Sorry, President Carter, this Argument Falls Flat

"Most contemporary NT scholars have concluded that the Epistle to Titus was not written by Paul but was authored by a "pseudo Paul"."

A fair number of modern scholars suspect that Titus was not written by Paul due to several irregularities in the Greek - but a large majority across denominational boundaries continue to believe that Titus was authored by Paul.

Most contemporary NT scholars have concluded that the Epistle to Titus was not written by Paul but was authored by a "pseudo Paul".

And please note that the parable of the Good Samaritan only appears in Luke's gospel (10:25-37) making it a questionable historic Jesus utterance.

Tenshi:

You say:

I wish that all those who talk about the Bible would actually read it. Especially those who somehow think that hiring and helping illegal immigrants is OK
Paul's epistle to Titus clearly states that we must obey the laws of Governance - that is NOT about religious law, it is about civil law and those who do not obey it should not be critical of others for not knowing what is in their Bibles

I'm sorry but you've used one verse that you have miss applied. The bible, both OT and NT is replete with the idea of welcoming the stranger and treating him with kindness. From The Torah, through Jesus acceptance of the Samaritan, through his calling of all who did not fit the traditional mold. You have said others do not know the bible they cite. I would invited you to do the same. The theme of welcoming the stranger, because we are all strangers is a strong theme throughout scripture. I'd suggest you take your own advice. Any concordance can help you find many texts on strangers, exile, aliens, welome, etc. Just a few keywords.

I'd do all the work for you, but I think you need the practice.

Pr Chris

It is difficult to know when you are less than 40 days (6 weeks) pregnant, let alone make a decision.
Didn't they used to say "two missed periods?" That would imply two months old (eight weeks).
Posted by ChrisMarsh

Actually, you are counting wrong. Women ovate in the middle of their cycle, not at the beginning, so two missed periods would be about 6 weeks. Also, remember the "2 missed periods" rule was used to control over-testing for pregnancy after the first missed period to control medical costs. These days, a woman generally uses a home-pregnancy test within a week or less of a late period. Such tests are quite accurate, and give women the ability to know if they are pregnant when they are less than two or three weeks along. This isn't really on-topic, but it's nice th have accurate info out there.

From "cherry picking" into the guts of Christianity (for those eyes that have not seen):

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, wine/bread conversions, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

All the learned commentary aside, CCNL (which I do appreciate, don't get me wrong), still, the christian mission of converting the heathen would seem to require the casting of their pearls of wisdom before the irreligious swine, non? So here we have just another example of cherrypicking; this says what I want it to say, and it's in the Bible, so let's just ignore that whole Great Commission business.

The "casting pearls before swine" passage only appears once in the NT( in Matthew's gospel 7:6) and as per many contemporary NT exegetes was another passage added by Matthew to make Jesus, the simple preacher man, something he was not.

e.g. "Crossan [Historical Jesus, 352 & 364] suggests that this saying does not originate with Jesus. Its strong sense of opposition seems to reflect a context later than the time of Jesus, while the version in the Didache reflects group boundaries based on baptism:

... Didache 9-10 represents a ritualization of the open commensality of Jesus and his first followers. There is nothing necessarily wrong with such a development, but, especially as one follows that worthiness warning from Didache 10:6b into 9:5, it is hard not to acknowledge a loss: the holy ones are now at table, and the dogs are not to be fed."

The commentary in The Five Gospels (p. 154f) notes that "dogs and pigs were symbols for whatever is socially and religiously impure." Opinion among the Fellows was divided. Some considered this saying, that seems to condone contemptuous attitudes to others, as inimical to the teachings and practice of Jesus. Others took the saying as reflecting the words of Jesus about choosing an audience likely to see, hear and understand."

Samuel T. Lachs

"Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 138-140] identifies ancient Jewish parallels and background ideas, including the anti-Samaritan parallel cited above. He notes that the wild boar was used on Roman military banners, and that this saying in Matthew reflects a distinctive Matthean emphasis on sayings attributed to Jesus that have a narrowly Jewish intent."

Gerd Luedemann

"Luedemann [Jesus, 150] notes that the saying is typical of a proverb whose original reference has become problematic. He cites Did 9:5 as evidence that "already in the first century people no longer understood the saying." Luedemann suggests the saying did not originate with Jesus."

