Yes, they voted on doctrine, so whoever doesn't agree can go form their own denomination or religion. All organizations vote on their declarations or creeds.

Or do you think it has to be like waiting around until Moses comes down the mountain with the 10 commandments on each tablet? Try writing on stone and you'll see why he had to be concise(!) [Legislators now have word processors.]

What really put an end to slavery was the invention of the steam engine, and later that gasoline motor.

Let's see. Do people really believe slavery in all forms has really been abolished? As long as you have illegal workers working at $2 per hour harvesting your Romaine lettuces so you can eat a Tijuana creation called a Caesar Salad, there still slavery in the USA. And many USA citizens still look the other way, or don't want to think about it, or see it.

The Bible did not recommend or patronize slavery. But at a time when life was shorter, and there were no motors to do heavy work, slavery was a system, like later oxen and horses were used to draw carriages and plows until the advent of the motorized cars and tractors.

Imprisonment is a form of slavery - you do what you are told, or else. You eat what is given to you (nowadays sometimes better than being homeless).

Most important, the Bible instructed slaves of the time to obey their masters. To instruct them differently would have been suicide. In those days, sometimes just being Christian meant suicide.

What's better in an extreme situation, like a war: to be dead or to be a slave? Take your pick, but don't accuse the Bible of recommending or promoting slavery. The ideas in the Bible about compassion for your neighbor, combined with 'all men (humanity) are created equal' (of equal value before God) had to ultimately result in the abolition of slavery. But this was not possible until motors could do the hard labor. In a structured society, someone has to do the hard labor for others to live in relative comfort. Some slaves of old had good masters. Some didn't. Today, some employees have good employers. Some don't. It all relative to the standards of living.

These are organized strong voters who actually go out and vote. And now they are united strongly to defend civil marriage as excluding ALL same-sex partnerships (blood-related partnerships, two roommates in college, queers, and other pairs who would form a household out of necessity, sexual passion, love, or just to stand out or be different.)

A statement from the President of the Dallas Theological Seminary, it main seminary, seemed to imply that Baptists were adapting to the redefinition of civil marriage to include people of homosexual persuasion (see NOMblog). That was just the dumb idea of a single leader.

They are desperate to impersonate us, lol.

It would be a very good thing to watch them fail miserably.

It is not a requirement to be baptized before you are a member of a SBC.

On the other hand, to be a saved, born-again Christian who is going to heaven, you must believe that Jesus died for your sins. Baptism is a symbol done after this to confirm that one has been "born again".

Nice.

The more sophisticated among the pseudo-marriage advocates can take a cue from Dan.

To entice us into theological debates in the face of the completely satanic pseudo-marriage movement is an excellent strategy, and Dan has advanced it today.

You ought to be promoted or whatever it is that the pseudo-marriage advocates do for the smart fellows, Dan.

Of course your ruse is completely futile for those of us who understand what is actually at stake here.

"It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of `same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement," the resolution states.

After reading that, what instantly went through my mind was:

"It is regrettable that the Baptist church has misappropriated baptism into being a requirement for membership in the Baptist church rather than its true purposes as taught in the NT."

http://www.housetohouse.com/BibleQuestions.aspx?Letter=all&Question=4385

Sorry, I know that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax, but just sayin'!

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't 1845 any longer. For years Democrats have been having it both ways. They've had a long history of racism (Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr and Jr, Bull Connor), yet they claim to be the party of civil rights. They've privately treated women abysmally (The Kennedys, Bill Clinton, John Edwards), but claim to be the party of women's rights. And they've gone on the campaign trail saying they do not support gay marriage while they've claimed to be the gay-friendly party. Joe Biden voted for DOMA.
If it wasn't for their double standard, Liberals would have no standards at all.

Sounds like a biblically supported argument for "traditional slavery" to me

“Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible …. The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of inspiration on this subject. It is necessary for ministers of the gospel to teach slavery from the pulpit, as it was taught by the holy men of old, who spake as moved by the holy Spirit. Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time Their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life.”

Brava.