tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post3719635028031416142..comments2023-10-19T10:34:33.030-05:00Comments on Praisegod Barebones: Principled Objection or Situational Objection?Bart Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-36821760521350350282008-02-15T12:21:00.000-06:002008-02-15T12:21:00.000-06:00paul,people voted for or against because in the co...paul,<BR/><BR/>people voted for or against because in the convention center they thought they knew what it was...after reflection...they wondered...were confused. after the vote was taken, and they began to talk to some people about it, they then realized how a motion so vague could be construed to mean what wade wants it to mean. they didnt understand this during the voting period...but volfan007https://www.blogger.com/profile/15635929001030697924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-30941426944837982712008-02-14T16:03:00.000-06:002008-02-14T16:03:00.000-06:00Greg,Given those quotes, what gives is the denial ...Greg,<BR/><BR/>Given those quotes, what gives is the denial that anyone there was confused, yet voted anyway.<BR/><BR/>I'm responding to the following quote of yours: "There just isn't an ethical problem here, Paul, in voting against the Garner Motion on the grounds that it was a poorly-worded motion."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I should be asking you if you have read my previous comments, because I never Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01568650603425594448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-90753860130393989962008-02-14T15:03:00.000-06:002008-02-14T15:03:00.000-06:00Wade asks:"If you were to ask the Executive Commit...Wade asks:<BR/><BR/>"If you were to ask the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention if 'The Garner Motion' is a poorly worded motion, what do you think they would say?"<BR/><BR/>Umm, dunno.<BR/><BR/>"If we wrote something, it wasn't poorly worded, even if someone somewhere thinks it's poorly worded, and that's that."<BR/><BR/>Nope, can't imagine that.<BR/><BR/>"Touch not the Lord'sGreg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-71062514576589353012008-02-14T14:55:00.000-06:002008-02-14T14:55:00.000-06:00Paul wrote:"You simply can't classify everyone who...Paul wrote:<BR/><BR/>"You simply can't classify everyone who voted against the motion as doing so for your reasons and thus I don't believe you can say that there is no ethical problem. Perhaps not with you, but you can't impose your reasoning onto everyone who opposed the motion."<BR/><BR/>I find this simply incredible, Paul. <BR/><BR/>I went out of my way to *explicitly* deny the position you Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-43522919910239533582008-02-14T14:23:00.000-06:002008-02-14T14:23:00.000-06:00David,I'll tell you what I told Greg and that is t...David,<BR/><BR/>I'll tell you what I told Greg and that is that if that was the case for you then I understand, but you have no basis to say that what was going on with you is what was going on with everyone else who you say was "confused."<BR/><BR/>I also think it is really telling that you so readily judged the motives of your brothers only to talk to Bart afterwards which caused you to Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01568650603425594448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-51785604078673414382008-02-14T11:41:00.000-06:002008-02-14T11:41:00.000-06:00paul,have you ever thought that you knew what was ...paul,<BR/><BR/>have you ever thought that you knew what was being said, or voted on? and then, afterwards, after some reflection, you begin to realize that many what you thought wasnt exactly what someone was talking about? thus, the confusion over this issue.<BR/><BR/>while in the convention hall, they thought that the garner motion was about affirming the bfm2k. voted for it. then, after volfan007https://www.blogger.com/profile/15635929001030697924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-65292553938004134202008-02-14T10:57:00.000-06:002008-02-14T10:57:00.000-06:00Greg,I understand your reasoning. However, we hav...Greg,<BR/><BR/>I understand <I>your</I> reasoning. However, we have been told that there were people who voted on the Garner motion who were shortly found to be in the halls of the convention center asking certain people "what did we just vote on?"<BR/><BR/>Now, that sounds very different to my ears than to say that they thought it was poorly worded and voted against it because they perceived itPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01568650603425594448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-4872151969963581712008-02-14T10:36:00.000-06:002008-02-14T10:36:00.000-06:00Greg,If you were to ask the Executive Committee of...Greg,<BR/><BR/>If you were to ask the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention if 'The Garner Motion' is a poorly worded motion, what do you think they would say?wadeburleson.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09712009938843809657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-66085048767662478392008-02-14T10:12:00.000-06:002008-02-14T10:12:00.000-06:00Bart said:"Of course, my gentle admonishment notwi...Bart said:<BR/><BR/>"Of course, my gentle admonishment notwithstanding, I love 'you people' in Christ. And some among you are even correct in your arguments."<BR/><BR/>Why, thank you :-)<BR/><BR/>Paul said:<BR/><BR/>"Are you really telling me that if someone brought a motion to the floor rejecting the practice of abortion, disallowing homosexuals to teach in our seminaries, showing appreciation Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-81845410864802569592008-02-14T09:18:00.000-06:002008-02-14T09:18:00.000-06:00David,The following words are directly quoted from...David,<BR/><BR/>The following words are directly quoted from the first few sentences of your previous comment to me:<BR/><BR/><B>people were not confused when they voted.</B> they thought they knew what was being said. the confusion comes in what the people thought they knew. some people voted for the garner motion because they liked the idea of a maximum standard. <B>some voted for it because Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01568650603425594448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-21575178671460728522008-02-13T22:19:00.000-06:002008-02-13T22:19:00.000-06:00paul,what? after reading what you wrote to me...i...paul,<BR/><BR/>what? after reading what you wrote to me...i'm confused.<BR/><BR/>davidvolfan007https://www.blogger.com/profile/15635929001030697924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-3582305676048555482008-02-13T18:47:00.000-06:002008-02-13T18:47:00.000-06:00alan,you said,"Anyway, my overall point was that f...alan,<BR/><BR/>you said,"Anyway, my overall point was that for you to not react in surprise to 42% of the Convention that voted against a reaffirmation of the BFM"<BR/><BR/>alan, 42% of the people voted against the garner motion because they 1) saw it as an attempt to make the bfm2k a maximum statement of doctrinal belief; 2)were against any creedal statemtents of any sort whatsoever... as we volfan007https://www.blogger.com/profile/15635929001030697924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-22176323366787035992008-02-13T18:19:00.000-06:002008-02-13T18:19:00.000-06:00Wade,Let's make a deal....If you agree, I will sub...Wade,<BR/><BR/>Let's make a deal....<BR/><BR/>If you agree, I will submit my resolution from last year on the role of the Baptist Faith & Message. Join me in working to make sure that it comes out of the committee and to the floor of this year's convention. Then let's see whether the convention votes it up or down. Question settled.<BR/><BR/>Or, if you find my previous resolution to be vague in Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-55931090693752167572008-02-13T18:13:00.000-06:002008-02-13T18:13:00.000-06:00Alan,I agree that your initial point was germane t...Alan,<BR/><BR/>I agree that your initial point was germane to the point of my post. Although I disagree with your conclusions, it was a relevant and eloquent point. It is the subsequent discussion that has left behind my post.<BR/><BR/>And this is somewhat my fault for being absent. I was absent; you were present; the subsequent discussion followed your comment rather than my post.<BR/><BR/>As toBart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-27163913586300908962008-02-13T18:06:00.000-06:002008-02-13T18:06:00.000-06:00Wade,I recommend that you bring THAT COMMENT preci...Wade,<BR/><BR/>I recommend that you bring THAT COMMENT precisely to the floor of this year's convention. Then we'll see what the SBC has to say about it.Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-35850112811055144412008-02-13T17:53:00.000-06:002008-02-13T17:53:00.000-06:00Wade,The substance of the Garner motion is but a s...Wade,<BR/><BR/>The substance of the Garner motion is but a symptom of the real problem.<BR/><BR/>The very situation you found yourself in is a result of the true systemic problem.<BR/><BR/>Our problem is a problem with the selection of trustees based upon a predetermined agenda of the few versus the the good of the SBC as a whole.