than most people do. Your belief-system would seem to suggest otherwise.

Then why boycott and slander Disney?


Leviticus also provides instruction on how to sacrifice sheep, goats and cattle. Do Southern Baptists consume pork? Do Southern Baptist women cover their heads when they go to church? Do Southern Baptists keep the Sabbath Day (which run from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) holy? Or, do they go with the non-Biblical first day of the week? Southern Baptists only believe what suits them, while claiming to believe the Bible. Moreover, remaining fixated on the awfullness of homosexuality amounts to self-glorification, and demonstrates a lack of humility.


Of all the things that Southern Baptists could be doing to make the world a better place, picking on queers and boycotting Disney isn't one of them.


Do you really expect the Southern Baptist arguments to carry the day, without argument?

That isn't my argument at all. You have been making a number of intellectually dishonest statements that I disagree with. My argument has little to do with it.

This is what I took issue with:

The problem is that isn't the central fixation of my faith at all. I mean, that is so antithetical to what I believe that calling it a "misrepresentation" isn't going far enough. It's an outright falsehood driven by an apparent hatred for Baptists--and I'm not completely sure about where the animosity comes from. But at any rate, you seem to me to be operating under some form of prejudice, a dislike of Biblical morality, stereotype, or some combination thereof.

I arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Pariah by talking to Baptists, attending their sermons, and reading their books - and I did so in six different states in the Union, two of which were below the Mason-Dixon.

Maybe your specific church isn't full of small-minded plagues upon humanity, but I assure you that most churches that self-define as Baptists ARE.

Okay, then. What is the Central Fixation of Southern Baptist Faith?

I remember "a" Disney boycott some years ago and my understanding was that the boycott was eventually ended. How recent is the boycott you mentioned?

Exactly how was Disney slandered? Did they support homosexuality or not?


Homosexuality is a relevant social and political topic. Southern Baptists have also been vocal against abortion. If some other form of immorality were to come into the public spotlight as gay marriage and abortion have, Southern Baptists and probably other evangelical groups would be outspoken about it as well. Gay marriage just happens to be a major issue at the moment.

If you spend a little more time in some of the more old-fashioned churches, you find that some congregations tend to be less tolerant of adultery and alcohol use than others. Of course, those aren't things that really get a lot of media attention, so you won't really hear much of a reaction from Baptists about it. But I'm sure the more you get to know Baptists the more you'd hear about those kinds of things.

You mentioned Leviticus. The thing is, though, is that the OT was written by and for the Israelites/Jews. In brief, it helps Christians understand where they came from spiritually and teaches many valuable lessons. Levitical laws have varying purposes, though, from ritual purity to cultural identity to basic law-and-order. I might be tempted to let homosexuality go if it hadn't been mentioned specifically in the NT. But there it is, and I can think of three reasons why it should be avoided.

Regarding the Sabbath Day--I, for one, believe that the Jewish sabbath should be observed in some way by Christians. The first day is perpetually memorialized as a celebration of the risen Christ, and there isn't any real reason why the first day could not also serve as a substitute for Christians. I personally think we should observe both, however. I by no means am able to keep the Sabbath perfectly, but I will typically fast from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday and stay away from work activities unless they are absolutely unavoidable.

To that end, do I think that Baptists are perfect? No. I never pretended that they are, but I don't think that SBC as a whole is even remotely the monster you're making us out to be.

And in regard to picking and choosing among Torah, I believe it was Isaiah that hinted that some laws were never intended to be permanent. Jesus ended the dietary restrictions; Paul helped Gentiles get a proper understanding of the meaning of circumcision and how it should apply to them and even secured the cooperation of the church in Jerusalem on the matter. Peter received a vision of Christ instructing him to carry the gospel to the Gentiles and not be afraid to do it for reasons of ritual impurity. The necessity of OT sacrifice was ended by Jesus' atoning work on the cross.

I mean, these aren't things that you can really exclusively pin on Baptists, either. Most churches I'm aware of claim the Bible as their source of theological knowledge, so you'd have to make the same accusation against other churches--not just the Baptists. Your statements here regarding Baptists are highly prejudicial.


If something is believed to be wrong, people shouldn't oppose it? And besides, the Disney thing is not THAT big a deal. If Baptists are opposed to homosexuality, would it not make sense that Baptists wouldn't want themselves or their families exposed to something that supports it? And if Baptists do not wish to support it on religious grounds, would it not make sense for them to make their congregations aware of the supporters of immorality so that Baptists don't have to worry about violating matters of conscience?

Also consider that the boycotts are voluntary. We all have to make our own decisions. I'm not going to get booted out of my church if I take my family to Disney World, and I've even known ordained ministers to take their families there.


Winning an argument for the sake of winning doesn't exactly fit my interests at the moment, so I'm not all that concerned about "winning the day." I'm just somewhat dismayed that SBC and myself (by extension) are being attacked for something that is common to more Christian denominations than you might think or be willing to see.

But you said a few times that we're trying to impose our morality on others; if that really is the problem, then I'm forced to point out that speaking out against it as though it were something wrong is just committing the same error. Your morality seems to suggest, if this is the case, that it is somehow wrong for Christians to promote their faith and that they should be stopped from spreading the gospel. That, however would be an imposition of your own morality on someone else, and I think it's important to point out the inherent irony here. It's absurd, in my view, to oppose an immoral activity that you yourself are guilty of.

Jesus Christ.

I'd be careful about referring to it as the Southern Baptist "Faith." A denomination is what it is based on a certain thread of theological teaching and practice. The individual church in Southern Baptist association remains autonomous, so even among Southern Baptists you'll find differing degrees of variance among churches and even among different associations. The Convention exists because of a few things that Baptists generally tend to agree on. There are more things we agree on than not, but every Baptist church is unique in some way, each with it's own history and traditions. Exactly what our "Faith" is is hard pinpoint except for two common practices (ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper), but you seem to be familiar with the SBC website. You can read the Baptist Faith and Message on your own if you like. The "Faith" itself is faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice and God's grace for all believers. This doesn't have to be something strictly limited to Baptists, though, and it certainly isn't exclusive to us.

But, as I've said before, I consider myself Christian first and Baptist second. I'd probably feel more at-home in certain Pentecostal churches than some of the more stodgy Baptist churches. My main objection is that some believe that glossolalia is a requirement for proving an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which leads me to believe that glossolalia and so-called "prayer languages" are really just for show. I can't in good conscience be a part of a church that emphasizes those kinds of things, and it is my understanding that not all do. If I were to cross denominational lines, I'd have to carefully examine the church before getting involved in it.

Some SBC churches have a worship format that closely resembles Pentecostal churches, though I believe we lag behind Pentecostals by about 10-15 years. Pentecostals tend to dominate the Christian music scene, and so Baptists, whether they realize it or not, quite often co-opt Pentecostal music in their own worship services. As a fellow musician, I'm sure you can appreciate my attitude towards forward-thinking in the church music department, and I'm frequently frustrated that Baptist churches tend to lean on other traditions rather than starting their own traditions and maintaining their own resources.

In regard to Pentecostal worship and music catching on - we Missouri Synod Lutherans are finding ourselves having to fend off that highly emotional music and worship so common to evangelicals. Those calling themselves "Progressives" are into that so called contemporary musical scene. But those of us who think of ourselves as the stodgy traditionalists and orthodox (who actually tend to be more tolerant) are of the opinion that such evangelical worship is a sly way to filter fundamentalist and pentecostal theology into our denomination - and I think the evidence is on our side.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ever heard the term "Worship Wars"? Many Baptists feel the same way.

You have to be careful here, because it's very tempting, and very easy to go the opposite extreme. There is nothing inherently wrong with either. The question is WHY should you have a preference either way?

I'm not sure I see how the music inherently injects fundie/pentecostal theology into any denomination. We do SOME "emotional" praise songs, and I think in our church we have maybe 3 people put their hands up out of a crowd of 300 worshipers. The vast majority of CCM seems to be coming from pentecostals and non-denoms, but all the Baptists I know are steadfast against glossolalia and prosperity gospel heresy (though pentecostals are also beginning to distance themselves from prosperity gospel). Praise and worship music is just that: Praise and worship. The relevant theology behind it is simple adoration of God and the Messiah. It's not functionally different from liturgy, just more diverse and aesthetically forward-looking. It wouldn't have caught on with so many Baptists if it had been seen as theologically threatening.

What concerns me is whether music is conducive to worship and whether the entire church body is engaged in worship. You can get the job done no matter what style you use. But you cannot lean on worship style preferences and disengage generationally. If you do that, the local congregation dies. Literally. The service becomes so self-serving that the only people left are the elderly while the younger crowd flocks to newer churches that evidently care about them.

The opposite is having a church too concerned with younger crowds and drawing them in through little more than entertainment and pop culture trends. Without leading a community to Christ, such a church, even if it's a big one, will start to experience a sort of revolving-door effect.

In the case of more traditional churches, as long as the church focuses on engaging the entire body in worship cross-generationally, there will continue to be growth within that church. It's possible to do that with liturgical worship. But it more often happens that liturgical worshipers take that for granted and alienate the younger generations. And that's when they typically flock to "progressive" churches. The few that are left are so stubborn and so snobby nobody would want to join the church. IF those churches manage to turn things around, it's because there's usually a core group of worshipers who are determined not to let hostile church members run them off.

And on that note, I have to defer to Sun Tzu: Thus, while we have heard of stupid haste in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged. for there has never been a protracted war which benefited a country.

Apply that to the "Worship Wars." Traditional worship for the sake of tradition at the expense of genuine worship is fighting a war you cannot win. Same goes for "progressive" worship. Ultimately what will happen is people who truly want to worship and feel the presence of God will either win the war or the local church will disintegrate.

I'm not sure why you'd want to fend off emotional music. Praise and adoration are inherently emotional activities. I view the role of music as a vehicle for exalted experience and expression, not suppression. That's not to say you can't do this through traditional music, but using music to restrict expression just seems backwards to me. If you just mean going to a rock concert on Sunday morning distracts you from the worship experience, then I can better understand your point of view.

Does that mean that Disney caved in to Southern Baptist demands? Or, did the Southern Baptists eventually get tired of looking stupid?

You know more about it than I do.


I've watched the Lion King. Quite frankly, I did not perceive Disney as trying to force the "homosexual lifestyle" down our throats through the characters of Timon and Pumbaa. I watched the movie innocently, and didn't perceive any sexuality in them at all. If you think that they were serving to promote homosexuality, then what about Jesus? He hung around with dudes. He never married. He never even kissed a girl.


Jesus was not a big homophobe who went around bashing homosexuals. Quite the opposite.


Southern Baptists are certainly negativity-centered, and like to complain a lot and be intolerant. Which makes one wonder why a pervert like Newt Gingrich would have enjoyed so much support among Southern Baptists.

Jesus did not say a thing against homosexuals, and your NT quote is not unambiguous.

Nope. That wasn't until Acts 10.

Having to get circumcised might have been an impediment to gaining converts.

Not really. I think that Jewish sacrifices came to an end when the Romans sacked the Temple in Jerusalem. Paul said that it was okay for Christians to buy the meat of animals that had been sacrificed in pagan temples.

I don't think that the Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. are generally quite so stiff-necked.

Why not focus that energy on doing something positive for the world? Instead of always focusing on the negative?

I'll bet that your congregation would at least do its best to make you feel guilty for going there. The Southern Baptists are trying to hurt Disney's business for no valid reason.

Attacked? Anyone who disagrees with Southern Baptists is "attacking" them? Southern Baptists do seem to cultivate a persecution complex, and often seem to be under a siege mentality. They think that Disney is attacking them personally.

And, you're guilty of making a lazy strawman argument.

If Southern Baptists are going to promote their faith through stupid things like public boycotts of Disney, then, of course, normal people are going to see it and react to it.

Wait, you mean to tell me that there are people that believe Southern Baptists have some kind of moral high ground?

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I wish it were.



By fixating upon Jesus, one's own personal shortcomings should, in principle, no longer have any significance. A Christian should thus be replete with love for the world, and condemn no-one.

The ancient Israelites used to have a quaint custom



For the Southern Baptists, homosexuals (and others who are on-the-outs with the congregation) serve the function of the scapegoat. The Southern Baptists are able to project their own feelings of inadequacy (and, boy, do they have them) onto the homosexuals, bash away, and come away feeling better about themselves.

If Southern Baptists were indeed fixated upon Jesus, then there would be no reason for Southern Baptists to behave this way at all. Instead, they are fixated upon sins, abominations and shortcomings.

