Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - response to PT

In response to Don't believe I insulted Tutu posted by paper_turtle:
You said the former Bishop apparently regarded the Bible as little more than a conversation-starter...

My exact quote was: "Many professing Christians today, however, regard the Bible as little more than a conversation-starter, if that. Desmond Tutu appears to be in that camp."

My reasons for saying that are Tutu's own public statements concerning a number of issues as well as his public affiliations. He is on the liberal/"progressive" side of the Anglican community and an active leader in the South African Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. These organizations are not known, PT, for being staunchly committed to biblical authority. That's not a slam. It's a statement of fact.

Now, I respect Tutu's mind, his courage, and his commitment to love. But I strongly disagree with his apparent (and I was careful to say "appears") stance on biblical authority. He seems to be, based on his own statements and affiliations, of the opinion that the Bible starts the conversation, but doesn't end it. In other words, we can look to the Bible for wisdom and guidance, but it doesn't complete the journey or necessarily render the final word. Our own conscience in communion with the Holy Spirit must do that.

If you think I'm mis-stating his position, then, by all means, show me where I'm wrong - and I'll correct it.

...In other words, you seem to be saying he obviously doesn't pass **your** test for being a Christian.

YOU are putting words in my mouth, Paper Turtle.

My dictionary says to insult is to treat with scorn. Your remark about Tutu in relation to the Bible seems scornful, indeed.

YOU are making "sweeping generalizations" about my words and intentions, PT.

You didn't need that comment to make it clear you disagree with Tutu. And, with all due respect, how would you know how Tutu regards the Bible? Have you had tea with him recently?

No, I have not had tea with Desmond Tutu. Do I need to have tea with everybody before I disagree publicly with their publicly-stated theology?

» Brian Tubbs - What Migisi "senses"

In response to On the flip side posted by Migisi:

I sense that you believe that our legal system is fair...

Our legal system is part of our overall government system, which is framed by checks-and-balances and by the separation of powers. This gives a lot of leeway to states and localities - as it should be. So, it is not a sweeping, across-the-board, one size fits all system stretching from one side of the country to the other - nor should it be.

That said, there are some constitutional commonalities and underpinnings to our system, which makes it among the fairer systems in the world.

, flawless,

Hardly - and where did I say that our government or our system is flawless?

..and outside political and monetary influence.

I never said it was, but our Founding Fathers built safeguards into our system of justice to minimize or at least regulate these influences. They did a great job - but whenever you have PEOPLE involved in ANYTHING, you will have imperfections and problems.

» Brian Tubbs - Romans 13 and the American Revolution

In response to Of Extreme Interest posted by Migisi:

Phil, you like Revolutionary War era history, have you read some of the sermons of that time period????

» Brian Tubbs - After-the-fact

In response to Deterrent posted by Migisi:

"Revenge" reflects an INTENTION or motive. The fact that we execute a criminal for a crime does not necessarily constitute revenge. It certainly CAN - but it doesn't necessarily or automatically reflect "revenge."

Back to the deterence factor....

If we don't consistently apply the death penalty, then there is no certainty that a person who commits a crime will get that punishment. They are more or less rolling the dice. I may get caught. And if I do, I may not get the death penalty.

But, regardless, I'm not going to debate you on the statistics. Iv'e seen stats that go BOTH ways on this issue.

I'll simply say that capital punishment is an after-the-fact assurance that the person so executed will not commit a crime ever again.

» pink101 - Romans 13 and the American Revolution

In response to Romans 13 and the American Revolution posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Any one in particular?
.
Did you ever get that book, Baptist Piety, The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes; edited and with historical introduction by Edwin S. Ganstad?
.
He was a forerunner to the American Revolution and died back in 1682.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - What Migisi "senses"

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I appreciate the Civics lesson, but I passed those classes long ago - receiving A's, in fact. And revisited Civics when in the Police Academy. I would suggest that you get your nose out of your history books and spend some time in a real courtroom. And move around in the corridor and listen to the lawyers cutting deals.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - ASSUMPTIONS

Let me just say that there are an awful lot of ASSUMPTIONS being made about me and my beliefs in this discussion.

