FREE TAPATALK APP

Fat Bottom Gurl · 24th July 2009, 08:08 AM

The words of God do not justify cruelty to women. Discrimination and abuse wrongly backed by doctrine.

"I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when th e convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God. "

Read entire article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ights-equality

I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades....

The Central Scrutinizer · 24th July 2009, 09:36 AM

I thought it was a classy move.

Darat · 24th July 2009, 09:37 AM

You would!

Brainster · 24th July 2009, 10:04 AM

Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. As a dedicated cyclist, I find that much cooler.

Marc39 · 24th July 2009, 10:06 AM

Dhimmi Carter.

Pardalis · 24th July 2009, 10:08 AM

Shouldn't this be in "religion and phylosophy?"

daredelvis · 24th July 2009, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. As a dedicated cyclist, I find that much cooler.

As a dedicated cyclist, I see your point. But if I can agree with you on that one point I think even you have to admit that this is a good move on Carter's part.

Daredelvis

Achán hiNidráne · 24th July 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Debaroo

I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades....

I would argue that like all liberal or moderate Christians, Carter is cherry picking and misquoting his holy book in a desperate attempt to white wash over the barbarism of a faith that he's either psychologically unable or politically unwilling to let go of.

Mr. Peanut wants to have it both ways: Keep the supersticion that's so popular with the knuckle dragging masses, but re-write it to suit his own left wing tastes and to those who contribute generously to his causes.

For this reason, I have more respect for the theocratic swine who make up the Religious Reich than I ever will for the theists who try to cover up humanism with a mystical vernier. At least Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren and their red-neck followers have principles... evil principles, but principles never the less.

Bob Blaylock · 24th July 2009, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Debaroo

How Cool Is Jimmy Carter!

98.6° fahrenheit, just the same as everyone else.

ProbeX · 24th July 2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge.

Yes, and maybe that's why for years you placed your own political career above concerns that your religion apparently held disparaging views of women.

Can't help thinking the man probably noticed a pattern of gender disparity long ago. He doesn't hit me as stupid or lacking in social awareness about these things, considering all his humanitarian involvements/projects.

For whatever it's worth, at least he's honoring the fact of it now.

tomwaits · 24th July 2009, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path.

That's awesome.

I remember becoming disillusioned by my church because their band sucked. We all have our hobbies that we're proud of...

portlandatheist · 24th July 2009, 01:35 PM

I'll give credit where credit is due: good move President Carter

Segnosaur · 24th July 2009, 03:37 PM

He's history's greatest monster!!

Darth Rotor · 24th July 2009, 03:53 PM

People in America change religions all the time. It's a national habit. I guess he was very disappointed that SBC has become more reactionary, not less so, as time has gone on and he can't square his own principles with where SBC is going.

Newt Gingrich, of all people, became Catholic recently.

This isn't a big deal, other than the SBC gets the "we aren't as good as Scientologists at having celebrity members" smack down deal here.

Dr Adequate · 24th July 2009, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

For this reason, I have more respect for the theocratic swine who make up the Religious Reich than I ever will for the theists who try to cover up humanism with a mystical vernier. At least Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren and their red-neck followers have principles... evil principles, but principles never the less.

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.

Safe-Keeper · 24th July 2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

The words of God do not justify cruelty to women.

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.

Fat Bottom Gurl · 24th July 2009, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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.

I agree. It would have been incredible had Carter said...bah...this christian belief is utter nonsense (or any other belief). I'm thinking he has at least brought some serious doubt to the bible intrepretation. Baby steps for sure - but at least steps.

Sword_Of_Truth · 24th July 2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. As a dedicated cyclist, I find that much cooler.

If Howard Dean is looking for a bike friendly church, I've got a suggestion for him.

kellyb · 24th July 2009, 07:51 PM

I'm a little confused on how he could have just now noticed the SBC promotes extreme sexism second only to radical Islam...

Ian Osborne · 24th July 2009, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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.

Precisely. It seems books like the Bible and the Koran can bring out the best or the worst in an individual. So much better when it's the best.

MattusMaximus · 24th July 2009, 08:16 PM

I approve

corplinx · 24th July 2009, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Debaroo

I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades....

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.

linusrichard · 24th July 2009, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I'm a little confused on how he could have just now noticed the SBC promotes extreme sexism second only to radical Islam...

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.

