How Cool Is Jimmy Carter!

Debaroo said:
I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades....
Click to expand...

They would argue that naively. Until the late 70s/early 80s, the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was overseas missions work. In the late 70s, a megachurch founder Lane Rogers sort of took over the convention.

Instead of being overly concerned with missions work and sending money oversears, the SBC churches trended to keep money at home and built gyms and diploma mills. There was also a top level direction to return to hardcore fundamentalism and young earth creationism.

The SBC that Jimmy Carter was originally a member of no longer exists. It evolved into something more authoritarian and less humanitarian.
 
kellyb said:
I'm a little confused on how he could have just now noticed the SBC promotes extreme sexism second only to radical Islam...
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't "just now" - he split from the SBC almost nine years ago. But your point still stands - it seems like he could have seen it sooner.
 
Sorry Jimmy, but you're wrong:

1 Timothy 2 said:
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Click to expand...
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Oh? The Brick Testament, as so often, beautifully illustrates the Word in a way simply not covered by written text only. Excerpt:

But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory; but a woman is the reflection of man's glory.

Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is the husband the head of his wife.

And as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.

The head of woman is man.

Basically, man was created to be God's doll, and the woman was created to be man's doll. Reminds me of Ibsen's play The Doll House, in which the female lead laments not only that she is naught but the plaything of her husband, but that she has realized that her children are nothing but her playthings. God has us males to keep him company and serve Him, and we, in turn, have women, who, when married to us, must obey our every command.

Sorry, Jimmy Carter, but while I respect and support what appears to be a move from a misogynistic church, I cannot agree with you that the Bible doesn't support sexism. It does.
Click to expand...

you were responding to
The words of God do not justify cruelty to women
Click to expand...

using these verses

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Click to expand...

but don't forget the next verse
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Click to expand...

Clearly these particular verses do not justify cruelty to women.
 
What I find interesting is that it took him 60 years to find this out (snippets from the Bible showing superiority of man over women). Hell, I think I was hearing such nonsense from some of my earliest exposures!

Oh wait ... I see this exact point was made earlier.

Carry on ;)
 
Last edited:
Clearly these particular verses do not justify cruelty to women.
Click to expand...
"Love" is an incredibly broad term. Lots of abusive husbands will tell you they love their wives, and lots of cruel dictators will tell you they love their subjects. Not to mention that Yahweh Himself is supposed to love mankind and especially His chosen people, and yet subjects us to more genocides, massacres, pests, floods, and stoning throughout the Bible than a deranged tribal warlord.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I take it you feel you are greatly superior intellectually to the masses who believe differently then you. Your knuckles don't drag but theirs do.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer "savages?" "Barbarians?" "Animals?" "'[K]nuckle dragging masses' is the kindest term I could think of to describe those who perpetuate and spread the mental cancer of "God" that eats away at our civilization and hold back human progress.

And how else am I supposed to call people who believe that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky?
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
Would you prefer "savages?" "Barbarians?" "Animals?" "'[K]nuckle dragging masses' is the kindest term I could think of to describe those who perpetuate and spread the mental cancer of "God" that eats away at our civilization and hold back human progress.

And how else am I supposed to call people who believe that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky?
Click to expand...

How about "people?"
 
Dr Adequate said:
But they're cherry-picking too. It's just that they've cherry-picked the Bible so that it means that God wants them to be jerks. On the whole, I like Carter's way better.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what portions of the Damn Bible are "good," because my examinations of the document have found none.

"Love thy neighbor?" By neighbor they meant the same member of your tribe. Everyone else you could slaughter, enslave, and pillage.

"Love thy enemy?" Loving those who would mistreat or misuse you makes "love" meaningless.

Give your possessions to the poor and live in blissful, holy, communism? Sorry, I may not be a raving Objectivist, but I don't think the poor will be helped by lowering yourself to their level of misery.

I'm sorry, but the Damn Bible is an evil book, followed by evil people no matter how "good" they (or others) proclaim themselves to be.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
I'm curious to know what portions of the Damn Bible are "good," because my examinations of the document have found none.

"Love thy neighbor?" By neighbor they meant the same member of your tribe. Everyone else you could slaughter, enslave, and pillage.

"Love thy enemy?" Loving those who would mistreat or misuse you makes "love" meaningless.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the old testament limitation of who gets treated nicely was revoked in the new testament.

Mark A. Siefert said:
Give your possessions to the poor and live in blissful, holy, communism? Sorry, I may not be a raving Objectivist, but I don't think the poor will be helped by lowering yourself to their level of misery.
Click to expand...
Better be careful. We all know that Jesus wore business suites and certainly wasn't any stinking commie pinko. :p
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
Sorry, the theists lost their "people" privileges when they started to believe in things that are not there.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no, and you're pretty sick if you think so.

Nobody ever surrenders their "people" rights. The moment you decide that someone -- anyone -- is "less human" than you are, you have left the realm of rational thought and are headed to a very, very bad place.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
I'm sorry, but the Damn Bible is an evil book, followed by evil people no matter how "good" they (or others) proclaim themselves to be.
Click to expand...

Bull****. And no amount of "I'm sorrys" make it true.

I don't care how much hate and condescension you cram into your posts, but you cannot tell me that these people are/were "evil:"

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Pastor Martin Niemoller
Bishop Oscar Romero
Fr. Roy Bourgeois

You may disagree with them. You may consider them horribly wrong, misguided, or deluded. But evil? No. Just no.

People have done horrible, horrible things in the name of religion. But people have done great good as well.

Even if 90% of the population is wrong, that doesn't make you better than someone just because they believe in God. Get over yourself, Mark.
 
Cleon said:
Sorry, but no, and you're pretty sick if you think so.

Nobody ever surrenders their "people" rights. The moment you decide that someone -- anyone -- is "less human" than you are, you have left the realm of rational thought and are headed to a very, very bad place.
Click to expand...

I'm a fairly militant atheist, but I have to agree.
Being superstitious doesn't preclude personhood, for the love of science!
 
Cleon said:
Sorry, but no, and you're pretty sick if you think so.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sick. Sick and tired of living in a world where people are not only allowed to believe lies but foist them on everyone else. Religious lies that area a millstone around human progress. Lies that lead to death, war, and oppression. Lies that that our civilization coddles and gives special protections to.

Cleon said:
Nobody ever surrenders their "people" rights.
Click to expand...

Just like god, there are no such things as "rights." There are only privileges that are given and taken away by the State. If you want to keep those privileges you have to fight those who are feverishly working to take them away from you.

My privileges don't matter to the theists, why should their privileges matter to me?

Cleon said:
The moment you decide that someone -- anyone -- is "less human" than you are, you have left the realm of rational thought and are headed to a very, very bad place.
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, I have no intention of spending my life in a prison cell for harming anyone. I may be angry, but I'm not stupid.

Just tell them to leave me alone and keep their moronic "faith" far, far away from me, my government, the classrooms my taxes pay for, and my civilization and I'll be right as rain.
 
Just like god, there are no such things as "rights." There are only privileges that are given and taken away by the State. If you want to keep those privileges you have to fight those who are feverishly working to take them away from you.

My privileges don't matter to the theists, why should their privileges matter to me?
Click to expand...

The difference between a right and a privilege is purely semantic.
Some of them don't care about our rights, but many are very "live and let live", and support separation of church and state.
Your argument would be less bizarre if it was directed exclusively towards those who wish to rob us of our rights, which is not all theists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom