President Carter says Southern Baptists discriminate against women

JamesBell
"2. He was unable to free hostages taken by Iran. Yes, he gets credit for it, but it was done as Reagan was preparing to take the oath. Iran knew that they were about to face the full strencth of the US military. "
"
Didn't Reagan's aides solve the hostage problem instead by bribing the Iranian government with a large donation of US military equipment?
In fact they went so far to demand that the hostage situation would continue untill after Reagan's victory was certain.

 

"Shortly after that he got sick."
"
In fact senility took his mind away before the poor man could do anything worth mentioning after his retirement. A great many presidents die within a few years after leaving office, or simply retire, or spend most of their time after office trying to weasel their way into a more respectable legacy a la Nixon and Clinton.
Carter didn't have much competition when he won that (informal) title of best ex-president.

 

Linkie to the Walsh Report. Lawrence Walsh was the Independent Counsel in the Iran/Contra matter.

 

Time will tell, by if I were betting, I would bet that history will remember Bush a lot better than the present. He will be known as the one who started the ball rolling for democracy in the Middle East, who in the face of extreme opposition acted on his conscience. IN 50 years, should the Lord tarry, the Middle East will be entirely different in a positive way and Bush will the one responsible for it.

I cannot see any possible way to make this accusation biblically. Carter's theology, the first test of Christianity, is abominable. He has rejected much of Scripture, something completely incompatible with a "fine example of a Christian." His efforts to help people all over the world are noble, but hardly defining of a Christian. There have been many who have done as much as Carter I am sure. He is far from a wonderful statemen. He has been so politically biased, and dishonest at times, that "statesmen" and "Carter" should not appear in teh same statement without a negative. He has gone on foreign soil and in the media and attacked the principles of this country.

History has not looked well on teh Carter administration for a reason. It was completely without substance.

 

Lets just ask the question again and the salient
point of the article and does Carter have a point.

Do Southern Baptists discriminate against women?

yes
no
or work in progress

In 10 years will this really be a moot point as
other churches/tv ministrys/denominations/ intergrate more and more women into ministry.

The culture via TBN/Joel Osteen/Joyce Meyer and
others is pretty much softening up the population.

Carter may actually be ahead of the curve and
the Southern Baptist are behind it not that it
makes it right ..just notice the snowball rolling
down the hill is gaining speed and mass.

 

If you put women on a pedestal, how can you say that you mistreat them? Scripture does not support women as preachers. Carter, like most modernists, is into sensationalism in order to attract a crowd. The fact of the matter is that modernism has an empty theology that comforts no one. Carter's statement that women should be ordained has no theological basis.

 

By whom? His brother Billy?

A lot of unfortunate turns happened during his administration. The United States began to slip into the "abyss" during his administration. He just was not strong enough to stop it.

President Carter did not engineer what is now known as Habitat of Humanity, Millard and Linda Fuller did in 1976. President Carter didnt join their ranks until 1984. He didnt build those homes alone either.

I enjoy reading about the good things the Carter's are involved in, however I think his commentary on current events is something most people squint their eyes at.

But here is a quote I thought quite appropriate for this board:

 

Oh I do so agree.

 

emeraldctyangel
"By whom?"
"
It's a stock joke I've seen made by Dutch, Italian, German and British journalists a number of times over the years.

cmg
"If you put women on a pedestal, how can you say that you mistreat them?"
"
The SBC does that?

 

The problem with women, Mioque, is that they do not want to be on a pedestal but they want to get down in the gutter and be equal with men. Why is that, Mioque?

I believe in women and children first, don't you?

Mioque, does your denomination ordain women? If they do, I respectfully suggest that you yourself run--don't walk--to the nearest exit.

 

To butt in here, statues belong on pedestals, not flesh and blood people.

Depends on the situtation. I'm not going to take a seat while an elderly gentleman stands. The strong and healthy need to take care of the weak.

 

If he was an elderly gentlemen who wasn't crippled in some way, he wouldn't take your seat.