John P. Meier

"Meier [Marginal Jew I,135] cites this saying as one of several examples from GThom of parallels to exclusively Matthean traditions. He does not consider the origins or the meaning of the saying in the first three volumes of A Marginal Jew."

Bergman, if you think this is a great article, you wouldn't know a pearl from an oyster's itch.

Dr Mohler,
Great article, but, didn't the Lord warn us not to cast pearls before swine?

I find it interesting that you seem to focus on Carter and attacking him and not so much what he said. Sort of like shooting the messenger.

What he said makes sense to me. But then I don't take the bible literally. Actually, with a large grain of salt. And mostly metaphorically.

Good for you President Carter.

I like a man who can think for himself instead of going along with the majority. And as far as the Wholly Babble is concerned - isn't it time it was placed in a museum where it belongs, with other artifacts of history. It is very badly dated, and can teach us nothing.

Let's see what some of our brightest and best thought about it all.

Mark Twain said of the old book;

"The bible is full of interest.It has noble poetry in it, and some clever fables
and some blood drenched history, and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

And in "The Age of Reason" Thomas Paine said this about theology;

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing. It is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing, It proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."

And H.L.Mencken wrote that "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."

Steinmetz had this to say;

"In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical conceptions, as God, immortality, etc. thus have failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind as distinct from the body."

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Scientist. in "American Freeman"

Einstein said;

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept
which I cannot take seriously. I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith.
I cannot prove to you that there is no God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar."

Albert Einstein from "Einstein; The Life and Times".p.622

As per : Dr. H. Wayne House, President and Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Oregon Theological Seminary, and Distinguished Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Faith Seminary, Tacoma, WA. and Adjunct Professor of Law, Trinity Law School of Trinity International University http://www.hwhouse.com/Current%20Articles%20Downloads/Theology/paul.htm

"This means, of course, that the passage (1 Cor 11:2—16) cannot be used as a source for determining Paul’s attitude toward the proper status and role of women. If the authenticity of 1 Tim 2:8—15; Tit 2:3—5; Eph 5:22—33; Col 3:18—19; and 1 Cor 14:33—36 (or 34—35 {1 Cor 14}) is similarly rejected on critical grounds, as I am inclined to do, then the genuine Pauline corpus contains none of the passages which advocate male supremacy and female subordination in any form. On the contrary, the only ‘direct Pauline statement on the subject is Gal 3:28, which insists on absolute equality in Christ."

From Professors J.D. Crossan and J. Reed's book, In Search of Paul, p. 111.

"In Paul's theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity. "

As with Islam, Christianity must clean up its books especially in regards to those passages that demean women. These passages should be deleted as they are outdated or historically and/or theologically wrong.

Joneu316 is tired of people who speak only of a loving God while dismissing the justly wrathful one who "punished" his son on the cross. What was it Jesus did to be punished? I forget. Being so flippantly dismissive of God's love while championing your own notion of justice as punishment tells us a lot more about you than you might want us to know. Just remember, God knows what's in your heart. And in Carter's, and in the SBC's.

Jimmy Carter is a real human being, an elderly kind-hearted man, who has no ulterior political motivation in this matter. Belittle him all you want, wtihout putting forth any plausible argument of your own; it only makes you look smaller and smaller and samller.

Jonu316 writes:
"Particularly tiresome are those ignorant of or dismissive of God's justice, who speak of only a "loving" God, as if the love that God showed us all in punishing Christ on the cross for our sins can be so easily and in some cases so flippantly dismissed without consequence."

How ironic. Your very user-ID stresses the absolutely vital role that God's love plays for the Christian. Be wary that you don't read the Gospels and see only the Gospel of John the Baptist. His message is important, but not central.

Is God a just God? Yes. But God *is* Love. This is the message that righteous Jews of Jesus' time missed, and many modern Christians also missed.

Both of Christ's central messages (the Christian Shema, if you will) are couched in love. If you think this is coincidence, then you have missed the basic parable of the Gospels - the Parable of Jesus Christ. There is absolutely nothing at all more important than to love God with all your heart, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.

And Jesus didn't made a mistake when he changed the word "might" to the word "mind". That was the failing of contemporary Jews and is easily our (certainly, my) failing so often...

