The Words of God Do Not Justify Cruelty to Women
Discrimination and abuse wrongly backed by doctrine are damaging society, argues the former US president
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ..." (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
I have been a practicing 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 the 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.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.
Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.
At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.
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.
But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
The Elders have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights. We have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."
We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.
Although not having training in religion or theology, I understand that the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar Biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
I know, too, that Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, did not understand why women were prevented from being priests and preachers. He said: "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me from my study of the scriptures."
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.
Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
139 Comments so far
Show AllConsider how Americans -- including the progressive community -- have treated this country's poor, and most specifically poor women with children. When the father abandons the family, who do we blame? Not the father. Consider the lack of concern over our welfare "reform" policies that not only directly violate that celebrated Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but actually denies a number of legal rights and protections solely on the basis of economic status. Consider that not everyone can work (and that the process of applying for disability aid normally takes several years from the date of application to receipt of first benefit check), and that there simply aren't enough jobs and childcare for all who can; yet, unlike the more modern nations, we're all pretty comfortable with denying fundamental welfare aid.
Cruelty, injustice, etc., are clearly "in the eye of the beholder." Those who are cruel inevitably justify their actions. And as we have seen from our own social policies, entire societies can learn to believe that their own cruelty and injustice against any specific group is actually justifiable, so cannot be regarded as cruelty and injustice.
The same thing can be said about how the Bible and other texts regard Nature.
How often do exploiters of nature say: but the Bible says we are better than the rest of creation.
Under the Religion section on this site they list many of the traditional arguments used to justify human slavery:
http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com
The argument in promotion of slavery was exactly the same as that used by those that deny non human rights arguments.
Of course-not only spiritual humanists have this problem. Secularists(secularism is academically speaking, a religious view-but many secularists dont like to hear that because they want to believe their view is the TRUTH, but they carry much baggage from theism, including a belief in human superiority-which has no absolute objective truth to it. its much easier to use today's news to show how inferior humans are as a species to other lifeforms--take your pick-humans embody the seven deadly sins-other species are completely moderate in behavior--even something like altruism is mostly false in humans since most often acts of altruism by humans consist of attempts to repair mistakes created by other humans, so its more accurately damage control--not altruism or stewardship. Humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, knowing that they are causing suffering-other species do not do that.
When it comes to discrimination--the root issue is the belief that you and a group of your kind(whether you define it by race, gender, species, age, class etc) are better than others as an objective truth-and you can base laws around that discrimination. Because you cannot prove that your group is better than others, it allows anyone to discriminate as they see fit. So racists could justify their discrimination by citing the arguments that a human supremacist uses. The only way to close this loophole that allows attacks on human rights is to try to be as fair and just as possible--which would extend to how humans treat non humans(it doesnt need to be reciprocal since we dont make such a claim on humans). Any denial of this logic means that anyone can discriminate against anyone they choose--which is what humans have done for eons despite laws designed to curb such behavior.
Its a warped situation when we wring our hands about sadistic murderers being executed, but dont blink an eye when a dog is euthanized (or destroyed-like furniture since thye have no souls according to the Bible) for doing far less.
Even there-its much easier to show that non humans have souls while humans do not. And the bible does say that pride is the greatest sin-which humans have in abundance.
got one..
GANG RAPE GREEN ZONE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/23/gangbanggreenzone
here is another one..via youtube:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x115123
The final straw for Jimmy?
"(women are) prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."
IN THE MILITARY SERVICE!!!
Mr Carter, you wrote a wonderful article confronting a grave injustice. Thank you and your starting the discussion and education for women's social equality in such a positive way.
Sorry, Jimmy - you may indeed believe in Jesus, but your walk with Him leaves much to be desired, and your knowledge and interpretation of the Word also falls short. Anyone who says the things about Israel that you do, and aligns themselves with the enemies of God's Chosen People, cannot have a true understanding of God and His Son, the Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus). All this inane prattle about Baptists holding women back, comes from someone with a definite lack of discernment. Differing roles for women and men in the church does not mean that someone's being discriminated against, but I guess that hasn't occurred to you. Also, someone who could compare the Baptist denomination with Islam - that person doesn't deserve to be taken seriously for one second.
My recommendation: get into a line-by-line Bible study, and make up for lost time, my friend.
Predictably, the focus of too many of these posts is shanghaied by religious and pseudo-religious claptrap, and criticisms and judgements of Jimmy Carter. Mr Carter can justifiably be criticised on any number of counts. If what's left of the U.S. and the world is to be rescued for any kind of future for humanity, it is vital to focus on the message.
There is a delusional and dangerous level of respect and lip-service paid to religion and 'God', 'G-d', god, gods, goddesses and gawd only knows what else in the way of so-called supreme deities and prophets in the world, and particularly in the U.S. It is high time it stopped. Worship and believe if you wish. But cut out the proselytizing, advertising, threats and talk of 'rapture' and get real. Jesus Christ, if he existed, and if he were to be around today, would spit in the faces of better than three-quarters of the so-called 'Christians' in the United States. The American Taliban is bent on destroying the U.S. A prominent abortion physician was just murdered IN A CHURCH by one of its adherents. IT IS WAKE UP TIME. MrsFudd and Estrogenator are entirely welcome to their opinions, as I and a great many like me are entitled and will insist on this one: The 'MrsFudds' and 'Estrogenators' are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem, and their delusions are contributing to the rot of the alleged principles and values of the U.S. and of truth, enlightenment and real justice in the world. Only a very serious lack of education, a cherishing of one's ignorance, mind-control at the hands of a male-dominated 'religious' hierarchy that has nothing to do with any 'God' except inasmuch as the standard reading of the Judeo-Christian company line 'legitimates' the subjugation women, and hostility toward the intellect could produce these forms of delusion.
Chris Hedges' 'American Fascism'; Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'; Christopher Hitchens' 'God is not Great'; David Korten's 'The Great Turning', etc., etc., should be required reading in schools.
Whether or not Mr Carter comes from or rejects any religious tradition or church is SECONDARY to the point: Women continue to be maltreated in a patriarchal system worldwide, and there will be ZERO salvation of any kind - religious or humanistic - until this is reversed.
Period. Get with it or get the hell out of the way.
If Hitchens, Dawkins and the other fundamentalist atheists were required reading, you would likely create MORE religious believers, not less.
Thank you, Barry, for your opinion and your graciousness in permitting Mrs. Fudd and myself, ours. You may find this irritating, and quite possibly unbearably disagreeable, but proselytizing and advertising are the very things that you are doing. Albeit, from a secular, atheist POV. Given that, I'm curious, how you would know what Jesus would do in any situation? If, in fact, you have that ability, then surely you can tell the world how I would react to a given situation, as well? I'd say that was the boldest statement you made, and the most difficult (no, make that, impossible) claim for you to back up. Soapboxes have always provided society with more than enough hot air to lift the sails of the gullible and float the balloons of the disenfranchised. So, it appears you've found your niche, son! However, a 'great many MORE like me (American Taliban? And you were trying to do so well!)are entitled and will insist' that America remains rooted in, and is guided by, the Judeo Christian principles that this country was founded upon. Sorry, Dude. That's just the way it is.
Your 'prominent abortion physician' was NOT killed by a church 'adherent'. The man had a history of mental problems, and did not attend said church. Try getting your news from somewhere besides Kos and/or HuffPo (MSNBC?). But, your 'prominent abortion physician' also had a history, of killing tens of thousands of innocent babies, many in 'late term' murders, oops, 'abortions'. See how that works, Barry? If you're going to take up and wield a sword, pay attention to whether it is double edged, for the backswing can cut you if you're inexperienced in it's use. I'm confident in saying, I've been in this fight MANY more years than you, and this is but a small skirmish in the battle to preserve this country, intact. I suggest you not burn yourself out on this thread because, we'll be here for MANY, MANY YEARS to come, we don't surrender, and we're not leaving. We put up with your constant attacks, but we won't surrender. IF you knew anything about Christians, you would KNOW THAT.
Your invectives and fiery rhetoric against something you obviously and truly do not understand, is not becoming of or complimentary to, one claiming any respectable degree of intelligence. Broadcasting vituperative statements, in lieu of offering substantive discourse, hurts your cause rather than bolstering it. Certainly you picked that up from some of your books, no? But, I guess I do remember being young and full of it, once upon a time. Hopefully, you'll grow out of your anger and hurt feelings some day, and realize that God loves you too, despite your shortcomings. After all, we're all just human, right?
Now, what I can agree on. Somewhat.
