Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Way to go, Jimmah. Way to go.

I look forward every year to the Southern Baptist Convention to see what kind of idiocy they spew for the following year. Unfortunately, they were quite boring this past session and issues no controversial edicts and fatwas.

But they didn't backtrack, either. I suspect this lack of backtracking on some really stupid, archaic, primitive issues such as the submissive role of women will result in a deepening of the divide and we will see more and more people leaving the church.

If I could pray for that to happen I would. One can only hope.
The leadership of the SBC has been so far out there in the past decade, that I honestly thought he had left them for the National Baptists or Missionary a long time ago. Mr. Carter always seemed more like a Methodist to me.

They keep on trying to outfallwell Falwell and it ain't a workin': the pew sitters were tired of that rot when Jer was alive and are voting with their feet now that he is dead.
Although I respect his decision to leave the SBC I really do not believe he has the moral high ground on this one.Especially with his support of Islamic regimes that consider women cattle.Now if he would disassociate himself with them I would respect him more.....Hey what do ya know we have some black sheep who disagree with each other.So much for mind control Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Although I respect his decision to leave the SBC I really do not believe he has the moral high ground on this one.Especially with his support of Islamic regimes that consider women cattle.


Excellent point, Ged.


Muslims treat their cattle better than women! and yes Jimmy Carter is a hypocrite!!!
oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize you are aware of everything mr. carter has discussed with muslim leaders, ngt.

i would be more inclined to think he has been working toward equity for muslim women, rather than that he is for subjugation overseas but not here.

he can't be much of a diplomat, an advocate or have much influence on leaders whom he has alienated. it's called finesse..... an idea you may not have conceptualized.

give the man a break.
It is Carter's choice if he wishes to abandon the clearly scriptural principle that the man is the head of the woman as God is the Head of Christ. God--Christ--Husband---Wife; THAT is the scriptural order of things. It is very clear from scripture:

"1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Above is from 1 Corinthians 11.

See also the passage below, which is crystal clear. If you purport to believe and follow the New Testament, follow this sound doctrine. If not, then be like the steadily-liberalizing J. Carter and deliver your little news release to the world on your rejection of the Word, then explain it to God later on. From Ephesians 5:

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For 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.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

What Jimmy seems not to get--and what a lot of YOU are missing, is the part about the husband deeply loving his wife and seeking only good for her. THAT is the New Testament model. In the home, the Biblical arrangement places the husband in the position of headship. That does not by any means give him the latitude to be tyrannical and domineering. If he indeed loves his wife as Christ loved the church, he will be willing to nurture, protect, and provide for her. But--like it or not--God made the man (husband) the head of the house. Dispute that if you will, and then advise us how much else of the clear teaching of scripture you will reject in deference to perturbations of modern culture and philosophy. Take the Bible or take Oprah and Dr. Phil; it's your call.
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. (Philippians 2:3)

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; (Colossians 3:12)

Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. (Romans 12:16)


Beternu, I do not know you personally, but is not the very essence of your forum persona a blatant contradiction of the type of person that NT scripture instructs each of us to strive to become? The above examples are but a few of many... Surely, a man of your advanced learning and biblical knowledge has not chosen to "liberalize" himself to the point of deeming humbleness of mind and humility obsolete in these modern times?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×