<BR/><BR/>The very subject of this post actually addresses that CB Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02230652312241919771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-52142615648362832062008-02-13T17:43:00.000-06:002008-02-13T17:43:00.000-06:00Bart,Sorry for the change of subject. I repeatedly...Bart,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the change of subject. I repeatedly tried to show that I was trying to talk about consistency in arguments. But, I agree, we have gone far afield of your original point. <BR/><BR/>One last question, if you don't mind: Was there anyone in the debate for the Garner Motion that articulated your view of what it meant? I know that there were several, including Dr. Garner and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-3679278883022822952008-02-13T17:17:00.000-06:002008-02-13T17:17:00.000-06:00David,You say that people were not confused when t...David,<BR/><BR/>You say that people were not confused when they voted, and then that some <I>were</I> confused when they voted.<BR/><BR/>This is a part of our problem.<BR/><BR/>Greg,<BR/><BR/>Are you really telling me that if someone brought a motion to the floor rejecting the practice of abortion, disallowing homosexuals to teach in our seminaries, showing appreciation for the host city or any Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01568650603425594448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-61827569850520707522008-02-13T17:08:00.000-06:002008-02-13T17:08:00.000-06:00Bart,It's not tired news.It is THE issue in the SB...Bart,<BR/><BR/>It's not tired news.<BR/><BR/>It is THE issue in the SBC. Will we continue to press doctrinal conformity BEYOND our convention's doctrinal confession, the ONLY consensus doctrinal standard that is a sufficient guide for cooperation, by allowing entities to demand allegience to narrower doctrinal standards to which the convention has not voted, and as a result of these narrower wadeburleson.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09712009938843809657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-40295229798274339422008-02-13T16:52:00.000-06:002008-02-13T16:52:00.000-06:00My apologies for contributing to the hijacking of ...My apologies for contributing to the hijacking of your post Bart.<BR/><BR/>Ron P.Ron Phillips, Sr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15891614423106717280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-51618935759451389692008-02-13T16:50:00.000-06:002008-02-13T16:50:00.000-06:00Of course, my gentle admonishment notwithstanding,...Of course, my gentle admonishment notwithstanding, I love "you people" in Christ. And some among you are even correct in your arguments.Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-43331276049887463542008-02-13T16:49:00.000-06:002008-02-13T16:49:00.000-06:00AN APPEAL FROM THE HOST:Really, we've been over an...AN APPEAL FROM THE HOST:<BR/><BR/>Really, we've been over and over and over this Garner Motion thing since last June. Is there anything to be said that hasn't already? I tried to submit a post about something new: The connection between the David Rogers nomination and Dr. Mohler's nomination. Now the comment stream has fallen into eight-month-old ruts.<BR/><BR/>The same tired old arguments Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-46092851363817139712008-02-13T16:39:00.000-06:002008-02-13T16:39:00.000-06:00David wrote:"i'm beginning to think that it was wo...David wrote:<BR/><BR/>"i'm beginning to think that it was worded the way it was by "smart" people who were attempting to make it vague, so that it would have a great chance to pass...knowing that many would vote for it thinking that it was a reaffirmation of the bfm2k...so that they could then, in turn, use the vote as a way of promoting their cause of making it a maximum standard, and thus turn Greg Weltyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009322440200137155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-56323027623337713432008-02-13T16:13:00.000-06:002008-02-13T16:13:00.000-06:00Wade,What many of the people you listed objected t...Wade,<BR/><BR/>What many of the people you listed objected to was not the vague statement itself, but the spin that would be put on it because it was vague. For the past 8 months, that is precisely what you and others have done. Tried to spin the Garner motion to say something it clearly did not. Had I been a messenger, I would have voted against it for that reason, not because of what it says, Ron Phillips, Sr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15891614423106717280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5643342666676162215.post-50027392168588723012008-02-13T15:58:00.000-06:002008-02-13T15:58:00.000-06:00Wade,If you'll re-read my comment more carefully, ...Wade,<BR/><BR/>If you'll re-read my comment more carefully, you'll see that, rather than claiming that the people of the SBC share my precise viewpoint of what the Garner Motion means, I have noted that the SBC has never considered that question at all.Bart Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.com