Undesired Walrus · 25th July 2009, 04:10 AM

Sorry Jimmy, but you're wrong:

Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 2

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.

eeyore1954 · 25th July 2009, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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.

you were responding to

Quote:

The words of God do not justify cruelty to women

using these verses

Quote:

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.

but don't forget the next verse

Quote:

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

Clearly these particular verses do not justify cruelty to women.

eeyore1954 · 25th July 2009, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

Keep the supersticion that's so popular with the knuckle dragging masses,

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.

Just thinking · 25th July 2009, 07:24 AM

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

Safe-Keeper · 25th July 2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Clearly these particular verses do not justify cruelty to women.

"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.

Achán hiNidráne · 25th July 2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

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.

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?

Cleon · 25th July 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

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?

How about "people?"

The Central Scrutinizer · 25th July 2009, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

How about "people?"

With knuckles that drag?

joobz · 25th July 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

He's history's greatest monster!!

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Carter R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtan"

Achán hiNidráne · 25th July 2009, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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.

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.

Achán hiNidráne · 25th July 2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

How about "people?"

Sorry, the theists lost their "people" privileges when they started to believe in things that are not there.

joobz · 25th July 2009, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

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.

To be fair, the old testament limitation of who gets treated nicely was revoked in the new testament.

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

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.

Better be careful. We all know that Jesus wore business suites and certainly wasn't any stinking commie pinko.

Cleon · 25th July 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

Sorry, the theists lost their "people" privileges when they started to believe in things that are not there.

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.

Cleon · 25th July 2009, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

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.

************. 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.

kellyb · 25th July 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

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.

I'm a fairly militant atheist, but I have to agree.
Being superstitious doesn't preclude personhood, for the love of science!

Achán hiNidráne · 25th July 2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

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

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.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Nobody ever surrenders their "people" rights.

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?

Originally Posted by Cleon

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.

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.

kellyb · 25th July 2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

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?

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.

24th July 2009, 08:08 AM	#1
Fat Bottom Gurl Hot Tub Hottie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Somewhere on the 3rd Meridian Posts: 540	How Cool Is Jimmy Carter! The words of God do not justify cruelty to women. Discrimination and abuse wrongly backed by doctrine. "I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when th e convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God. " Read entire article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ights-equality I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades....
	__________________ Keeper of the Secret Stuff.

24th July 2009, 09:36 AM	#2
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,573	I thought it was a classy move.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

24th July 2009, 09:37 AM	#3
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,981	You would!
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

24th July 2009, 10:04 AM	#4
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,541	Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. As a dedicated cyclist, I find that much cooler.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

24th July 2009, 10:06 AM	#5
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Dhimmi Carter.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

24th July 2009, 10:08 AM	#6
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Shouldn't this be in "religion and phylosophy?"

24th July 2009, 10:08 AM	#7
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Torrey Pines Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by Brainster Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. As a dedicated cyclist, I find that much cooler. As a dedicated cyclist, I see your point. But if I can agree with you on that one point I think even you have to admit that this is a good move on Carter's part. Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

24th July 2009, 11:00 AM	#8
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Debaroo I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades.... I would argue that like all liberal or moderate Christians, Carter is cherry picking and misquoting his holy book in a desperate attempt to white wash over the barbarism of a faith that he's either psychologically unable or politically unwilling to let go of. Mr. Peanut wants to have it both ways: Keep the supersticion that's so popular with the knuckle dragging masses, but re-write it to suit his own left wing tastes and to those who contribute generously to his causes. For this reason, I have more respect for the theocratic swine who make up the Religious Reich than I ever will for the theists who try to cover up humanism with a mystical vernier. At least Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren and their red-neck followers have principles... evil principles, but principles never the less.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

24th July 2009, 12:38 PM	#9
Bob Blaylock Forklift Operator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: N38°35' W121°29' Posts: 3,013	Originally Posted by Debaroo How Cool Is Jimmy Carter! 98.6° fahrenheit, just the same as everyone else.

24th July 2009, 01:07 PM	#10
ProbeX Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,443	Quote: I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge. Yes, and maybe that's why for years you placed your own political career above concerns that your religion apparently held disparaging views of women. Can't help thinking the man probably noticed a pattern of gender disparity long ago. He doesn't hit me as stupid or lacking in social awareness about these things, considering all his humanitarian involvements/projects. For whatever it's worth, at least he's honoring the fact of it now.
ProbeX Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,443	__________________ I promise to have faith. Just show me the evidence first.