" Whether or not Mr Carter comes from or rejects any religious tradition or church is SECONDARY to the point: Women continue to be maltreated in a patriarchal system worldwide, and there will be ZERO salvation of any kind - religious or humanistic - until this is reversed."
I agree, that some women are victims of a patriarchal system. In many countries bound by strict religious dogma, but not protected by separation of church and state, women are regarded as nothing more than chattel. However, this is not the case in most countries that have Christian majorities. Whether you want to admit that or not, it is the truth. There are women in every society who CHOOSE to be subservient, and obviously, those women cannot be included in the 'victim' class.
Any way, Barry, it's getting late, and I have to wrap this up. I look forward to your reply.
God bless you,
Estrogenator
"Hopefully, you'll grow out of your anger and hurt feelings some day, and realize that God loves you too, despite your shortcomings. After all, we're all just human, right?"
Does God love gays too? Lesbians? Transgendered people? Or is that a case of "hate the sin, love the sinner", and praying away the gay?
"I agree, that some women are victims of a patriarchal system. In many countries bound by strict religious dogma, but not protected by separation of church and state, women are regarded as nothing more than chattel. However, this is not the case in most countries that have Christian majorities. Whether you want to admit that or not, it is the truth."
Whether you want to admit it or not, all these "Christian" majority countries, have strict separation of church and state, both legal, and societal tradition. To the extent that the active, public, Christian believers are regularly whining about secularism and lack of belief. In those countries that do not have both legal and traditional adherence to the separation of church and state, an adherence won by centuries of fighting against the religious Christians who believe that they have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else, religious Christian belief infects society.
You, and any other religious believer, have a right to believe in whatever religion you want, free from restrictions, free from the idiocy of the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and the idiocy of all the fundamentalist atheists. Equally, everyone else has a right to not have your beliefs imposed on them. But, that is something Christian believers way to often cannot accept.
God loves ALL people, proclivities notwithstanding. But, don't confuse God's love with the attitudes of people and/or churches, which is one of the biggest mistakes anti-Christians make. An all-too-easy mistake to commit, but a fundamentally flawed and erroneus position to take when discussing the issue. Just the facts, Ma'am. Don't assume that I am a rabid, Bible thumping, in your face, demanding that you adhere to MY ideals and morals, condemn you for your sins, church-goer, as my Faith is a personal matter between God and myself (although I will engage in civil discourse on the subject, with anyone interested). As such, I outright reject any and all institutional instruction on the matter of Faith, as I have for well over 40 years.
"To the extent that the active, public, Christian believers are regularly whining about secularism and lack of belief."
As I mentioned to Barry, a double-edged sword cuts both ways. You would deny Christians the very acts of being active, going public and whining, that you readily employ? Tsk, tsk. An intelligent person will easily see, I need not pursue that any further than I already have. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of who practices it.
"In those countries that do not have both legal and traditional adherence to the separation of church and state, an adherence won by centuries of fighting against the religious Christians who believe that they have a right to impose their beliefs on everyone else, religious Christian belief infects society."
To insert just a modicum of truth into that statement, "centuries of fighting against religion." Singling out 'religious Christians', simply displays your distaste for, most likely, the only religion you have any knowledge of, or contact with. That centuries old battle is still being fought around the world today, although, the most numerous and egregious acts of violence and subjugation (by fundamentalist religious zealots) are not committed by Christians, but rather, by muslims. Again, probably because you have little-to-zero interaction with, or knowledge of islam and it's adherents, or other religions. You can fix that (and increase your intellectual integrity) by broadening your narrow focus, to include ALL RELIGIONS. I understand how easy it is to target 'only' Christianity in America, and how difficult it can be to consider something you're unfamiliar with (ie, other religions). But, if 'religion' itself is what you find so deporable, you cannot focus solely on Christianity, and not expect to be challenged. To not include all religions in one's condemnation, would be a manifest expression of bigotry.
I do not impose or force my beliefs on anyone. Never have, never will. God gives everyone a choice (that 'Free Will' thing) to accept His salvation, or deny Him. That choice is entirely your own to make. It is the MOST IMPORTANT choice anyone makes in their entire life. Choose wisely.
"You, and any other religious believer, have a right to believe in whatever religion you want"
Absolutely spot on. A 'right' expounded and enshrined in the documents put forth by the founding fathers of this country, and thoughtfully woven into the fabric of our history, as a nation.
"free from restrictions, free from the idiocy of the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and the idiocy of all the fundamentalist atheists."
Atheists and the ACLU have been hard at work, for decades, attempting to place more and more restrictions on Christians, specifically. Denying this fact, is nothing short of pathetic ignorance or, outright, bigotted hostility. Those groups doggedly continue attempts to deny the 1st Amendment 'right' of free speech to Christians. Just recently, in San Diego, the city tried to deny a group of Christians, the right to gather (in a man's OWN HOME' for Pete's sake!) for Bible study, once a week. Free from restrictions, huh? FYI, the city recanted!
Well, rfloh, I wish I could go on. But, I have things that must be attended to. I do look forward to your reply, and further discussion(s). Have a wonderful day!
God bless you,
Estrogenator
BTW: God dispenses His blessings on 'everyone' (without any suggestions from me!). We just have to notice them, to appreciate them.
JC what took you so long ? I told you face to face long time ago the Unitarian Church had a place for you.
Bill Brown
Jummy. Jimmy. What are you stating when you say, "...my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it."? Seems to me what you are saying is that you were, and are, first and foremost, a politician. In other words, when you "were worried about winning votes or avoiding controversy" it was not very important to be "challenging injustice wherever we see it." And, oh, Jimmy, spare us the "Edlers" stuff, with a capital "E" yet.
Jimmy, the world has seen too much death and destruction in the name of one "great religion", or another, for anyone to head the call. And so, Jimmy, if you are really "deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it", how about the injustices accosted upon atheists in your own nation? How about the injustice of forcing non-believers to carry pieces of paper in their wallets that say, "In God We Trust"? Or "under God, or "So help me God".
Finally, stick to the Declaration of Human Rights, and the Bill of Rights, and stop practicing shoving your religion into people's faces.
Are you kidding! Injustices? Accosted upon? 'Forcing' you to CARRY PIECES OF PAPER!?!? You need to look around at the REAL 'injustices' 'accosted upon' REAL victims in the REAL world, before you go shamefully whining about pitiful little things like that! My goodness, you poor, suffering, battered and abused, accosted upon, pitiful, pitiful soul! I'm willing to wager that those words (that you say are SOOO OFFENSIVE to you, on those 'pieces of paper' 'forced' into your wallet) aren't truly SOOOO BAD that you'd rid yourself of them. If you just can't take the insufferable pain of being 'forced' to carry them around because of what's written on them, I suggest you donate them to me. I will say a prayer of thanks, and your unbearable suffering will be swept away! That's a win-win situation, son. Whadda ya say?
I use the Edgar Cayce Reading as a filter for most everything I read.Fanatical?Nope because he did say about anything that you read even his books,the Bible,Koran,whatever religion or philosophy of life take what is good for you and discard the rest.This came about when someone asked which bible was the best or more accurate and he said that the one the person was using was good enough.So many things in the readings.Want an idea of what to read pick up a little book called "Think on these things".It can be sent for at ARE headquarters in Virginia Beach,Virginia or a bookstore.You can google it.Tony
Exactly. Edgar Cayce pointed that there a many different lamps of enlightenment throughout the world.
Nice selectivity Mr Carter,
You agree with this Scripture,
Colosians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
But you don't agree with this one,
1Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
You say, " the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming...For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. "
Mr Carter, you have quoted a few CAREFULLY selected
Bible verses, and YOU are claiming authority of the verses you have CAREFULLY selected.
But, Mr Carter, you are unable to discern that there is no contradiction in ANY of the verses.
Read the verses that indicate that Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother.
2Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
That is absolutely proper.
It is also absolutely proper for God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, to demand a certain order in the assembly of believers.
That you dislike His order, is something you will deal with very shortly. With Him, face to face.
If you believe His Word, as you say you do, can you CAREFULLY select the verses that prove that you will NOT enjoy that meeting?
Matthew 7:20-23
no man with a brain belive one word of a bible for God has no voice as we know it but the power of HIM force us to use words that are ours = so what was your point
edweg
Can't we just forget about all those 'holy' books, use our own brains and recognize each other as fellow humans, forgetting nationality, gender, sexual preference, colour etcetera? So much easier than to try linking a book like the Bible, with it's very violent OT, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, hardly any ambiguity in that one.