Thank you Pastor Mohler. It's refreshing to see Truth proclaimed in such a secular setting. I note your audience includes non-believers and some "fools" (in the Biblical sense). Particularly tiresome are those ignorant of or dismissive of God's justice, who speak of only a "loving" God, as if the love that God showed us all in punishing Christ on the cross for our sins can be so easily and in some cases so flippantly dismissed without consequence.

I'd like to caution the author that many of the readers of his opinions are not orthodox Jews and do not live by the Levitical code of the Talmud. Many of us are Christians who celebrate the role of women in the early church (as in New Testament) and find the Southern Baptist reticence to recognize women as normal human beings to be anachronistic. Perhaps you are very interesting in convincing us that Jimmy Carter's arguments "fall flat" but it is probably your own that lack even a modest stature from which one might fall (flat). Please come up with a more coherent critique. Regards!

I personally think that it is ridiculous to exclude women from holidng religious office. At the same time, those who use equality to imply that the roles of men and women should be the same in every way are not only flying in the face of the scripture but also in the face of a lot of recent scientific research.

I would see nothing wrong with a woman Pope. But I WOULD see something wrong with the pretense which liberals love that a woman Pope would simply be a male Pope with different sexual organs. Men and women are pychologically different in lots of ways. Perhaps a woman Pope would be better, perhaps not. But it is unlikely that she would be the same.

I wish that all those who talk about the Bible would actually read it. Especially those who somehow think that hiring and helping illegal immigrants is OK
Paul's epistle to Titus clearly states that we must obey the laws of Governance - that is NOT about religious law, it is about civil law and those who do not obey it should not be critical of others for not knowing what is in their Bibles. A careful reading shows that women have equal rights with men in all things. How else could Deborah be a judge or Judith a warrior?

Dieterman writes:
"No need to be a scholar of the bible to recognize the idiocy of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Merely read the two separate creation stories at the very beginning. Leaving aside the absurd cosmology, the two stories blatantly contradict one another - In the first story, man, simultaneously with woman, is created last, after the animals. In the second story, man is created before the creation of the animals, and woman is created last. So much for that bit of fundie doctrinal nonsense."

Exactly. IMO, the very first chapters of Genesis are deliberately constructed in this way - making a clear point that the Bible isn't about strict adherence to textual accuracy. I've never been able to understand claims to the opposite.

Did anyone tell the Rev. that it is a fairly serious sin in Judaism to read the scriptures literally? And that Jesus incurred the death penalty by preaching a different law on divorce and remarriage that that given by G-d?

Thank you President Carter and Reverend Mohler for this dialogue.

The New Testament, originally written in Greek not the native tongue of Jesus which was likely Aramaic, was written over many years starting several decades after the death of Jesus. The Old Testament evolved over centuries if not thousands of years. Nowadays there are several excellent scholarly books about the evolution and translations of the Christian Holy Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures, the history of late Antiquity, and the European Dark Ages. The Miami-Dade County Library in Florida has an excellent collection. If your County or City library does not have such books, you should make a request.

Here are nine examples:

Angold, Michael, “Byzantium: The Bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages,” 2001.
Brown, Peter, “The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750, 1971.”
Cantor, Norman F., “Antiquity: The Civilization of the Ancient World,” 2003.
Dewey, David, “A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Translations,” 2004.
Dungan, David L., “Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament,” 2006.
Freeman, Charles F., “A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State,” 2008.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, “Whose Bible Is it?: A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages,” 2004.
White, L. Michael, “From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created The New Testament and Christian Faith,” 2004.

While inspirational and/or holy canon to many, the Bible is full of contradictions and its verses and passages are often cherry picked for various purposes some of which are nefarious.

I think that all religious organizations would be well served to include scholarly historical and biblical books in their religious studies. ~ richard allbritton, Miami, http://rallbritton.com

Mr. Mohler and his ilk are exactly why I left the Southern Baptist Convention years ago. Their moral sanctity has done nothing but promote a narrow minded, pseudo-biggoted doctrine which only gets them into an even deeper well. Where is the separation of church and state that is fundamental to our very concept of DEMOCRACY? Where is his Jesus who proclaimed of the Roman Centurion, everyone is welcome at my father's table. Get with it Mohler!! You and yours are the reason a majority of Americans worship God, but abhor and mistrust rigid theology as YOU interpret it.