24th July 2009, 01:14 PM	#11
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,289	Originally Posted by Brainster Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. That's awesome. I remember becoming disillusioned by my church because their band sucked. We all have our hobbies that we're proud of...

24th July 2009, 01:35 PM	#12
portlandatheist Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,111	I'll give credit where credit is due: good move President Carter

24th July 2009, 03:37 PM	#13
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,115	He's history's greatest monster!!
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

24th July 2009, 03:53 PM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	People in America change religions all the time. It's a national habit. I guess he was very disappointed that SBC has become more reactionary, not less so, as time has gone on and he can't square his own principles with where SBC is going. Newt Gingrich, of all people, became Catholic recently. This isn't a big deal, other than the SBC gets the "we aren't as good as Scientologists at having celebrity members" smack down deal here.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

24th July 2009, 04:45 PM	#15
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert For this reason, I have more respect for the theocratic swine who make up the Religious Reich than I ever will for the theists who try to cover up humanism with a mystical vernier. At least Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren and their red-neck followers have principles... evil principles, but principles never the less. 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.

24th July 2009, 06:20 PM	#16
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,176	Quote: The words of God do not justify cruelty to women. 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.
	__________________ Last edited by Safe-Keeper; 24th July 2009 at 06:21 PM.

24th July 2009, 07:31 PM	#17
Fat Bottom Gurl Hot Tub Hottie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Somewhere on the 3rd Meridian Posts: 540	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate 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. I agree. It would have been incredible had Carter said...bah...this christian belief is utter nonsense (or any other belief). I'm thinking he has at least brought some serious doubt to the bible intrepretation. Baby steps for sure - but at least steps.
	__________________ Keeper of the Secret Stuff.

24th July 2009, 07:36 PM	#18
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Brainster Howard Dean left his church in a dispute over a bike path. As a dedicated cyclist, I find that much cooler. If Howard Dean is looking for a bike friendly church, I've got a suggestion for him.

24th July 2009, 07:51 PM	#19
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,473	I'm a little confused on how he could have just now noticed the SBC promotes extreme sexism second only to radical Islam...

24th July 2009, 08:02 PM	#20
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,402	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate 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. Precisely. It seems books like the Bible and the Koran can bring out the best or the worst in an individual. So much better when it's the best.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

24th July 2009, 08:16 PM	#21
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,204	I approve
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

24th July 2009, 08:21 PM	#22
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by Debaroo I suppose some would argue that it should not have taken him six decades.... 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.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

24th July 2009, 08:32 PM	#23
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,668	Originally Posted by kellyb I'm a little confused on how he could have just now noticed the SBC promotes extreme sexism second only to radical Islam... 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.

25th July 2009, 04:10 AM	#24
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,904	Sorry Jimmy, but you're wrong: Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 2 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.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

25th July 2009, 04:50 AM	#25
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,174	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper 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. you were responding to Quote: The words of God do not justify cruelty to women using these verses Quote: 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. but don't forget the next verse Quote: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Clearly these particular verses do not justify cruelty to women.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,174

25th July 2009, 04:54 AM	#26
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,174	Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert Keep the supersticion that's so popular with the knuckle dragging masses, 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.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,174

25th July 2009, 07:24 AM	#27
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	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
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones. Last edited by Just thinking; 25th July 2009 at 07:26 AM.

25th July 2009, 07:56 AM	#28
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,176	Quote: Clearly these particular verses do not justify cruelty to women. "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.
	__________________

25th July 2009, 08:54 AM	#29
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 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. 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?
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

25th July 2009, 08:59 AM	#30
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert 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? How about *"people?"*
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

25th July 2009, 09:04 AM	#31
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,573	Originally Posted by Cleon How about *"people?"* With knuckles that drag?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

25th July 2009, 09:54 AM	#32
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	Originally Posted by Segnosaur He's history's greatest monster!! "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Carter R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtan"
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

25th July 2009, 12:28 PM	#33
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate 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. 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.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

25th July 2009, 12:34 PM	#34
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Cleon How about *"people?"* Sorry, the theists lost their "people" privileges when they started to believe in things that are not there.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

25th July 2009, 12:35 PM	#35
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert 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. To be fair, the old testament limitation of who gets treated nicely was revoked in the new testament. Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert 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. Better be careful. We all know that Jesus wore business suites and certainly wasn't any stinking commie pinko.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser