Pro-Abortion Religious Leader Bemoans Lack of Clergy Backing Roe v. Wade

The reason so many clergymen don’t back Roe vs. Wade is because they can’t do so without undermining their credibility.

I wonder what kind of a "Baptist" this turkey is.

I think he is American Baptist - they are very liberal, and very much in the liberal wing of the Church. This certainly would be consistent with policies of the National leadership...although not necessarily of the local churches.

Sorry - just found out he is National Baptist Convention USA

Well there would have been more clergy supporting abortion now.....

but, they were aborted.

My church is affiliated with the ABC. I’m glad this guy isn’t one of us. But I’m not real proud of the ABC, either. About the best thing to be said about the ABC is that it ain’t the UCC.

Veazey, a pastor of a Baptist church in Washington, D.C., is worried that the Supreme Court's upholding the national ban on partial-birth abortions and state personhood initiatives and abortion bans are "sounding the death knell for the landmark constitutional decision."

I thought I'd read that this guy was from some kind of fringe religion...surprised to see that he is from a Baptist church, and a pastor even....favoring infanticide? Shocking.

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

If you Google "Gay Baptist,", you get 2,300+ results, including several which feature directories which you can use to locate Gay Baptist churches in your area.

Evidently you have little experience with the so-called Gay Christian movement. They're quite convinced that they are the true Christians and that "the Bible tells them so". Yeah, follow those links and read along. If you're like me, you'll be amazed and appalled.

I was ordained by the Southwestern area of ABC in 1979. I was subsequently endorsed for Active Duty as a chaplain in 1985.

Found out recently that my entire area departed the ABC two years ago...lock, stock, and barrel!

Evidently you have little experience with the so-called Gay Christian movement. They're quite convinced that they are the true Christians and that "the Bible tells them so". Yeah, follow those links and read along. If you're like me, you'll be amazed and appalled.

I'm familiar with the oxymoronic movement. The main lines of argumentation always betray a rather low view of Scripture. I've heard, "Oh, that was just Paul's opinion," and the like more times than I can count.

Nothing would please me more than for our church to get out of the two denominations that we are with. (The other one is the UCC, most unfortunately.) I’m afraid the only way to make that happen would be to shut it down and I’m not willing to do that, at least not yet.
I see you were FA. I spent 13 years in a Firing Battery in the National Guard. Five of those years were on active duty. I mostly enjoyed it. Not the active part as much as the reserve component time. Prior to that I had been in the Marine Corps.

I was in the FA for 19 years; then I was an Active Duty chaplain for 10 years. Retired in Sep95. Loved it...even the 19 months in Viet Nam (well, maybe I didn’t love that period...but I felt like I was doing something)

Never had the pleasure of going there. I got drafted into the Marine Corps in ‘69 (served ‘70 to ‘72) and only did what I was told, which didn’t happen to involve WESTPAC service.
“;^)
Well, I suppose technically I got drafted in ‘69 but it wasn’t until ‘70 that I went in and that was when the Marine Corps decided they had to have me. OOOrah.

The "Gay Christian" movement has gotten a lot more sophisticated than saying "Oh, that was just Paul's opinion."

I do wish that somebody would go to the links I've posted,and take this seriously, because souls and whole societies are very much at risk because of the "new" "gay" "Biblical" "scholarship" (yes, quotes around each word.) It is straight-from-the-seminaries slick, and highly misleading to people who may actually be trying to discern God's purposes and do the right thing.

Their basic Scriptural claim is that all of the supposed condemnations of homosexuality in the Old and New Testaments referred to "straight" people engaging in same-sex relations for sinful lustful reasons, and not to "naturally-gay" people who are honorably in love-and-marriage type relationships.

Genesis: Sodom: it said "all the men in the town." Clearly, most would have been straight. And they wanted to rape Lot's visitors. Clearly, rape is wrong. Has nothing to do with people who are "naturally gay" involved in loving sexual relations.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus: primitive Hebrew tribal rules which both Jesus and Paul said we New Testament people don't have to follow. It includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, eating non-kosher foods; also requires that non-virgin brides and all adulterers should be stoned to death.