Dieterman: An interesting thought, although I think that it would have been expressed in a different way, if that had been the case. I don't think the Greek supports that, but I don't think his statement is meant to be exclusive, either - nothing in the statement seems to indicate that, either (not, "I am the ONLY way,"). And, again, we are speaking of a faith-statement of the early church (John writes probably around the end of the first century). Before any of the fundametalists jump on this, it is well-known that John has, for example, a different time-table than the synoptics; even many conservative scholars say that his work is more of a theological treatise than a straight history of Jesus. The long monologues are a device commonly used (see the works of Plato, for instance) in the ancient world for teaching, embellishments on an original teaching used to further understanding. Such extended monologues are not found in the other, earlier Gospels. What is expressed here is the faith of the Johanine church, concerning Jesus as the/an instrument of God's self-revelation.

Further evidence of John as a teaching tool can be found in its sacramental structure - for instance, the first section of miracles begins with the miracle of Cana, turning water into wine, followed by some baptismal teaching. the second section begins with the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus walking on water, and some eucharistic teaching. The references to water, wine and food have been noticed since early on as part of an underlying structure, so that one can, in a sense, "peal away" the story laid over it to see these supporting elements underneath, and so see the regular use of these in the Christian service as reminders of this reality that lies beneath all of life.

Anyway, I digress, and thanks for your comment, Dieterman!

My God is bigger than yours, Mr. Mohler.

Mine loves everyone - even creepy Southern Baptist white male supremacist preachers.

If it is at all possible, I just gained more respect for President Carter. And this person is a head of a school that is tasked with producing future pastors and religious leaders? Goodness gracious...

GAROTH - Important thought. When Jesus said I am the way... and that no one reaches the Father except through Me, was the "I" referring to Himself as a unique person or to Himself as the embodiment of spiritual truth. If the latter, then it seems He was in no way excluding the possibility of others also knowing the same truth and also being the way.

It is difficult to know when you are less than 40 days (6 weeks) pregnant, let alone make a decision.

Didn't they used to say "two missed periods?" That would imply two months old (eight weeks).

It was a rambling piece, Mr. Mohler. I would suggest you be more concise next time.

Carter, as you suggest, will likely never convince Christians of his positions. However, why has the Christian movement failed to follow the principals of equality and fairness? Though Carter may adhere to a "human statement," one must recognize that the statement is inherently more Christ-like than any religious practice could ever be.

I am sorry that you find it troubling that Carter is able to find the principles of faith outside of your white, male dominated institutions.

The genius of any religious text is that anyone can use it to prove any point they want. Pro-this, anti-this, whatever you want, you can find backup in your book.

So it's not how well you argue a religious point, it's what point you're trying to make. And if you really want to prove that your god supports the subservience of women, then that only shows what a barbaric pig you are.

Sorry - "unto", not "under".

A little aside to "honorswar26:" To say that, "no one comes to the Father except by me," can be a very universalistic statement, just as "I am the way, the truth and the life," which precedes it. It may just as well mean that he has provided the basis by which all people come to God - just as the work of one person may provide the means for many others, whether they know who did it or not, to obtain a benefit. In its context, Jesus could just as well be saying that his understanding is identical with God's, so those who wish to walk in "the way, the truth and the life," need to take up that understanding as well - that noone can come to the Father, that is know him appropriately, except through this understanding.

Just a thought!

BrianX9 - Jesus never mentions abortion. As for "suffering the little children to come under him" that assumes with no basis whatsoever that He regarded fetuses as children, rather than merely potential children (by far the more prevalent point of view throughout human history). Moreover, if He didn't mention abortion specifically because He accepted traditional Jewish law on the subject as it stood He wouldn't have even regarded a fetus less than forty days old as even a human being. That's the traditional Jewish view and Jesus nowhere contradicts it.

Mohler, Schmoler, let him have his religion. I think I'll subscribe to the Gospel of Walt and follow the teachings of Sts. Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Minnie and Daisy.

Even the boys Huey, Looie and Dooie never gave anyone but Donald heart burn and they sure never commanded anyone be stoned to death.

Preachers/priests, the whole lot of them from Christianity, Judaism and Islam are just parasites sucking the life out of humanity.

Mr. Mohler shows himself to be either uninformed concerning the history and faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, or a liar. The congregations that belong to the Convention, aside from sharing a few basic beliefs in common, were never forced to accept inerrancy, the non-ordination of women, or any of the other abberations we now see in the denomination, until the takeover and purge by the right wing of the denomination. Many churches had, in fact, been ordaining women, some for many years, before any of the mainline denominations, and were forced either to disavow their ordinations or drop out of the Convention. Biblical innerrancy was never part of the deal. The Convention, at one time, was at the heart of the Civil Right struggle - now it is composed of old right-wing white men telling everyone else to follow their version of what to believe - understandings, incidentally, which are not shared by many Christians (nor by any one with any intelligence).

His scholarship is false, as are his accusations against President Carter. Unfortunately, they seem to reflect the attitude of the current leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I read this column expecting it to have a point - that it would in some way actually address the issue. The issue is, for the columnist's information, that Jimmy Carter, a kind and thinking human being, refuses to associate with a denomination that treats women as subhuman. Good luck if you ever want to actually try refuting that, rather than rambling on about irrelevant side issues, Mr Mohler.

Rather bizarre to see otherwise intelligent persons use strained parsings of ancient myths as the foundation of their moral universe.

"- he(Carter) actually operates on the assumption that at least some texts of the Bible are false, untruthful, malignantly oppressive, and thus untrustworthy." Christ too challenged these same ancient text in his day, drawing the ire and eventual crucifixion engineered by the religious leaders(preachers) of his day. Carter should be thankful the SBC is prevented by secular law from engaging in crucifixion.

The modern Bible is a derivative of the ancient Bible given to man by Enoch. Centuries ago man created the modern Bible that we now hold sacrosanct. The book of Enoch written by the only human to walk with God is in defiance of the modern Bible in many ways. For instance the original sin was brought into the world by rebellious angels who used guile to seduce mankind. To place the blame of original sin on man or woman is erroneous.

The only mention of Enoch in the modern Bible is a quip that he walked with God. I am sure that any Christian with common sense has come to the conclusion that something is wrong with the content of the modern Bible. After reading many Christian accounts of what happened to man, I, like President Carter came to the conclusion that the modern bible in some ways is a hoax designed to control minds.

By reading Enoch and other biblical writings I believe that women should be granted equality with men on all counts. I also believe that the Southern Baptists are poor misguided tools of Satanel.

I just read some "drivel" from Chuck Colson on this subject. Mr. Carter is probably more right than either Mohler or Colson. Of course Mohler would defend his organization. But Colson? His comments are just further political assasination. Listen, Colson founded a "Great" prison ministry. Colson himself was in prison about long enough to get the sheets dirty, then found that he could make a living helping the incarcerated. That's a good thing. But to think of Colson as an expert on this church thing? I don't think so. And Mohler isn't an expert either. He is on the Baptist's, but not on all others and the Baptist's do in fact say what Jimmy said that they say.

.
Karen Justice, posting at 12:14, brought a tear to my eye. Sister, bless you.

Dieter Man denies that Jesus even alluded to abortion. Not much of a Bible scholar, but I think he did when he told adults to suffer the little children to come unto him.

There is a major Abrahamic religion that teaches that the holy scripture is the inerrant, verbatim word of God. That religion is Islam. The Koran was dictated by God to Mohammed, pbuh, in Arabic.
As others have explained below, better than I ever could, Christians take the Bible, in its many different forms, to be written by men who were inspired by God.
.

There is no convincing guys like Mohler. Once they've checked their brain out and traded a book with the answers for critical thought, you can't have a serious discusion about the book. That capacity just went out the window.

In fact, these guys are really dangerous. Subjugate women? Any idiot can see that this is immoral. They want morality handed to them--no work, no effort, no thinking. They believe whatever they read, no matter how poorly thought through (and the sense of righteousness with which this is done comes off like a bad odor).

I honestly think guys like Mohler are the most cowardly people in the world. They are afraid to take responsibility for thinking things through on their own. And they'll defend whatever version of whatever book they follow to the death--because they haven't got the guts to live life with reliance on their own brains.

Reading and writing are skills, but they do not constitute critical thinging, an entirely different skill. And Mohler's writing proves the point.