The issue is not so much being on a pedastal, but rather honoring women to be what God creatd them to be, rather than making them something God didn't create them to be. This is about roles in teh God-ordained creation. We should not change those, even to be PC.

 

I was raised to respect women (and men), but to also respect the elderly. A strong young woman SHOULD yield to an elderly gentleman. This is respect for the old and weak. For ANY young person to sit while an elderly person stands is not only rude and disrespectful, but also just wrong!

 

When did Jimmy Carter give up his seat on the bus?

 

cmg
"Mioque, does your denomination ordain women?"
"
My 'denomination' is a relatively small IFB church, that has ordained exactly 3 pastors in it's history, all men. Ordaining ladies in any capacity mentioned in the Bible is explicitly forbidden in the bylaws. Of the 6 payed staffmembers 2 are women. The assistent-sundayschool teacher and the verger.

For the answer on your first 2 questions, I suspect that Daisy's answer is the best possible.

 

I have seen Pres Carter give up his proverbial seat many times. I have volunteered with Habitat for Humanity for years, and on occaision, done a Jimmy Carter work project. He is so humble, it's amazing. He refuses to be served, he instead serves. One time, he and his wife even served everyone else lunch. And it wasn't the token "five minutes for the cameras and we're done". It was an hour behind the counter scooping out the courses. They didn't eat themselves until everyone was fed. No one asked them to do it, they just did it. And no, there were no news cameras around.

 

I absolutely agree. My point was that a gentleman, having been raised to respect women, would allow the women to retain her seat, unless he were crippled or weak. With respect to Daisy, I am not of the impression she is a teenager, though she is probably in her very early 20s ... If I was sitting and an elderly man or woman came into the room. I would give them my seat. I have been waiting at restaurants and done it for women my age and for women younger than me. I have also seen men fail to give up their seat for an elderly lady ... I wanted to say something to them ...

 

There are ways of giving it discreetly, without seeming to. The very old, the very young (on the subway, size & balance figure in), those with babies & todlers, the pregnant and the disabled all get priority.

A joke, right? Add a quarter of a century and you're almost there.

It's the women older than you that probably need the seat more than the ones your age or younger (or are you so aged that anyone older than you qualifies for "elderly"?).

 

When I see a lady standing up, I get up and offer her my seat. I generally do it for any lady who appears to be older than 20 or so, and sometimes younger.

I think we have gotten away from common courtesy, especially between men and women. No one holds the door for ladies any more. No one gives their seat up. No one takes their hat off. It grates on me.

It's like the story of the man who held a door for a woman to go through. She got rather testy and said, "You don't need to hold that door for me simply because I am a woman." He said, "I'm not. I holding it for you because I am a gentlemen."

 

Mioque, let me try to answer the things that that seem to apply to my post and to Reagan.

The Camp David Accords would have been something to be proud of, if they would have worked. Last time I checked, things aren't too peaceful in that part of the world. It was just another in a long list of failures of the Carter presidency.

Reagan didn't do much after he got out of office. Of course, he was an old man, and would soon be diagnosed as a dying man. Saying that he was senile while he was in office is an offense to me. It is clearly not accurate, and it is a degrading comment on a man that isn't able to defend himself at this point. I counter by asking what president has done more BEFORE being elected? I am quite sure that the answer is that none has done more!

As for the Iran-Contra affair, you can believe the conspiracy theories if you want. I won't argue against them. However, to claim that Reagan had the prisoners held hostage to ensure victory is at best misleading. The hostage situation played a role in the campaign, but it wouldn't have mattered if the hostages were free or not. Facing stagflation and declining morale as a nation were enough to ensure one term for Carter. His belief that the best days for America were behind her guaranteed that he would be leaving office after four years. Hostages or not, he wasn't going to win. I also believe that if the Reagan administration would have been fully behind the release of the hostages, as you said, they would have waited for Reagan to be in office before the hostages were set free. No reason to not take credit for it, especially if you did it.

I just don't understand why you had to drag Reagan through the mud during a conversation about Carter. There have been many good presidents with a (D) after their name. The fact that one of them wasn't very good isn't reason to begin an attack on a man that did so much.