CBF dissent on the [Baptist] Conf on Sexuality and Covenant

[Gene Scarborough]

Let's take the KJV as an example, Sandy:

There are 2 accounts of Creation in it (and all other translations) because there are simply 2 documents which do not agree in the order of creation / the name used for God. If God dictated it, then why are there 2 different stories? Does not God know his own name?

Take ! Corinthians 13 and "love is not easily provoked." The word "easily" is not in the original manuscript because the translators feared the temper of the King! If it were a "dictated text" (with many still claiming the KJV is "God's Word"), then you have a "perfect inerrant" problem!

What you are ignoring is the hand of man in the writing of the Bible / deciding by Church Council what would be included and what is excluded / the simple difference between hand copied manuscripts / the absence of any "original autograph."

What is the problem with simply saying, "The Bible is INSPIRED?"

By the way, this is not that germain to the topic we are discussing and should have its own place elsewhere.

[Gene Scarborough]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

The sexual problem which, I hope, will merit discussion at the conference will be those obsessed with sex over those who see it as a normal part of life.

We should have no problems discussing a man who has plead guilty to his charges of video voyerism.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

It is like the preacher in Rocky Mount (son-in-law of Paige Patterson) having his sermon about the Belk's langerie ad in the Sunday paper. He was too obsessed with it and that bespeaks a hidden perversion rather than just seeing it as the same thing as the Sears-Roebuck catalogue section on women's undergarments.

I don't know if he could tolerate a 2-piece bathing suit at Myrtle Beach either. If you are averse to seeing any skin on a woman, you have a problem! The Puritans suffered from such and gave us many things to obsess over.

[William Thornton]

[Gene Scarborough]

We are on the topic, William---your posted it and we are commenting!

I was just answering Ed's question with the reason why I posted what I did. My Psychology background simply makes me look beneath the surface when anyone is too focused on sexual matters---in a way which bespeaks a hidden demon.

[William Thornton]

[Gene Scarborough]

We all have our demons----mine are clearly fundamantelist conservatives who took over the SBC and do not want the CBF even addressing important current issues on sexual matters.

Meanwhile, they refuse to deal with perverts hurting innocent people pastoring local SBC churches = duh

The Pastor in Rocky Mount had his issues and would not admit to them---which is dangerous and I would not want my wife or daughter going to him for counseling.

[Ed Pettibone]

Gene Scarborough: " The Pastor in Rocky Mount had his issues and would not admit to them---which is dangerous and I would not want my wife or daughter going to him for counseling."

Ed: And Gene how long ago was this? And what does it have to do with the upcoming conference in Decatur?

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy--- surely you are not that stupid as to not recognize the refusal of the SBC to formally deal with sexual molestation---and hear the chuckling evil hope on Mohler's part that this divides the CBF.

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---the SBC could choose to address the issue of perverts among it's ordained----but won't!!!

What more can I say, brother.

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

So tell me: The SBC "can't do anything" about a molester, but gladly kick out a church ministering to gays---or one calling a female pastor

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

(1) A church which ordains an individual has their name behind that person for the rest of their ministry---and can (should) withdraw that Ordination if the person fails morally thereafter. Yours is just another excuse for turning your head on moral issues with anyone ordained.

(2) Give me another break on "kicking out." Calling it "withdrawing fellowship" is just another way of saying "you can't participate if you cross us."

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

You have described a significant change in SBC and Associational polity from the 50-70's. IN the past, Autonomy, allowed for cooperation without judgmentalism. Now it is all about "who is doing what we tell them to."

This is an absolute departure from that which made the SBC grow and prosper pre-1979. It is getting worse and does not help fellowship nor cooperation over missions.