Jimmy Carter really should just shut up and not talk anymore. His incredible lack of knowledge on almost every subject is embarrassing. I still can't believe this man was once our president.
The Bible is clear when it says women should not teach in the church. It does not say anywhere that women can't teach - just in the assembly. As a woman, I have no problem with this. I teach children and women. I have no desire to get in the pulpit week after week. If people have a problem with it, take it up with the Lord.
There is always a chain of command. You must have a CEO in business. Having 2 would create chaos. If God chooses men to be the CEO - that's His prerogative and I'll go with Him.
God chose men for that responsibility, and His decision is just fine with me. He is all knowing, all powerful, all wise, all present. I'll take God's recommendation over Jimmy Carter's any day.
Thank you Mrs. Fudd. Our guideline is already there, and set out in no uncertain terms. Too many people stray from His word, wanting to challenge or over-think very clear and simple instructions.
"I'll take God's recommendation over Jimmy Carter's any day."
Indeed, ANY day. God bless you, Mrs. Fudd.
I guess that most men have a hard time accepting the fact that women are smarter, more caring,more compassionate, have more common sense and prefer to settle a dispute through discussions than by the use of lethal weapons. I say...let women rule the world for the next 2000 years - things can only improve. YES!
Be careful what you wish for... do you want Hillary Clinton to be in charge?
"But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it."
This prevalent mindset of winning votes and avoiding controversy, otherwise known as "me first", must be changed for justice to prevail. Injustices must be challenged by those who have the privilege and power to correct them now - not when they leave office and their legislative power or influence behind.
Mr. Carter has done a lot of good in the world since he left office. No man's life is defined by one event.
With that it mind, Jimmy also refused to close the School of Americas while he was president, and ignored calls by Oscar Romero's to stop supporting the dictatorship in his own country with massive military arms which led to egregious human rights violations unmatched during that period in our history. It also led to Romero's own assassination by military types trainned at the SOA at Fort Benning Georgia. This is especailly noteable given Carter's current calls for justice, along with the fact that messers Obama and Clinton also ignored calls to close the SOA. The SOA needs to be terminated forthwith, and another reason a vote for the Dems is a vote for perpetual war, torture, and military adventurism.
Hurray for President Carter's courageous act of breaking with the Southern Baptists on the issue of Women's rights.
No doubt this means that he will be classified as a theological liberal from now on. So be it. Perhaps he will now also openly recognize the abject failure of US religious liberals to openly criticise and reject other ridiculous and repugnant beliefs and practices on the part of religious fundamentalists such as young Earth creationism and Biblical inerrancy.
Mark my words: Obama's Presidency is gonna make Carter look like a demi-god.
Jesus did not talk about cruelity towards anyone even though many things he said appeared to be cruel towards people. In instructing his disciples about the Kingdom he told them to be as wise as serpents & as harmless as doves.
If his disciples weren't as harmless as doves it was up to them to repent & try again.
Jesus did not turn God nor himself into a business. Those "Religious Leaders" at the the Temple who sought to kill him had turned God into a Business & thought they were doing God a favor by killing Jesus. So they were not being harmless as a dove.
Man made Religion then would turn Jesus & God into a Business with on the large scale the first being the Catholic Church that was anything other than harmless as doves to be followed after Church after Church that merely took Jesus's & God's name to rule over people through Politics & Religion.
Some Sects would come out of this "Religious System" alogether as even other people come out of any Religious System" all together. The manipulations of Religion & Politics are not limted to any one Religion, People's or Nations.
Just as those Religious Leaders of the Temple thought they were doing God a favor by killing Jesus, through his servants of the Kingdom God it was also later written they will be killing thinking they are doing God a favor.
In doing so they are not following Jesus's instructions of the Kingdom to his disciples to be as wise as serpents & as harmless as doves.
SD;"Wise as serpents & harmless as doves".A lifestyle for a totally messed up planet,beautiful.Tony
There is no doubt there is discrimination. It is based on power relationships. Ever since that some forms of work are seen as womens work, or have less status, or are physically or mentally degrading, there has been methods to find classes of people to do the work. And for more privileged positions to gain the benefit. Energy , material and time relationships and trade offs all play a part.
Religion shapes how society is organised to cope with and distribute the specialisation of work and rewards. The human race is now seemingly too successful as measured by numbers, and perhaps more equitable and inefficient methods should be tried.
Let us not rely on the words of seemingly great humans, such as Jimmy Carter, who here can enhance his reputation by writing and perpetuating the great scams and masquerades of God. The words of the Bible and Koran are inspired by the hopeful social profiteers of the day. Let me prophetize for no profit.
There is no god external to the delusions of homo sapiens. In the sense that the memes of god or Karl Marx promote behaviour of mass numbers of people, god exists. If some goddie memes are causing signficant amounts of unhappiness, waste of lives, repression, they should be changed. The real restrictions on human happiness and social harmony lie in the nature of the kinds of work that peoples do and the exchanges of the fruits and rewards of it. Many forms of goddieness can be hindrence to change, both in slaver nations, exemplified by the US government, and the enslaved. Take out the great slabs of goddieness in thine own eye, Jimmy, before complaining of the splinters in anothers.
Not only a "born-again christian," but a born-again feminist, are you, Jimmy?
What a pity you weren't so concerned with the rights of women when, back in 1977, you signed into law the Hyde Amendment that eliminated abortion coverage from the Medicaid health plans of 23 million women, most of whom were poor and/or African-American.
At the time, if you remember, you sneered, “There are many things in life that are not fair” !
Does a president have to hit a home run everytime he's up to bat!?
Pres. Carter slammed one out of the field many times, and a new book addresses a speech that could've given the world significant wins. It's called:
"What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?': Jimmy Carter, America's 'Malaise,' and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country".
Please help an old fart whose memory is failing. I seem to remember that when Governor James Earl Carter of Georgia was running for the office of President of the U.S.A., he promised to reduce military spending by a certain amount, which seemed huge at the time (but which would be laughably small by today's standards!). If I remember aright, during President Carter's term of office, military spending increased by a larger amount than the amount by which he had promised to cut it!
Here are several possible explanations. If you have better explanations, please inform me:
1. Jimmy Carter is at typical, lying, american, pig-ass bastard politician, who would say anything to get elected and to promote his career. (I don't believe that.)
2. Once the idealistic (possibly pseudo-idealistic) James Earl Carter became president he learned that whatever ideas that he had while governor of Georgia about the international situation were incorrect, or else that situation had changed, so he had to renege on his campaign promises. (Well, I doubt that, too.)
3. When Jimmy Carter obtained the office of president of the U.S.A., he soon learned that there is a foreign and military (and domestic?) policy establishment that does not change substantially from one presidential administration or from one Congress to another. He was (and is) a man of conscience, and therefore, was forced to work within certain constraints. (I'd prefer to believe this, but only if it is true.)
It occurs to me that those who disparage the open meditations of a public citizen who could be enjoying his retirement in self amusement, but who has chosen to spend the rest of his days serving his fellow citizens, ought to ask themselves what they are doing in their present situations to improve our mutual condition.
Ok, now this one has gone a bit too far. At least have some respect for the elderly. I have issues with Carter but he certainly is no Obama. Would you please provide a link to back up your claim that Carter actually increased military spending in his term? Thank you.
Google: Carter Increase Military Spending and you will get the info:
"Although he had promised to cut military spending by $5 to $7 billion, he decided to increase it after just six months in office, and his 5% proposed spending increases in each of his last two years in office were identical to those first proposed by Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, having pledged to reduce foreign arms sales, he ended up raising them to new highs..."
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2009/07/false-savios-jimmy-carter.html
Thanks jozef. I can now see that Carter isn't much of a peacenik as he was painted to be. I doubt Obama's taking note of this but maybe he will in 2012. Whatever Carter's aligned with astrologically speaking, like John Nicols he's not pushing for pro-peace.
Wow! Mr. Carter, that must have ben a real tough decision to sever your ties with the SBC! So cruelty to men is okay then because God's word says it's okay if they are sitting on "our" oil to wipe them out, right. But, by all means, leave the women alone.
News Flash:
Women are human. So are men. Our society is based on greed. The amount of mistreatment society gives its' members is inversely proportional to their greed/wealth. Now you sir, seem to get emotional about having a nuclear submarine named after you. Is that a Freudian phallic symbol thing? Never mind. It just seems so strange that the most gruesome, horrible abominations man has come up with (nuclear weapons) and the platform used to deliver them would slightly piss God off. You need to wake up, Mr. Carter. You aren't making sense.
YOU need to wake up. Your, men are horribly discriminated against rant, doesn't make sense.