ROMANS 1:26-27 -- NATURAL AND UNNATURAL -- This is explicitly about men giving up natural relations with women, and lying with men. Does not refer to men who are "naturally" gay who never had relations with women, and therefore never gave them up. Refers to people who "refused to acknowledge and worship God," "and for this reason were abandoned by God into sexual depravity." Therefore does not refer to Gay Christians who have never refused to worship and acknowledge God, and who are not involved in sexual depravity, but rather, are involved in relationships equivalent to marriage.

And here's the trump: 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10 condemning "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI" (Greek words usually translated "effeminates" and "male prostitutes."); But the "Gay Christians" say those words refer only to ritual prostitutes in pagan temples. Again,they claim that there is no reference to just-plain homosexuals per se.

It tires me to write all of this, because I don't accept the validity of any of these arguments. I'm just trying (doggedly) to illustrate the fact that they have engaged linguists and professors and ministers and so forth to develop arguments based on plausible Scripture scholarship and the "correction" of supposed "mis-translations." But I don't see anybody addressing this point-for-point.

And thus many are being misled, to their great misfortune in this life and the next.

And they think they have a HIGH view of Scripture. Sad.

It tires me to write all of this, because I don't accept the validity of any of these arguments. I'm just trying (doggedly) to illustrate the fact that they have engaged linguists and professors and ministers and so forth to develop arguments based on plausible Scripture scholarship and the "correction" of supposed "mis-translations." But I don't see anybody addressing this point-for-point.

Forgive me if I was a little brief in my previous response. A good lawyer might argue in defense of homosexuality based on Scripture, due to "errors" in the Scriptures which somehow obscured an otherwise neutral position on same-sex relations, i.e., given that the old Torah civil laws are no longer applied, they were written from--or for--a certain perspective, etc. I am not a good lawyer, but I'm decent at dismantling the arguments from the so-called Gay Christian movement, just like social justice "Christians," just like pro-choice "Christians," and so on.

We can do it point-for-point, if you'd like. I'm not at all impressed by the radical homosexual movement's apparent sophistry, or "sophistication," if you'd prefer.

I may have to whip out the now-famous Nestle-Aland text! ;)

"I'm decent at dismantling the arguments from the so-called Gay Christian movement... point-for-point, if you'd like."

Thank you! I mean it! There are hundreds of Gay Christian sites. One I was looking at awhile ago had its arguments in compact form focused on the 6 or 8 major "clobber passages" (as they called them), 4 in the OT and 4 in the NT. Can't find that particular article right now, but this one has similar arguments. Can you take 'em apart, or show me where somebody else has done so? You'd be doing a grand service for us all.

Thank you! I mean it! There are hundreds of Gay Christian sites. One I was looking at awhile ago had its arguments in compact form focused on the 6 or 8 major "clobber passages" (as they called them), 4 in the OT and 4 in the NT.

The "clobber passages" aren't nearly as intimidating as one would think. Ever read the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?

Can you take 'em apart, or show me where somebody else has done so? You'd be doing a grand service for us all.

Perhaps with a little insight from my FRiends (if they're willing to take the challenge), to badly paraphrase Joe Cocker. Arguments from Masoretic Hebrew, Koine Greek, linguistics in general, philosophy, first-century Mediterranean culture, and ancient history shouldn't be too big of a problem. ;)

Minister Beelzebub - skeletons in his closet.

Part I:

First of all, let's deal with your basic assessment of the arguments:

Their basic Scriptural claim is that all of the supposed condemnations of homosexuality in the Old and New Testaments referred to "straight" people engaging in same-sex relations for sinful lustful reasons, and not to "naturally-gay" people who are honorably in love-and-marriage type relationships.

I hate to bring attention to an act of equine abuse, but there is a dead horse that has been savagely beaten with regard to the NT. St. Paul says the following:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

(Romans 1:24-28, NIV)

While it could be that St. Paul was referring to heterosexual men and women engaging in homosexual acts, there is not one single favorable mention with regard to homosexual acts in the Old Testament or in the Talmud. In other words, Hebrew scripture and tradition, when they did address the subject, did so in the negative. Provided that "abomination" does not mean "non-abomination", there is little left but an argument from silence. Argumentum ad silentio is a logical fallacy, regardless of who uses it...