First, I respect Desmond Tutu's courage and commitment to social justice. That is my position, which puts me at odds with quite a few of my conservative friends. Paper Turtle made no effort to discern that or discover that about me, but instead came after me no-holds-barred (not much "peace and love" in her tone) for daring to publicly criticize Bishop Tutu. Frankly, I am surprised. I would expect that from others here. Not her.

Second, Migisi made several assumptions about my views on our legal system. None of which are true. I know that our system is flawed and inconsistent. But I feel like Winston Churchill said of democracy: "It's the worst system in the world -- except for all the others."

Third, Pink SEEMS to think I'm defending the "Divine Right of Kings" or something close to it by citing Romans 13. My application of Romans 13 to this discussion pertained only to the death penalty - specifically Paul's referent that the government "bears the sword" and has the power and duty to "execute wrath for judgment sake."

Interestingly, if the three of you (Migisi, Phil, and Paper Turtle) discredit Paul and/or challenge that he speaks for Christian doctrine, then YOU are merely fueling my point that opposition to the death penalty involves reducing the Bible's influence or authority on the issue. This is what I meant by the Bible being a "conversation-starter" for many professing Christians.

I'm still scratching my head as to how that is a slam at Tutu. It very accurately describes, I think, many progressive Anglicans - of which Tutu is one. John Shelby Spong is another. Spong pays great respect to the Bible, but also argues that we can't use the Bible as a being authoritatively binding on us today. Is that not Tutu's position as well? If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. But don't just jump on a high horse and tell me I'm scorning Tutu? For goodness sake, you're just venting in that case. It's not contributing anything of substance to this discussion.

If I'm wrong about Tutu, I'll gladly correct myself. I have no problem doing that. I've been wrong before. And I will acknowledge it when I'm wrong. Okay????

» pink101 - What Migisi "senses"

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by Migisi:
.
And move around in the corridor and listen to the lawyers cutting deals.
.
And, sacrificing this client for that case?
.
Oh, year! I know all about it.
.
I asked my lawyer why he had on such a ragged looking suit and he told me that he was sending a message to the court that his client was about to run out of money.
.
The dirty rotten b*****d!
(Sorry, about that, Brian).

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Done that

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by Migisi:

I would suggest that you get your nose out of your history books and spend some time in a real courtroom. And move around in the corridor and listen to the lawyers cutting deals.

Not that you'd give me ANY credit for it (or much of anything - at least in this discussion), but I've done that, Migisi. I shouldn't have to justify myself or my experience to you, but I've worked closely with lawyers in local politics, in business and associations, and even when I myself applied to law school back in my 20s. That was going to be my career direction, before my wife and I prayerfully decided to get into teaching and ministry. For crying out loud, I grew up in the DC area. Throw a rock in any direction and you'll hit a lawyer.

I know more about this subject than you give me credit for. But, whatever.

» Migisi - After-the-fact

In response to After-the-fact posted by BrianTubbs:

.
It certainly CAN - but it doesn't necessarily or automatically reflect "revenge."
.
IMO, it is always just that -- revenge. Your Jesus expressed his ideas on the OT justice system of 'an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth' in Matthew 5:38-42.
.
They are more or less rolling the dice. I may get caught. And if I do, I may not get the death penalty.
.
In your crap-shoot, an innocent person can be (and have been) convicted on circumstantial evidence, mistaken identity, poor lawyering, etc. With a roll of the racial, economic, political, etc. dice, an innocent person can have (and has) his life snuffed out. Execution is irreversible! When the truth of his innocence comes to light later through new technology, or the real criminal is apprehended - that innocent person's life can't be restored.
.
Your Jesus was executed on trumped up charges. How does that sit with you?

-- posted by Migisi