Jimmy Carter is the only statesman the United States has and he is world caliber. Thank you, Mr Carter.
Here's a story that really shocked me:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/967
I haven't verified it, maybe you can do that for yourself.
Maybe Carter is not what he presents after all. Be worth checking.
It would have been better if Carter had stayed here in this country and quit allowing his own party to stifle 3rd party candidates election after election. His support of NAFTA which was the backdoor to slave labor is also questionable. I mean Carter is better than most Democrats today but I do question his overall politics which are inconsistent when one looks into the details.
Thanks Mr. Carter but I have mixed feelings on this one. I've been reading a lot of abstract comments on this one but I can't help but wonder what would have happened had Jimmy Carter just been lucky to win that second term? Maybe the Republicans might have moderated? Maybe the Democrats would not have formed the DLC and given us Obama and Clinton? In case nobody noticed, neither party has any respect for women when it all boils down to the policies and the voting records of our pols.
Armybrat raised some interesting points about Carter's dark side despite his good astrological side and while Carter was nothing like LBJ, Dubya, or Obama, perhaps it might be appropriate to ask everyone in this forum going overboard praising Carter this simple question. Why didn't Carter choose to push for legalizing Cannabis so that we Americans could produce and manufacture our products and health with the powerful peace plant and even THC free. Instead, all this foreign policy mess he got into was all about OIL ! It's no coincidence that America relies on "free" trade scams to import poor quality everything be it paint, wood, paper, plastics, etc ... when in fact Cannabis can be grown here at home to produce longer lasting and far more durable versions of the same stuff here at home. It is also no coincidence that America fights wars for oils and desperately relies on the Middle East for dwindling supplies of it all the while banning the growth and cultivation of the plant that could easily give us sufficient amounts, does not deplete the soils, grows on any climate soil, and does not cause food crisis unlike corn-based biofuels.
America will never legalize cannabis - not because it might be unhealthy, or lead to harder drugs, or all those other lame reasons.
The real reason is that when one gets stoned on the "peace weed", one starts to see the foolishness and destructiveness of a capitalist and greedy world and one might just get laid back and enjoy life and be kind to one's neighbours instead of going out hustling one's butt off everyday for the allmighty dollar to have a bigger house, newer car, expensive furniture, clothes, jewellry and all kinds of "prestige" symbols showing how "successful" you are. This becomes the be-all and the end-all and your main purpose in life to get rich. Everythihg else becomes secondary.
The all important GDP or GNP would suffer if everyone became laid back and started being satisfied with what they have and stopped buying all the crap that they don't need. The American capitalistic system would not survive long with happy, contented people whose main goal in life is to relax and have peace of mind and serenity and to live a simple life. (although the system is imploding anyway caused by all the greedy ones)
Cannabis tends to help you see through bullshit and helps you shift through all the indoctrination and brainwashing.
That is my theory why there is such a vicious war against cannabis and yet cigarettes and alcohol that actually kill people are legal.
Hemp: The New Billion-Dollar Crop - Popular Mechanics - 1938
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/popmech1.htm
Dupont and the Hearst paper mills put a stop to this.
I disagree that legalizing hemp would destroy capitalism. There is regulated capitalism and then there's disaster capitalism. Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" is an excellent source to read from on the issue of disaster capitalism. If our goal is to shut down disaster capitalism, then bills such as HR676 and HR1866 are the tickets. Our country always had some form of regulated capitalism. It was only in the last 3 decades that capitalism took a turn for the worse. What you're describing is a "fixed" market. Banning hemp so that alcohol and tobacco don't have to face true competition is NOT a truly free market whatsoever. It is possible that the ban on hemp starting with the 1937 high taxation on Cannabis was one of the seeds being sowed for disaster capitalism that would ensue in later decades but the Great Depression delayed it some.
Sioux Rose
SEE: All true. I would merely add that the peace plant is NOT good for the make-war economy. In fact, this explains why peace groups like the Quakers were the ones spied on! Warriors are very suspect of those who have identified with another way of living. Add that fact to the "pot-not" list.
Hemp was used during WWII and even Bush 41 was saved from it. I understand that the peace plant would make a dent in the war economy but there is plenty to prove that the war economy is not sustainable and we can defeat this monstrosity. In fact, when the US ran out of nylon during WWII, hemp production was temporarily resurrected to fill in the void. There will always be some traces of a war economy but hemp for manufacturing can reduce it. I was thinking, first go non-THC and then slowly blend in the THC.
Good point about the hemp oil/etc.
The first Diesel engine was designed to run on either hemp oil or peanut oil.
You would think Carter, the old peanut farmer, would have cottoned on to that.
Carter did try to put solar on the table and try to get the braindamaged public to take the climate issues as least somewhat seriously. Maybe he gave up but yeah, he could have at least taken his perceived weakness on peanuts and turn it into a strength. God knows what kept him from thinking peanut oil for diesel.
Now if Carter could only stretch his tolerance to all people, even GLBT.
Carter doesn't support GLBT? I never heard him oppose them. I need to read up on that one. Got a link? Thanks.
Carter is fine with GLBTs.
He doesn't support gay marriage. BUT, he advocates (legal) civil unions for all, straight and gay, with churches / religions, being able to make their own choices for religious marriage. Which is fine. Many GLBT advocates essentially advocate similar solutions.
Thanks rfloh. By the way, same sex wasn't an issue in 1976 or 1980 as far as I can tell. God knows how Carter would have handled that issue back then if it were.
My stomach churns every time I read another one of these disgusting eulogies to a murderous, lying, cheating, worthless piece of dirt - namely, a politician. Carter is up to his eyeballs in blood - just like any other politician, and no final-hour attempt at image-improvement can ever wipe away all that blood, no matter how he packages his latest sales-pitch.
Sigh, I'm afraid you are correct armybrat. See my post for details. And sometimes I wonder what our army would be if everything in the army was made with hempseed oil instead of crude oil.
From supporting the Shah of Iran to supporting the slaughter of the East Timmorese, I have no illusions that the Carter Adminstration continued "business as usual" in many of its foreign and domestic policies. But who among us doesn't also have faults worthy of condemnation?
The implications of your post above, Armybrat, are that either Jimmy Carter is deliberately lying and didn't mean a word he said in the article or he is so mentally and morally deformed that he is incapable of changing anything in his outlook or beliefs.
This is a man who facilitated the negotiation of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and then told his Jewish friends and associates that Israel's policy towards the Palestinians was wrong and compared it to Apartheid. Through the Carter Center he has provided impartial observers to assure that elections are conducted in a fair and honest manner in all parts of the world. The guy even put on jeans and a work shirt and went out to help construct houses for Habitat for Humanity.
Most of what I have described above has taken place after he left the White House (a time when most men (like Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton) are content to go around collecting honoraria for giving vapid and pointless speeches, and fret over their "legacy". He is equally despised by his own as well as the opposition party because he has the courage to speak, write, and live "inconvenient truth" long before Al Gore ever thought to utter the phrase.
Jimmy Carter may be the only President in the 20th. century whose reputation grew greater after the White House than it was before or during his stay there. For that reason alone he is worth noting as a remnarkable individual.
Poet
Oh come on, what's a little support for genocide in East Timor, the Shah of Iran, Latin American death squads, and the creation of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan? Who cares that the "Carter Doctrine" laid the framework for our wars in the middle east? Democrats need someone to believe in.
Congratulations, Mr. Carter.
Recently President Obama met with Pope Benedict XI. How sad that he could not say to the Pope what Jimmy Carter has written. Jimmy is right, the religions that teach that God is All Just, Good, Loving, cannot have it both ways and deny women the right to protect their own precious lives. The Catholic Church ban ,against birth control and abortion even to save a woman's life, is the gravest of sins. A Good God would not begin life in the womb and force women to sacrifice their lives for a child. Nor would God infuse a soul into an embryo in a petri dish to be frozen and thrown out if not wanted. The Catholic, prolife, patron saint is a woman who chose death rather than have the cancer surgery she needed to save her life, because she was pregnant.She was a pediatrician with three other children. That was her choice. But how many women down through the ages have not had that choice, due to the Catholic false doctrine which denied them that right, and forced them to die? Blessed or Saint Gianna Beretta Molla must have and will continue to get lots of company of dead mothers, becuse Catholic Leaders refuse to listen to reason.
Why do US presidents have to meet with the Pope, anyway? And why is Obama discussing abortion and stem cell research with the head of a religion that still doesn't allow women to be priests, doesn't approve of birth control, etc.?
Interestingly, though, the Catholic Church (supposedly) opposes war and the death penalty. Does the Pope give our president an earful about this?
TITLE: National Brotherhood Week \ ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule
But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school
Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's American as apple pie
But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans
'Cause it's very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews
But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
A song to BROTHERHOOD week in response to this post? You all need to listen to Carter a bit more closely.
Should be our National Anthem!
One of my favorites.
Women have been given a raw deal since the end of the Bronze Age.
We need to bring back the Goddess.
Why do you believe that things were better during the Bronze Age and prior to that?
In 2003, I read an article in Presence Magazine written by a pastor of a church in Berkeley. I no longer remember what he wrote, but he inspired me to email him a few of my theological questions. He replied something like this;
"I once gave a sermon that began with the story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived 100 years before Jesus walked the earth. Rabbi Hillel understood the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom; The Feminine Divinity, was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word. It was Saints John and Paul that understood The Logos: The Word was Jesus. So with a little imagination you can imagine that before Jesus walked the earth a man, he was already a she; The Word, Holy Wisdom, Hokema, the feminine divinity. I gave that sermon to a mainline conservative congregation. It didn't go over well."
It read like good news to me since the days of Eve until the days of JC, the feminine was not equally valued. Jesus is the first known man to blow apart the societal and religious taboos of speaking with females. One more example of how the male disciples would not, could not follow Jesus' example.
Later male disciples, the Protestant Reformers, would not, could not accept the Book of Wisdom and threw it out of their canon, but the Catholics include it in their bible. It has been said that some thought the Book of Wisdom was too Jewish or perhaps too feminine.
The Book of Wisdom defines wisdom as: a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unstained, and certain. Not baneful, but loving the good. Keen, unhampered, beneficent, kind, firm, secure, all-powerful, all-seeing and pervading all spirits.
Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion and SHE penetrates and pervades all things by reason. SHE is the aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of The Almighty. SHE is the refulgence of eternal Light, a spotless mirror of the power of God. And SHE who is one, can do all things and renews everything, and passing into holy souls from age to age, SHE produces friends of God and prophets.- WISDOM 7:22-8:1
*Wisdom has built her house and SHE calls to all; "Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding." -*Proverbs 9…
Number 9 Number 9 Number 9....Let all who are little come in here, Wisdom has built her house; come eat her food and drink her wine and walk in the ways of understanding [Proverbs 9]...I'm so very small I'm so very small, already within the heart of every atom yet extend Beyond the Universe and connect every mother and child....Number 9 Number 9 Number 9.......
Wisdom calls; "I have built it; will you come? Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear?
Holy Wisdom, the Feminine Divinity: Hokema,
Who was with The Word from the very beginning,
She is One with Him and He with Her;
Pure Being; One God;
One Creator and One Lover of All the Human Family,
Hokema; Holy Wisdom;, The Feminine Divinity
Same as The Logos: The Word:
Have you heard the word is love and the word is just the way-John Lennon
The Word is The Christ and before Christ walked the earth a man,
He was already a SHE:
Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity
Now, isn't that Good News?
The God Head is One Pure Being;
as much male as female
as much mommy as daddy.
And we are all children of Her Universe;
And **He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything;
and everything is born of Him.
He is the supreme controller of the universe,
the maintainer and instructor of humanity.
He is smaller than the smallest.[**Bhagavad-Gita]
He indwells the heart of every atom and
She is beyond the Universe.
Wisdom is calling,
She is rattling your windows and shaking your walls
With some more good news of the
three witnesses,
and three always beats one
and not just that,
I've got a fourth.
Get out your Good Book sisters and brothers and chew on this;
Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10
are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:
'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
God is within every sister, brother and all Creation,
Get a clue Christian,
His ways are not your ways and Her thoughts are not your thoughts
Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,
but to nurture, care and love
And if you have not love, you have nothing at all
And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator
And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth
by those who were so sure they were in, because they are the ones left out.
WAKE UP Christian!
Hear the wind begin to howl.
For every misunderstanding, every condemning thought, every negative vibration, every tear torn from a heart, every time one grabbed and wouldn’t let go, and they only did it because they did not know:
The Divine is within all creation and within all women and men.
And every tiny kindness you have ever done, every gentle word spoken, every time you held your tongue, every positive thought, every smile freely given, every helping hand that opens, helps bring in the kingdom.
And the kingdom comes from above, and it comes from within. Imagine a kingdom of sisterhood of all creatures and all men.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."-Proverbs 29, 18 - King James Version
Christianity was founded by rebels, revolutionaries and dissidents, not conservatives or neo-cons. And neither were these United States.
Excerpted from "The New Body of Christ: 5th in A Greater Awakening Series"
Eileen Fleming, Author, Founder:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
Sioux Rose
EILLEEN: I salute your passion for purpose. Much in your post I agree with. Thank you for sharing words of inspiration and understanding.
Jesus was never a Christian, he never commented on gay love and he publicly engaged women in conversation-a taboo in his time-and another incidence of how his disciples failed to follow him in what he actually taught and modeled with his life.
The term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus/AKA: The Prince of Peace walked the earth and taught that it is the peacemakers who are the children of God, NOT those that bomb, occupy or torture others.
2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning and was not a piece of jewelry.
When JC said: "Pick up your cross and follow me" everyone THEN understood he was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads into Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Empire and Military Occupying Forces.
Jesus, while never a Christian, was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up against the corrupt Temple authorities and challenged their job security by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God LOVED them just as they were:
Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under the Roman Empire and Military Occupation.
What got JC crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Empire and Occupying Forces by teaching the subversive concept that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under the Roman Empire and Military Occupation above the elite and arrogant.
The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be and that his sisters and brothers were those that DID the will of the Father:
"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8
Eileen Fleming, Author, Founder:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
Jesus was a Jew. The God he worships is a genocidal maniac. Ever read the Old Testament? It makes Mein Kampf look like pacifist literature.
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) imposed prohibitions on women's role in the church welcomed by one abbot who wrote:
"We and our whole community of canons, recognizing that the wickedness of women is greater than all the other wickedness of the world, and that there is no anger like that of women, and that the poison of asps and dragons is more curable and less dangerous to men that the familiarity of women, have unanimously decreed for the safety of our souls, no less than that of our bodies and goods, that we will on no account receive any more sisters to the increase of our perdition, but will aoid them like poisonous animals."
wow...this guy is terrified of women...and/or had a bad relationship with his mother...
Although women were never ordained priests, the priesthood was not officially closed to them until the thirteenth century. (according to Jack Holland's "Misogyny" The World's Oldest Prejudice.
Innocent III and his Abbot sound like militant femophobes--is this common among other gay men?
Poet
Why do you assume that Innocent III was gay? Just because he was a Catholic priest? Many Catholic priests, popes, in the medieval and renaissance eras had "nephews" and "nieces", children from sexual relations with women.
And even IF he was gay, why the assumption that misogyny is common among gay men? Why not the assumption that misogyny is common among Catholic priests?
The Baptist Church's interpretation is right, the fact is,
Bible says: "woman was created from a man's rib," that means: she is second class worshiper.
What we should realize is that the Bible isn't a sacred book and for that matters there is no sacred book at all nor there
are such a thing as a sacred book what so ever in the human
history.
There are as much so called sacred books as religious belief, that means a very large number of such writen tales, legends and so on al over the earth's face and along milennia and that also means that there is NO unity regarding the God's concept or for that matter regarding the fact that there is God what so ever, if there is a God each man/woman would feel it, naturaly, and wouldn't need a priests, a prophet and so on to realize that fact, but there is no fact, there is No God.
We believe in a God because we are told since we are in the womb that there is one and from then on the society enforces that beliefs but never proves it, there is no scientifical proof that there is a God and that is why the Catholic Church says that we should believe by faith not by reason but we are rational entities and whatever we believe MUST be proved beyond doubt, otherwise such thing doesn't exists. Sorry for those who believe that are by billions.
yaguei;I have to disagree because if you take the symbolism of the rib it is as a protector;were it the head,the sexual organs and been more like a man?A protector of the heart which is a symbol for the humans on this planet and has a Soul which is her connection to the Creator.She brought a hightened intuition and a nurturing heart to the union.Her only mistake at that time?That snake in the grass which is a symbol for temptation and she did not hoodwink Adam into anything,he went right along with what THEY decided.Her punishment?A difficult birthing process and what did he get?A hard life in providing what was necessary to live. A rib protects.Tony
It's better that Carter is calling religious leaders to task today instead of building up the US nuke arsenal. After all, it is both religion and leadership that are among the most over-rated and abused institutions. But Carter makes a familiar crucial mistake: He uses our desire for universal equity/justice to gain our attention which he proceeds to focus away from universal equity/justice and onto one specific type of oppression. This is effectively a divide/conquer strategy, whether Carter realizes it or not. The conquest occurs when the reader looks up, realizes this symptom is only one among many, and becomes overwhelmed, or engages in competition for resources to put out this specific fire, only to watch the elites set a new fire elsewhere. To avoid the overwhelm, and to avoid wasting our energy on ineffective reactionary firefighting, we reject these attempts to focus our attention on individual symptoms of elite oppression, and keep our attention focused on banishing oppressive intent generally, thus nipping in the bud all of its ugly manifestations. This is a manageable approach with the greatest potential.
The problem:
There are a whole bunch of people who believe in some stupid religion such as Christianity (usually because they were indoctinated from birth) and there are a few people who have a lot of power and who like that power. Those powerful people are smart and they realize that they can use people's childish belief in some stupid religion to maintain and increase their power. Since believing in stupid religions requires individuals in a society to abandon reality and to embrace some sort of faith or belief, that society then becomes more vulnerable to the manipulations of those smart power lovers because many in the society have lost touch with reality.
The smart power lovers will almost always claim to "beleive in" the religion they use to manipulate the true believers into doing what they want. This is often sucessful despite the fact that the actions of the power lovers, and by extension those they manipulate, are often diametrically opposed to the religion they claim to uphold.
Jesus said some beautiful things, but as long as they are thought to be "the word of god" they will be misused to ill effect. Hence G.W. Bush says "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East..."
Thus God decrees a few hundred thousand more must die for nothing.
Atheism did not motivate Stalin's brutality. That happened because of his religious devotion to Communism.
It was more likely his religious devotion to Stalin.
Right Jimmy.
Now, can you explain this "Thou shalt not kill" bit?
In his 1976 Playboy© interview, Carter stated that the new testament holds the mere lusting after a woman not your wife to be equal to adultery.
Following this logic, is not preparation for war tantamount to killing?
Jimmy Carter is willing to step on minefields whether for the rights of woman or justice for Palestinians.
Disorganized religion works for me.
Congratulations for leaving organized religion, Jimmy. Six decades sooner woulda been better. But then the authoritarians wouldn't have let ya be prez eh?
"But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
Jimmy Carter could focus his energy on moving the US government away from supporting individualism, hierarchy, and rule by the sword, and toward support for people against oppression worldwide. He never did much to help move the US government toward support for people's rights against elite oppression.
And by the way, women don't need influence. Nobody needs influence. Carter failed to think this one through. What has the crazed competition for influence yielded in the USA? A wrecked society. Think Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand. So Jimmy, you want to see another Ayn Rand? Will that be justice for women?
Try again. It was Carter who TRIED to put this country at the forefront of the cause of human rights. It was Reagan who went around undoing everything that Carter had started. You might want to check into your history BEFORE you spout things like that. Some of us were around at the time and recall it quite well, as well as our disgust at Reagan's insistence on removing it from our policies after that.
Like I said, try again.
Sioux Rose
WOW! I am so moved by this that I am bypassing comments to let my impressions loose!
First, Jimmy Carter is a Libra, and that sign not only opposes the Mars-rules war-sign of Aries, but it happens to be the sign where the scales balance. As the sign of marriage, the balanced scales represent TRUE and EQUAL partnership. Jimmy Carter walks that walk! Bravo to him!
Years ago I was camped out with a companion on Sugarloaf Key (in the Keys) and I had just gone off to take a leak in the woods when my companion said, "There are secret service men all over the place." I thought he was kidding. He was not. Jimmy and Rosalyn were playing tennis right across the street at a little court that belonged to the owner of the property where we were camped.
Like John Dean, another Libra, both men are about principles!
Having read this, I am going to send Mr. & Mrs. Carter a copy of my new book, MOON DANCE: The Feminine Dimensions of Time as it comes to the same conclusion he does: that patriarchal religions have done a major disservice to women across the globe. And more so, without the counterbalances provided through the experiences and expressions of both genders (instead we see women becoming LIKE men by thinking they have "arrived" when they can also fire guns in the military or smoke cigarettes to "come a long way, baby," etc.) quite truly the navigational devices of our world (via its leadership and taught cultural values) have gone off track. We are veering towards species extinction, potential human extinction, war without meaning, criminal direction of global funds, and 100 other grotesque operations taken for "business as usual." These all degrade Venus so that only Mars can rule.
I am so grateful that Mr. Carter, who has been privileged to travel the world and own the presidential seat of power, is bearing witness to this critical Truth, as he also recently and bravely exposed the apartheid policies practiced by Israel.
Here is an individual who has grown enormously; and in his polite, steadfast manner he increasingly speaks truth to power. He is to be credited that having honored his marital bond, his wife has proven a TRUE inspiration. I'd like to see both their faces at Mount Rushmore, or a site fashioned to honor unity as a statement against centuries of sexism.
In my view, once the holy circle was co-opted by the premise of one god, and that God took on all the characteristics of Mars... that strategy undermined the Divine union or Holy partnership between men and women. From there, all the other prejudice-based ism divisions were made easier. The unequal yin-yang balance scales have corrupted our world and caused untold misery ever since.
I hope Rosalyn will Moon Dance!
Siouxrose.
Might I suggest you read the book "The Ecology Of Eden".?
It is filled with metaphors and an entirely different take as to how Man usurped the role of Women in society, this staring with organized Agriculture .
He speaks to the Myth of the Sphinx and the Medusa and various other "beasts" slain by Male heroes making the case that these beasts represent "Wilderness" and "Nature" and "The Mother" which man fears and wishes to dominate.
"Wild nature" creates monsters which will devour man, therefore man must use force to dominate. This force comes via his technology. The sword/axe OR the Plow.
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: Sounds like a good one. I'll put that book on my list. Incidentally, I believe there were matriarchal societies with far more egalitarian mores that existed several thousand years ago. Where Freud spoke of penis envy, in earlier times there was birth envy. So men decided to turn remales into property (using their often greater physical strength/force) in order to control birth lines. Neither gender is superior. The two were intended to act as counterbalances, and remind me of what is symbolized through the image of Yin and Yang encompassing one another.
The birth envy would seem to describe mans view towards nature and wilderness. That being Nature represented by wilderness produces all LIFE. It makes our water clean it provides us our sustenance.
In plowing nature under to grow fields of Grain , man shows he is the master and can bring forth life on HIS Terms.
Mention is made of Gilgamesh when he in his city. In the Poem Gilgamesh looks to what he calls "The land of the Living". This is the Cedar forest mountains of distant Lebanon an area of tremendous diversity and Gilamesh wishes to show HE is its master and leads an expedition to those lands to cut down all the cedars.
You might call it birth envy. One can as easily call it life envy. Man, aware of his own mortality and impending death , makes war on LIFE.
It my understanding that most pre agricultural societies worshipped the Earth Goddess, if not exclusivley then on equal terms with the male gods. IT was right around the onset of agriculture, the plow and Mans ability to FORCE the earth to bring forth food on mans terms that worship of the Goddess supressed.
it is my suggestion that agriculture was the reason for man's curiousity regarding the effects of the moon's cycles and the seasons on his crops; leading to astrology.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: Excellent, useful info and analysis. Your points complement my views on this subject. I will remember this data as I left it out when I wrote Moon Dance. It's very apt! And from agriculture we get to property "ownership" which is opposed to the Indigenous premise (which I support), that "We belong TO the land, the land belongs to no one." In South America as a variety of leaders begin to spread the wealth drawn from local resources around they also show more respect for Indigenous teachings.
http://www.scientology.org/
I don't know what religions believe that Souls were given freewill and with freewill there being reincarnation and so this is my take because I believe that we were given freewill and reincarnation is a fact and that being the case any body that can stand there and say that God said that woman was in any way a lesser soul than man has been using way too much of that cool stuff and puting his own pre-judgements to spew his hate because that is what it is.Cause and effect,karma,whatever is when the Soul meets itself and has to answer; what the hell have I been up to?Tony
@mustbefree July 12th, 2009 3:05 pm
"when the Soul meets itself and has to answer; what the hell have I been up to?"
...is when the cleansing power of any necessary true shame can be released.
vdb;the hopeful effect of the cause along with remembrance to not repeat in any future incarnation.Tony
Sioux Rose
TONY: In my book MOON DANCE instead of using traditional Uranus for the sign of Aquarius (since it's the sign of rebels, radical new inventions, revolutions, Truth, and an interest in upsetting the status quo) I used Artemis. My reasoning was that Apollo could signify the mythological equivalent of Leo, as it is a masculine sign and "sun" ruled. Apollo is the entity that is credited with pulling the sun across the sky via his charity.