And yet nowhere do I see Mohler stating that President Carter's words were right or wrong, instead choosing to invest a few hundred words in character assassination as an adjunct to actually stating a position and only implying that he disagrees with the statement. That's pretty cowardly and juvenile behavior, but I shouldn't be surprised as that's been the expectation set by religious leaders for decades now.

It is no surprise that Mr. Mohler, along with other SBC apologists, considers himself one of "the vast majority of Christians around the world" who believe that women must continue to be repressed. He stands side-by-side with the Taliban and other redical so-called religious. Thank you Pres. Carter for calling a bigot a bigot.

Reverend Mohler,

A classic proof texter.

Besides, you're worshiping on the wrong day.

Just ask any Seventh-day Adventist.

When will you ever acknowledge that MAN not one man not Christ or Jesus wrote the bible all 125 plus VERSIONs of the text. For starters try reading the works of Albert Boyd Kuhn - Who Is This King Of Glory.

omgalmost53 - You're wrong to say Jesus had a whole lot more to say about divorce and the holiness of being rich than about gays and abortion, unless by "a whole lot more" you mean more than nothing at all. He never mentions or even alludes to either homosexuality or abortion. It seems reasonable to assume therefore that He simply accepted traditional Jewish law that permits abortion within the first forty days after conception. As for homosexuality, it seems reasonable to assume He simply didn't regard it of importance. He certainly knew of its existence, living as He did in a time and place dominated culturally by the Greeks where same-sex attraction was considered unremarkable. So we seem to have here a violation of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy by those very people who profess it - they presume Jesus had views on these subjects that aren't to be found anywhere in the bible, which therefore means the bible is fundamentally deficient.

Jimmy Carter has been an outstanding public servant all his life, despite the unfortunate events of 1977-80. He personifies the (slow and still incomplete) transformation of the Southeastern United States from being the country's most embarassingly ignorant and backward region to participation in the modern world.

The SBC clings to old ways that should have been discarded at least a century ago. Any competent student of literature or history can tell that the books of the bible were written by very different people pushing divergent political and religious agendas. Trying to claim that it contains a unified message written by a Supreme Being can only lead to the conclusion that God is an idiot.

3,000 year old fairy tales about talking snakes are not justification for maintaining a discriminatory society.

Thank you, President Carter, for once again putting humanity and compassionate thinking above mindless doctrine (and mindless adherence to it). You continue to be an inspiration and a shining light in the struggle for humankind to become more humane.

Mohler has proven himself to be an intellectual midget, an unethical pastor, and a NEOCONSERVATIVE fundamentalist who's ideas should be ridiculed and roundly dismissed as stone aged.

Religious fundamentalists have given rise to the American Taliban, the actual Taliban, The Spanish Inquisition, the Cristian Crusades, and countless insane and illogical criminals.... That rub shoulders in church with the worst hypocrites our nation has to offer.

They wrap Mohler's UN- Christ-like notions of bigotry and hate, societal control and centralized authority upon the dais - and doing whatever it takes to generate an honorarium, pay-off, "cha-ching"!!!

IT IS TIME THE MSM REJECT THE STATEMENTS OF HATE AND SELF-SERVING EFFORTS TO GATHER LUCRE BY THESE UNCHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES.

I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in the 1970's and like President Carter have also separated myself from it.The SBC preaches legalism, pharasaism (strict adherence to the letter rather than to the spirit of the scriptures), intolerance (which in the Biblical context is equivalent to hatred) and exclusion.Jesus did not keep company with the "righteous" crowd but with sinners and those in need of physical and emotional healing.That is, he walked among those who were considered to be physically and morally repugnant to their society.Christ himself said that not all those who "cry Lord, Lord" will be received by him.He also said that he had sheep in "other pastures." In Micah, we are reminded that all God requires is that we do justice, love mercy and walk in humility before Him.The SBC fails all three litmus tests.

No need to be a scholar of the bible to recognize the idiocy of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Merely read the two separate creation stories at the very beginning. Leaving aside the absurd cosmology, the two stories blatantly contradict one another - In the first story, man, simultaneously with woman, is created last, after the animals. In the second story, man is created before the creation of the animals, and woman is created last. So much for that bit of fundie doctrinal nonsense.

As an ordained minister with a seminary education I am always amazed when someone with the gifts and intelligence of Mr. Mohler defends inerrancy of the Bible. The Southern Baptist Convention does carry on centuries of church tradition. And that tradition is that God is who the SBC says God is. Never mind what the Bible really says.

Faith demands that we open our eyes and hearts and struggle with what we cannot always understand. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not the dictates of church officials to understand the Holy Scriptures.

monty keeling

Whoops -- made an error.

I meant to write, "Jesus had a whole lot more to say about divorce and the holiness (or lack thereof) of being rich than about gays or abortion."

But while I'm on it, there's this business of rejecting evolution, which at this point is as ridiculous scientifically as rejecting that the Earth revolves around the sun, but which seems to have become an article of faith and a test of loyalty among American fundamentalists.

This is horrible, because it tells people that in order to be a Southern Baptist, one must check one's critical brain at the door. This is what brainwashing cults do.

To do this to your children, when they can go to any reputable science museum in the United States and learn what's true, is to deliberately dumb down your kids. Frankly, it's a kind of abuse.

"The point of division remains the ultimate authority and total truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God."

Mohler, of course, completely ignores the fact that Southern Baptists themselves cherry-pick passages from the Bible, quote what they want to quote and ignore what they want to ignore. Jesus had a whole lot more to say about Jesus and the holiness (or lack thereof) of being rich than about gays or abortion. And how about the "right to bear arms"? Jesus would've just loved that.

Notice that, in this nearly 1200-word essay, Mohler never gets around to explaining his reaction to the Elders statement about discrimination against women being unacceptable on religious grounds or whether he thinks "'male interpretations of religious texts'" are "to blame for the 'deprivation of women's equal rights'." Instead he goes into a snit against former president Carter and the media "critics" of the Southern Baptists.

As Dana Carvey's The Church Lady might have said, "Well, isn't that special?"

President Carter's rejection of the need for an individual to accept Jesus' saving grace in order to be forgiven of one's sins and to go to heaven makes him no more of a Christian than those Muslims who follow Osama Bin Laden. Jesus said explicitly "No one comes to the Father except by me." That's pretty clear to me. Man cannot come to heaven by works alone. Without faith in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior, all works are empty in God's eyes. While faith alone is without meaning, true faith will always move a true Christiam to commit to works that benefit his fellow man. President Carter seems to only have part of the necessary equation figured out. Incidentally, my wife is a conservative United Methodist Minister.

When Mohler writes that "this argument falls flat," is he referring to his assertion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

If so, I'm glad he apologized upfront to former President Carter for publicly writing such a weak critique of Carter's position.

Pres. Carter, and much of his family, are well known in Georgia for doing what they think is right, even if it goes against our established traditions and prejudices. Caret, like many Christians today, are hoping to reform conservative Christianity and help it rethink some of it's theological mistakes.

Christianity has never been completely static, thanks be to God. Also, Carter is just living an old Baptist doctrine that allows the concience of the individual to take precedence over the organization.

The SBC is locked in a pattern of retrenchment as their ideas come under increasing theological criticism. This snarky reply to Pres. Carter's ideas is a fine example.

SBC culture is very fixated on minor issues like the role of women and wives, and many lay Southern Baptists believe two things:

1. doctrinal correctness is absolute, black or white. Flexibility or comprimise is seen as evidence that your are not a committed believer.

2. if you get your doctrine wrong you are bound for hell. This history makes it very hard for the SBC to be flexible.

Hooray for Pres. Carter for continuing to speak his mind, even if it ruffles some feathers. We should listen to our wise elders more, and discount the opinions of church functionaries who have ideological and theological axes to grind.

"The point of division remains the ultimate authority and total truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God."

That is correct. And that is why only the ill-educated and the unreasonable religionists actually believe that some spiritual being literally spoke to its human inscribers. Quite simply Mr. Mohler, there are many kinds of theologies of Christianity. What a mess it has for centuries been and is now! Get over it. I can only laugh at anyone who believes that literature as if it were phenomenological, empirical truth.

I would gladly stack up Mr.Carter's record as a devout Chrsitian against that of the Southern Baptist Convention, a group/clique that supported slavery and racism outrightly for many years.