The fact is, evangelical type worship is promoted by those Lutherans who lean toward the notion that believers must play an active role in their salvation, rather than trusting that God holds our fate in his hands. Accompanying that is the notion that for faith to be real, it has to be ecstatic and emotional. Now, I understand that there are denominations where such practices and beliefs are the norm, but that's just not how Lutherans believe. The emphasis is on God, Christ's sacrifice and atonement, and the word - not on us and how we feel. The fact of the matter is, my congregation had once had a member who was into the whole born again experience thing, and in time came to admit that his theology was much closer to that of a Baptist rather than a Lutheran. And wouldn't you know it, he was about the most hard right, intolerant person you'd ever have the misfortune of meeting. Thankfully he's gone, but he did certainly cause friction in our church.
By the way, for the discussion at hand regarding Disney - I can remember when many evangelicals years ago had tried to get The Wizard Of Oz, Peter Pan, and other children's classics banned from the school libraries in at least on southern state, because the good witches and and use of magic was considered a gateway into the arms of Satan. This attack on Disney for being gay friendly can be regarded as the same sort of idiocy. The fact is, Mickey Mouse is not the Devil, the Tin Woodsman is not the Anti-Christ, and the Harry Potter series is not the tome of Hell.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not dancing?

ruveyn

My understanding is that it was the former.


No, I really don't. I haven't heard anything of a 2nd boycott, so if it happened in the last 5 years I'd be totally unaware of it. If it's not a new development, then you're dragging up something out of the past that isn't even applicable anymore.


I don't see overt homosexual messages in Lion King. There might be veiled references to keep gay activists happy for all I really know, but I saw nothing that I found offensive.

The thing is, you're going to run into fundies everywhere who will make anything and everything out to be something offensive. You're just blaming a denomination for the error of a vocal minority.


Agreed, but don't forget that Jesus called sinners to repentance.


OK, but now you need to denounce the NAACP and the ACLU as well.


Looks pretty clear to me.

OK, so you don't believe the Bible. Fine. Then there's no point in discussing it. Moving on...


Mark 7:18-19--"Are you also lacking in understanding? Don't you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated."


That, too. And it has been suggested that the Greeks had a different negative cultural attitude towards circumcision, namely that it was a humiliating act, not just a painful one.


Practicing Jews, yes, but Jesus' act on the cross displaced the necessity for it.

Paul advocated a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it came to buying meat in the market. He also believed that knowingly consuming flesh sacrificed to other gods could also be seen as insulting the culture the Christians purported to witness to.


Just more prejudice.


Well, to be honest, every church I visited was focused more on reaching the lost rather than bashing someone for being a sinner. Baptists are always involved in charities, providing medical and food aid to other countries, building homes for the marginalized at home--all kinds of positive things. So I'm not so sure I really see Baptists as "focussed" on negatives.


No "valid" reason? The Bible teaches homosexuality is sinful behavior. It wouldn't be right for US to support those who promote homosexuality, but by no means have we impeded others who take no such issue with it from supporting those businesses. And I'm not exactly sure that there really is an ongoing beef between Baptists and Disney. When you say no "valid" reason, it leads me to believe that your opinion of validity is just that: a subjective opinion. So you don't like it...big deal. You're entitled to your opinion just as much as we are.


You ARE attacking what you perceive to be disagreeable policies and practices of the SBC. I'm attacking the truth and factuality of your claims. Attacking claims is just part of the discussion. It's not about persecution. What somewhat amuses me and simultaneously disturbs me on this point is that what you're attacking is common to many Christians, yet somehow Baptists are the ones in your crosshairs at the moment. Why make Baptists the scapegoat for what you dislike about Christianity as a whole?


Then by all means clarify. You've led me to believe you see it as wrong to impose one's morality on other people. If that is the truth, then you are making a moral qualification and by standing by that opinion you are holding me to your own standard. That's well and good, but it is at odds with the idea that it is wrong to impose one's morality on others. You've already imposed your morality on me. You can't make that imposition and still be fair about it. If I've misjudged your intentions, by all means clarify by stating what you really think on that matter.


"Stupid things," well, that again is a matter of subjective opinion. And, I mean, what exactly is "normal"? Baptists represent the majority of Protestants, so I'd say Baptist views are closer to the norm.

But, yes, people in this country are free to respond if they so desire.

Prohibitions on dancing have become a sort of inside joke within the denomination. It's pretty unreasonable, yet it somehow remains in the by-laws of smaller Baptist churches. We snicker about it and go out dancing anyway.

Except for me. I play in a band. I don't get to dance.