Well, as it turns out, Apollo happens to be a twin, and his sister is Artemis. So if Apollo, as Leo, represents the sun (son of) God, then his TWIN sister, having emerged from the same basic seed/genetic heritage would be the Divine daughter! The pair remind me of Luke and Leah from Star Wars, and together they help take down Darth and the death/military star command. Leo and Aquarius are opposite signs, and we believe that signs in polarity jointly influence events.
I like to create new amalgams, and this one is sure to upset traditionalists in the astrological community. Artemis fits the personality of Aquarius; and as the emergent Divine feminine, she will rock the global boat. The women in Iran are living up to their "inner Artemises!" Plus a lot of women have also been significant lately as key whistle blowers exposing Truth while essentially saying, "I am not going along." Amen to that!
Sioux Rose;hope you are well and glad to see that you doing your thing down in the Keys and getting paid for it;that it is a job and a calling is an ultimate goal.Since I'm an Aquarian (Feb 8 ) does this mean I should express my feminine side more? Tony
Sioux Rose
TONY: Aquarius is definitely the sign born to challenge the old ways! In my view the individual of tomorrow will be one who INTEGRATES both portions of their brains, beings, & psyche. Thus a BALANCE of masculine and feminine traits and expressions is probably going to become the norm in 50 years (or less).
I remember a man I knew in Puerto Rico who had half his planets in Aquarius. I swear his feet didn't touch the ground when he walked. He was a living sparkle! He was very good looking (and gay), and owned several popular discos with his partner. They would on occasion have me do readings for some event, and they were wonderful people, plus enormously generous.
They say Aquarians are born with dancing feet, and in my children's allegory of the Zodiac ("Cassandra's Tale") I used insects to portray the 12 original paths (or archetypal expressions) and yours is the FIREFLY! So sparkle on, and by all means flash others with your LIGHT! After all given your sign's spiritual mandate, it's the Light of Truth!)
Sioux Rose;Thank you and how can I not follow through on such a wonderful mandate?We must all become as children;yes?Tony
I was raised Catholic and left the church years ago. As a child, I remember being turned off by religion because I was forced to attend religious classes that seemed more about indoctrinating us to the church rather than teaching us love and tolerance of our fellow beings. No one could ever adequately explain why a woman could never be Pope-- why weren't women allowed to be priests? Such questions were met with odd looks and the simple explanation that, "Well, priests are men." I was also turned off by the statements that "animals had no souls"; therefore, animals would not be rewarded with eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. The idea of Man having "stewardship" over all the animals also seemed to be a convenient way to justify treating animals however one sees fit. (One thing that has always bothered me is that if one treated their dogs and cats the way livestock are treated, they would be prosecuted for animal cruelty; so why isn't the same treatment of livestock considered cruel?). I see a correlation between Man's ill treatment of animals and women. Notice how lax animal cruelty laws are in countries where women have few rights. Needless to say, I never did find a church/religion where I felt there was true love and peace, tolerance and compassion. I am sure that belonging to an organized religion in childhood and having my questions go unanswered (even being discouraged from asking such questions in the first place) turned me away from all religions, for good.
NMLib;Yeah,went to Cath. School for a couple of years and got disiplined by Nuns I survived that and got disiplined in public school too.Nuns ruler,public school paddle,ouch!All this happened in San Francisco,CA in the late 40's early 50's and I know rules are enforced differently from Parish to Parish and up the chain.Left it back in the 60's.I'm guessing you are from N.M.I was born there in Santa Fe many moons ago and left when 6 and grew up in S.F,CA.Found it a good place to grow up.Racial devides,hates and other stuff like that were not learned about by me until my joining the AF.What an awakening that was!Good and bad choices were made but that is life and where I'm at now there can be no regrets warts and all!Tony
Free, good to meet you. I grew up in the Midwest, came to NM in my 20s- but not Santa Fe; I'm in the conservative southern part of the state. Former AF wife- that's what brought me to NM. Can't say it was a bad choice, as it's what brought me to NM. It's always good to hear from another "recovering Catholic."
NMLib;It is always informative to read your posts;Santa Fe is not my favorite place anymore but loved Farmington!Tony
"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."
Abraham Lincoln
Excellent quote, one with which I was not familiar. Thank you for posting it.
Sioux Rose
NMLIB: Not only a relationship between the treatment of animals and women, but how about EARTH, the DIVINE Mother, herself! "Don't get dirty!" or "Don't go to that God-forsaken place."
People have been taught a disregard for nature, and that it's sinful to "get dirty." This also carries over into sex and distorts it.
Earth's resources have been everywhere raped and sold, as if the precious nonrenewable resources were equivalent to selling a prostitute on a weekend night. The sins against women and the Divine Femine/Mother Earth are greater than any! Yes, the Red race paid a huge price, as did the Black race, more recently the Yellow and Brown... but women have paid in EVERY society since patriarchal beliefs took hold. Witness today girls in their early teens sold to Afghani tribal lords and disgusting USA CIA shits handing these old rapists Viagra. My sense of justice is somewhat appeased by my understanding of the Law of Karma.
I have spent nearly 20 years on Moon Dance, and it is an indictment against orgtanized patriarchal religion, and makes quite a case for the damage done and what is required in the way of an all-out recovery. This is intended for both genders, but the book was written for women. Enlightened males (like Jimmy Carter) are always welcome! The heavens do not discriminate. The planetary arbiters in their rhythmic dancing orbs symbolize both genders.
Prostitution is not always about exploitation of a weaker sex.
There are whores who enter the trade willingly and exploit the weaknesses of their customers.
And there are those whose services provide sexual release which could otherwise not be obtained.
As for nonrenewability of "resources" . . .
Jimmy Carter is truly a godly man.
Deepa
"Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views."
Even though Jimmy Carter's PRESENT stand is to be appreciated, his stand about the status of women comes at a time when he "no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy...." The stand of the Southern Baptist Chuch has been same for the past SIX DECADES when he was a faithfulful Baptist member. If he had questioned the Church's stand THEN, it would have costed his political life. Billy Graham's view about the status of women coincides with that of the Baptist Church. I am surprised why Carter used his name to support his PRESENT position.
- The second thing is: there is no consistent teaching in the Bible about any issue. Since there are several streams, one has to CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE what he/she follows/believes. The God who commanded Israel "Thou shall not kill" is also a God who is directly or indirectly involved in genocidal violence, as some Biblical texts state/narrate.
This is same even with regards to the status of women. In Genesis chapters 1& 2 one may find equality of status. However, women are portrayed as inferior in the Moses' teaching. In the New Testament also the teaching is not consistent. One may see this in Galatians 3.28 cf. I Timothy 2.8-15.
Therefore, one may have to interpret the Bible in the light of Jesus' life, and words and deeds. Those who believe that BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD find it difficult to see a consitent teaching about issues in the Bible.
Therefore, the problem of Churches and Chirstian leaders like Billy Graham is: their faith is based on a SET OF DOCTRINES than on Jesus Christ. Their commitment is to the doctrines, NOT to be followers of Jesus Christ and his mission of establishment of the kingdom of God characterised by service and inclusion.
Sioux Rose
DEEPA: Every epoch had its Karl Roves.
Just as electricity always existed, but it took a mind like Edison's to make it work for humanity; the sort of mind control taught by the likes of Bernays and Pavlov, always existed, too.
My point is that the Bibles have been rewritten over the course of many centuries. Rove-like characters played a hand in WHAT was published. For anyone to place stock in a literal translation of words rendered into Biblical texts is like believing what comes round the circle when happy children play havoc in the game of Telephone.
How do men do it? They go from worshiping their mommies, to chasing skirts, to disrespecting women? I think it is the realization that their Mommies were smarter and stronger than them, that the skirts were far more deft and givers of life to boot, that leaves Men looking into themselves and feeling vacuous and shallow by comparison by early "Manhood," they compensate for this "threat," by subjugating the smarter, stronger animal within their midst.
Femalia, sublime, ethereal,attuned in ways you cannot fathom.........and for which men are child's play too, ahh, the resentments in males weak and insecure, (most).
To the better, more caring, empathic and nurturing gender, oh, in SO many ways I respect your collective soul, joe.
Sioux Rose
If LOREN BLISS is reading, she could add much to this discussion.
