I commend him for his decision.It would have been nice if he would have shown the same common sense and cojones when he was the POTUS.I wonder what Jimmy Carter Jr.(Obama) thinks about this?
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.
Wow! That's a big move after such a long relationship with the SBC. I respect his decision. I've never bought into that being "subservient to your husband" crap.
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
~~ sheep tasering swat squad dispatched with the prime directive.... GET GEDDON! ~~

and don't forget the koolaid, my livestock minions!!

beware the sloshing sound, geddon, you wayward woolbag!

Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
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.
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.
quote:
the man is the head of the woman


beternU,

In case you haven't noticed, there are a few females posting on this topic, so I advise you that what you are saying is the equivalent of waving a red cape in front of a bull! The Bible can't possibly be taken 100% literally.

Hello, 1959, 2009 calling. Please step in!
well, well.... the bible say it's ok to subjugate others based on whether their sex organs are internal or external. that makes so much sense!

not.
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?
BeternU,

You're exactly right.

Honestly, you've hit the nail on the head.

All good Southern Baptist women should toe the dadgum line.


DF
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
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.


You should frame this one..your best response to date... Cool
quote:
Originally posted by Wild Irish Prose:
quote:
the man is the head of the woman


beternU,

In case you haven't noticed, there are a few females posting on this topic, so I advise you that what you are saying is the equivalent of waving a red cape in front of a bull! The Bible can't possibly be taken 100% literally.

Hello, 1959, 2009 calling. Please step in!


Equality is a good thing for the most part, BUT I have a real problem with women being BULLS.. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
BeternU,

You're exactly right.

Honestly, you've hit the nail on the head.

All good Southern Baptist women should toe the dadgum line.


DF


I think if you told DF he was going to HELL he would try to call ahead and make reservations.... Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
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.



.
quote:






I think if you told DF he was going to HELL he would try to call ahead and make reservations....



Will you and Bill be in Heaven? Reserve me a room near the fire.


DF
Hi all,

I am not quite sure how to break the news to everyone -- but, Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention ten years ago to join the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship based out of Atlanta; a super liberal group of Baptists -- not to be confused with the Conservative Baptist Convention; a Baptist group where I would be happy to be included as a member. But, you will never see me in a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship meeting.

Jimmy Carter is probably more liberal that Obama and Clinton -- supporting Replacement Theology (very anti-Israel), supporting women and gays in ministry (because his daughter wanted this, according to him), and supporting many other liberal teachings.

But, my Friends, although Skeptik wants everyone to believe this is a new revelation -- he is only ten years late; as usual.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
I thought I remembered that, Bill Gray, and yet the article linked in the OP's post implies that it's a current move on his part.

In the article there is a link to another piece, one that JC himself wrote, in which he references his decision to leave the SBC just by saying So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult, without a time frame. For clarity's sake, he probably should have given one.
Last edited by tomfan
Having been raised in a conservative Baptist home and working in the Baptist Church for years, I am a satisfied woman, religiously and otherwise.

Those who mention the "subjection" verse usually don't mention the next verse in which men are commanded to love their wives enough to die for them. Those husbands who follow that command would do nothing to harm their wives in any way.

No one forced me to marry the man I did. We have had a loving, faithful marriage for almost 40 years, and it has been Biblically centered. There are conservatives in all religious bodies, just as there are liberals. Jimmy Carter does not speak for all thinking Baptists.
quote:
Originally posted by tomfan:
I thought I remembered that, Bill Gray, and yet the article linked in the OP's post implies that it's a current move on his part.

In the article there is a link to another piece, one that JC himself wrote, in which he references his decision to leave the SBC just by saying So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult, without a time frame. For clarity's sake, he probably should have given one.

Hi Tom,

The articles in that link appear to be a compilation of old articles; but, it is done in a way that would lead many to believe it is a new event.

And, I owe an apology to Skeptik. I mistakenly thought he began this discussion; when in fact it was Mr./Ms. Basement. I guess Skeptik jumping on it with all four feet made me think it was he who began it. For implying you began the discussion, Skeptik, I apologize.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
quote:
Originally posted by Dusty1963:
My wife has no problem submitting to my leadership in the home because she knows that I love her and would never ask her to do anything that I would not be willing to do myself.


Well, in my godless house, my wife has certain leadership abilities that I do not possess and vise versa. She leads sometimes and I lead in others. When there is conflict we discuss it and eventually come to a consensus.

I call it a "equal partnership." Your church would call it an abomination unto the loward.

You don't possess leadership powers just because you possess a penis. That is an archaic, primitive notion that epitomizes western religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Basement Cat:
Where'd that might makes right crap come from anyway? The Bible also says it's okay to own slaves.

Splain that, Lucy.


Could you quote chapter & verse for that?
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie Tops:
quote:
Originally posted by Basement Cat:
Where'd that might makes right crap come from anyway? The Bible also says it's okay to own slaves.

Splain that, Lucy.


Could you quote chapter & verse for that?


I'm sure someone else can. I'm just a godless Basement Cat who thinks subjection of anyone shows a lack of intelligence and good common sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie Tops:
quote:
Originally posted by Basement Cat:
Where'd that might makes right crap come from anyway? The Bible also says it's okay to own slaves.

Splain that, Lucy.


Could you quote chapter & verse for that?


Hello Charlie,

The offending statements can be found in many verses including the following:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

and

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

and

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

That's Old Testament stuff, of course.

In the NT, Jesus had this to say about slaves:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


The following verse is the source of a often-used saying about those who are blessed with material wealth:

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Source: Link
quote:
Jimmy Carter does not speak for all thinking Baptists.


Indeed, he has ordained minister Bill Moyers right beside him.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie Tops:
quote:
Originally posted by Basement Cat:
Where'd that might makes right crap come from anyway? The Bible also says it's okay to own slaves.

Splain that, Lucy.


Could you quote chapter & verse for that?


Hello Charlie,

The offending statements can be found in many verses including the following:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

and

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

and

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

That's Old Testament stuff, of course.

In the NT, Jesus had this to say about slaves:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


The following verse is the source of a often-used saying about those who are blessed with material wealth:

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Source: Link


Those verses instruct slaves/bondsmen on how to act in their circumstances, rather like instructing a child to obey a teacher who says, "stand up when you address me." No where does Christ say he approves of slavery.
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie Tops:
Those verses instruct slaves/bondsmen on how to act in their circumstances, rather like instructing a child to obey a teacher who says, "stand up when you address me." No where does Christ say he approves of slavery.


Well, technically you are right. According to the scriptures JC never uttered, "Slavery is cool by me and my dad." But there can be no denying that these very versus were used by Christians as justification for slavery for nearly a couple thousand years. Only in recent times have we, collectively, become enlightened - thanks to liberals and atheists.

In any case, Jesus makes a glaring omission here. Jesus obviously had no problems being quite vehement against oppression and violence but obviously doesn't speak our against robbing entire races of people of their freedom.

If Jesus meant this to be "rather like instructing a child" then he would have used a child as example. Not slaves.
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie Tops:

Those verses instruct slaves/bondsmen on how to act in their circumstances, rather like instructing a child to obey a teacher who says, "stand up when you address me." No where does Christ say he approves of slavery.


You didn't really do very well in your Logic class, did you? Roll Eyes
Well good for ol' Jimmy. However, I can't say that I can give him much credit. It took him 60 years to see the Baptist Church took this stance and that it is wrong?

As usual, ex-President Carter has had his head up is ass when it comes to the goings on around him.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×