Monday, July 20, 2009
Bravo, Jimmy Carter
My goodness it's refreshing to see that people can still think for themselves and that they aren't afriad to challenge tradition to stand up for what is right. I've already blogged on the "submission" verses (see April), but kudos to Jimmy Carter. His decision to leave the Southern Baptist church was no doubt a very difficult but very brave one. I applaud President Carter's integrity and his desire to see justice done in the world. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ok. I do not understand where the issue is with women submitting to their husbands.
Seriously.
And trust me, I've gotten a whole new perspective on this - like after watching the movie The Duchess, it occurred to me that those verses were very much intended for all couples, especially in a world where arranged marriages were common place.
You have something going for you that they didn't - you get to choose who you are willing to submit to. Are you willing to let him take the lead? If not, don't marry him. Do you trust him to make the right decisions for you and your family? If not, don't marry him.
For arranged marriages, God put in place 2 commands - husbands should love their wives (OMG! but why was that verse so overlooked in 17th century England and France??? and other cultures) and wives submit to their husbands.
I really wish you'd trust God on that one. And it isn't just "Paul's opinion". He gave an argument that was beyond himself. And you can't just pick and choose what scripture you think is right and which is wrong.
As far as ordination of women is concerned, I'm not a fan of it (especially considering the state of women's ministries in this day and age) and think that women feeling called to that ministry should look around at where they are REALLY needed, but I can't seem to find a whole lot of biblical support against it except they shouldn't be in charge of doctrinal changes. Women being silent in church - the argument has always been to consider the day and age - feminism was at an all time high in the churches at that time. And what has changed???
This is more related to a previous post you made, but I wanted you to see it.
These are the kind of feminists I have a strong abhorrence for and I would like nothing better than to see their demise. Seriously, when I read words like this, it makes me want to tear my hair out and scream and ashamed of being a woman.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016804.html
Just an fyi, the bill makes exceptions for pregnancies resulted from rape, incest, or mother's life.
I am too emotionally exhausted to even bother fully responding to these posts. The posts I have already submitted answer my stance on such issues.
On the link you sent me, I agree that the author is course and more than a little bit obnoxious. Such crassness is not the way to get a point across, and the author's slanderous tendencies do not help her case in the slightest (not to mention it is decidedly unbecoming).
But again, what if the biological father was an abuser? One who would equally terrorize his child as he would his wife? Do you know how DIFFUCULT it is to conclusively prove abuse or rape? How often it is written off as "Well, she shouldn't have made him mad", "She should have said "No" or screamed louder" or "The girl was a tramp and had it coming to her"?
As if that JUSTIFIES her being violated in the most heinous of all possible ways...
The bill's intentions are good at heart: they want the father to be aware and have a say so in what happens to his child - which is understandable and right. If I were a father, I would want to take responsibility for my actions and ensure that my child and its mother were taken care of and provided for...but that, heartbreaking as it is, is not always the case.
The father is not the one who carries the child to term. The father is not the one who gets left high and dry if he decides to bail. The father is not the one who - if he is the abuser - is going to get screamed at and thrown into a wall.
It is the mother and, subsquently, the child she was told to have.
I hate abortion. I hate it. I hate it with a fiery passion. I think it's disgusting that it has even become a societal necessity - that some women feel it is such a shameful thing to have a child out of wedlock that they'd rather have an abortion than face the music. Ironically enough, the church has -unfortunately - played a large part in that; we are, after all, the ones who have historically viewed women as harlots for having sex outside of wedlock...abstinance is wonderful and worthy of aspiring to, but many individuals fall short and fail.
Then, in response to their failure, others will, in turn, use this to socially shame women who are brave enough to carry their child to term. It's a disgusting thing, all the way around.
But that is not the case for all women...
Maybe you've got more stones than me, but I couldn't tell a woman who couldn't "prove" that she'd been raped, a woman who was too embarrassed, ashamed, or traumatized to file a police report, or a woman who was facing the prospect of watching her unborn child being abused, that "Oh well. You don't have your abuser/rapist's permission. You have to live with the consequences of someone else's thoughtless, sinful actions."
I hate abortion. But I also hate the violation of the seperation of church and state, and the constitutional infringement of a peron's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - which is exactly what the "permission" part of this bill could potentially result in.
Not in all cases...but the potential is most decidedly there.
I'd rather err on the side of liberty than bondage.
Post a Comment