JOE: Years ago when I studied in London I made it a point to visit the Royal Galleries and other museums. There I believe it was that I came upon a room size painting done by Botticelli on "Venus and Mars." The warrior looked like a little chubby infant who cowered next to the enormous being of Venus.
At that time it hit me that a lot of men would rather go to war, invent excuses to go to war, then surrender themselves fully to a woman via love. The full communion of bodies and souls diffuses the boundary ego prefers to live behind. Ego gets attached to its thought process, while the heart is like an open chalice.
Love transforms. Persons are never the same once they've been touched by this experience; and of course I believe love goes beyond lust, although it can begin there. Rajneesh said, "And lovers have often known what saints have not." Gibran adds immeasurably to what can be said about love, too.
Flora Purim, one of my favorite singers shares these lyrics, "Two become one, there's no search anymore... peace is inside, and you know." (And it's a double entendre as it can be heard, "To become one.")
Hi SR, yes. Loving another is looking into a mirror, seeing yourself reflected by the effects you have on the one you love, how you treat them, support them, nurture them or fail to.
Far less scary for the rabbit running from himself to find a .22 and go hunt hares...
Beautiful post.
Perhaps this is more sensible than another 2,000 years of arguing biblical interpretation:
http://www.egreenway.com/qigong/images/yyesb.gif
Great article, Jimmy, and I would vote for you again. You have proven over and over again that reason and common sense are the best way to approach difficult situations and there appears to be a vast void in those departments. Most problems today are approached with the attitude of "How lucretive is this going to be for me?"
Time also to rid ourselves of the pervasive religion of the nation-state: National Militarism Patriotism. Following some blood and agony stained piece of colored cloth justifying still more murder and slaughter of those whom some ruling elites have identified as "enemy", but whose major offense is often that they occupy lands and/or resources the ruling elites want to grab. All too often, religions have been willing collaborators, blessing the slaughters in the name of some male God or other and speaking of some mission of "God's chosen people". Such noble thinking is larded through US history, though rarely brought to the attention of students, grade school to grad school, as they are infused with the cleaned up version of history.
deleted
Sioux Rose
COURT JESTER: Right on. You have just defined the ethos of "Mars rules."
Time to throw all the old fairy tales (religions) into the dustbin of history, and stop warping childrens minds with their insidious "teachings". They are used everywhere to justify oppression and to encourage ignorance. Why could Christians rape and pillage and steal and enslave? Because they had the one true faith and the whole world rightfully belonged to them. Why do the Jews own Palestine? Because the Torah tells them so, and to hell with the Palestinians. The examples of the destructive power of religion are without end. When are we going to face reality? When are we going to grow up?
Yeah, I love how he uses Adam and Eve as evidence of male dominance. But had the story involved gender equality, making a man out of dust, and a women out of his rib, who is then deceived by a talking servant - would be totally believable.
I think you mean "serpent", not servant. Two TOTALLY different things.
Actually, it was a great Freudian slip. If you read the book of Job in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, it would appear that he was very much a servant of YHWH in that he obeyed YHWH's command to not go to far in harming Job. ha-Satan in Hebrew means "the Accuser", i.e. God's Prosecuting Attorney. I think it's hilarious that the West's embodiment of evil is a goddamned lawyer.
I'll have to take umbrage with the former Amerikan President. Of course, the words of God justify cruelty to not just women but everyone. Just read the verses in the bible and you'll know. Not just the bible but, the Qur'an, the ahadith and the Talmud all say the same thing. God rules Men but, Men rule everything else. Don't like it? Then prepare to be stoned, beheaded, beaten, etc. I wouldn't worry about it though...it's God's will.
http://nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm
Yes, typo.
It is mistaken to confuse Christians (followers of Christ teachings) with Christianity (religious precepts determined by Paul after his epiphany on the road - and refined by religious leaders through the centuries) This confusion has led to all the ills of religious conflict. What religion sanctions or prohibits, as Mr. Carter points out, does not always represent the highest and best as Christ taught. Whatever religion a person claims, there can be no offense from any of the lessons taught by Jesus - as they consistently pointed to a better choice - never to conflict or disparaging. There is no fairy tale in directing to kindness, compassion, faithfulness, and love. Followers of Christ are not to blame for the obvious wrongs of people calling themselves Christian. Where religious zealotry leads to war, Christ's teachings lead only to peace.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
I fail to see how they are not to be confused. You can't have Christianity without Christians nor Christians without Christianity. But I see what you are trying to say and although I do not deny that there are around the world millions of devout Christians who follow the messages of peace, charity, kindness and open-heartedness, they share the same source as those who spout hatred and bigotry.
Many Christians are trying to dissociate themselves from the wrong that has been, and keeps being done in the name of their religion, the same way they tend to disregard the ugly passages of, say, the Old Testament which are still part of the Bible nonetheless.
"the women must keep silent. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say. If they want to know anything they should ask their husbands at home. It's shameful for a woman to speak in church." [1 Chorinthians 14 : 34-35]
Talk about charity.
You most certainly can have people who follow Christ - but do not follow the dictates of religion! Christ said he did not come to create a new religion. He said the Kingdom was within and available to all who embraced it, and that his teachings were the path to finding true belief.
You make my point by quoting Paul's words from Corinthians... one of his many letters of instruction to others as to how to be a "good Christian" ... words written long after the death of Christ and as the founder of a new religion based on his own perceptions. Paul made rules that Christ never alluded to. Oneness and the equality of all were hallmarks of the actual teachings of Jesus. All the wrong ascribed to Christianity can be traced to Paul's understandings, letters, and dictates, not to Jesus's teachings. They are NOT the same source and have two very different tones.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Fair enough.
So are you saying that the whole Bible was the making of men in order to found a religion, but the story of Jesus that's in it is genuine? You seem to apply double standards to what is supposed to be God's infallible words.
And what about the Old Testament where God HIMSELF made rules that Christ never alluded to either, like this gem:
"This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is discovered, the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl's father 1¼ pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since he raped her, he can never divorce her as long as he lives." [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]
So apparently, there was a time when God didn't believe in oneness and equality.
Answer: New Testament... Mark12:28-34
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Atheists have raped, pillaged, stolen and enslaved too you know.
If you were to face reality you would realize that there is only way to rid the world of violence and oppression and that would be to rid the world of the human race.
Quoted section: "Atheists have raped, pillaged, stolen and enslaved too you know."
Not because a they have displaced the authority for that intention to an imaginary other.
It is important to recognize immature people will always seek to displace their nasty impulses to a "higher authority". Marxists, for example, defer to a secular scripture, that is true. But you can debate a scripture, you can't debate a fictional being who is bestowed with "authority".
Atheism makes "blaming God" a tricky tactic! ; )
Gnosticism becomes despotism when it goes beyond the skin.
Oh really? Name even one example of an organized atheist power waging war on those with different beliefs, raping pillaging and enslaving as you claim.
Stalinist Communism, to name one.
Also Communist China in Tibet. Vietnam in Cambodia 1979-80. Religion has never been the only justification for terrible behavior.
Rainborowe
I agree with your second statement. On you first point, I think things are a bit more complicated than your statement implies.
Yes Atheists have raped, pillaged, stolen and enslaved also. But they didn't do it in the name of God or even Atheism. Usually atheism when part of a regime is not its driving force. It is hard to rally around a belief in no God. It is much easier to radicalize people and get them to do the rulers dirty work when religion is involved. You first have to raise them to be unquestioning believers, which most religions do. Then you can say things like, God is on our side, or God says you should fly that plane into a building, and if you do you will get three score and twelve virgins.
Now try that rally cry from the Atheists view point. No God is on our side, No God is telling you to fly that plane into that building, and if you do you will be dead, you will cease to exist in any way, and you aint getting any virgins, not a one.
I'm guessing that was probably the point fool was trying to make.
Sioux Rose
NC-TOM: Excellent explanation.
But Jimmy if the elder Baptists don't subjugate women they would never get laid and have to continue buggering underage males.
Ha ha! Nevertheless, subjugation of women is at least as serious as subjugation of say... blacks, Jews, Latinos, gays, homeless-underage males, etc.
I once read on a wall in Ecuador something that goes like this: "In order to have respect for one's dignity, it is sufficient to be human."
Shooting the messenger--Jimmy Carter-- detracts from the truth he is speaking now. Is there any religion that doesn't subjugate women? Even so I agree that the Southern Baptist leaders are a hoot.
Catholics don't recognize the Protestants.
Jews don't recognize the Muslims.
Hindus don't recognize the Buddhists.
And baptists don't recognize each other in the porn shop.