|
Post by k on May 26, 2004 15:30:01 GMT -5
Will the US ever elect a female president or do many people feel it is a man's job? Argentina, Britain, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Israel and Pakistan (muslim) have had women leaders. Hey Jethro: The president is pregnant!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 26, 2004 19:16:15 GMT -5
I would not say ever, but at the current time, no.
While the evolutionary humanists have tried to blur gender differences, I think there are still too many Christians and others who still hold to the biblical wordview where men are to lead and defend and woman are to nurture.
Let's hope that we don't further pervert the roles of men and women in the US.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by whoa boy on May 26, 2004 21:38:43 GMT -5
You need whippin Robb!
|
|
|
Post by Reality on May 27, 2004 1:02:01 GMT -5
While the evolutionary humanists have tried to blur gender differences, I think there are still too many Christians and others who still hold to the biblical wordview where men are to lead and defend and woman are to nurture. Oh yeah, look where the leadership of men in families, some companies and government has left the world. Women have and can lead, and men can, when willing, also nurture.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 27, 2004 8:15:08 GMT -5
I think that no name would be an ideal US president ... LoL ;D
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 27, 2004 8:41:28 GMT -5
First, why not hold mens feet to the fire then? Why not preach that men need to be leaders and providers of their families to start with?
Second, the failures of men does not change reality, Reality. Men and women ARE different and have different roles, if you believe in a biblical worldview.
If you hold to the evolutionary humanist worldview, then we will continue to talk past one another, not sharing the same stardard of truth in these matters.
Robb
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 28, 2004 12:17:38 GMT -5
A woman President?
hmmm....
I do think that most woman do handle stress much better than men do.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 12:37:30 GMT -5
I think there are still too many Christians and others who still hold to the biblical wordview where men are to lead and defend and woman are to nurture. Oh? Which of the women leaders were not up to the job? There are many women I can think of who could do a much better job that our current leader. I have only read what No Name has expressed here but I would vote for her as a replacement for Bush any day. At least she can think and string 3 or more words together to express her thoughts. Besides, she reads.
|
|
|
Post by k on May 28, 2004 19:47:29 GMT -5
Hard to find pro-life female candidates. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho would have made a good choice.
If a woman runs on real issues, she could get elected. If she says "vote for me because I have 2 boobs", she would turn off males and females.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 28, 2004 21:38:58 GMT -5
Present,
The points you make have nothing to do with the biblical worldview.
This has nothing to do with the ability of women. For example, I am certain that my wife would make a far better leader of our household... problem is that God calls men to lead their families. That is of course if you believe what the Bible has to say about it.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 23:45:36 GMT -5
Present, The points you make have nothing to do with the biblical worldview. Oh?? So it is your belief that God encourages mediocrity? Do you argee with Thomas Aquinas as well? "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...."bla bla bla bla! Which part? OT rules: - Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
- Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
- They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
- They could not testify in court.
- They could not appear in public venues.
- They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
- They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes.
A man could offer his two virgin daughters to be raped yet still be regarded as an honorable man. Young women were less valued than cattle. So much for that biblical world view. There was a glimmer of hope in the NT. Jesus treated women more like people: - He ignored ritual impurity laws and cured of a woman who suffered from menstrual bleeding for 12 years.
- He talked to foreign women. The woman of Samaria was doubly ritually unclean - a foreigner and a woman.
- He used terminology which treated women as equal to men. He called them daughters of Abraham, putting them on equal status with sons of Abraham.
- He accepted women in his inner circle. (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna and "many others.)
- He appeared first to a woman after his resurrection.
- Women were present at Jesus' death.
- He told parallel stories - one relating to a woman, the other to a man.
- He expressed concern for widows.
In 1 Corinthians 1:11, Chloe is said to be the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some question as to whether women led the house churches. Other passages with the same uncertainity: The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and Nympha in Col 4:15. So which part do you think people should follow? The first part (OT) sounds a lot like the Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by botany on May 29, 2004 10:52:14 GMT -5
A woman president? yeah, I think it's time. When will the U.S. elect a woman president? I can only hope sooner than later. Yeah, I'd say that is a problem. I've seen some really horrible men trying to lead a family. They don't always abuse physically, but when the husband refuses to acknowledge that the wife is in the room because he's too busy playing on the computer, or refuses to sleep in the same bed -- pretty much ignores that the wife exists -- I'd say that this is a serious problem of emotional abuse. And the wives have been infinitely better people. This particular couple ended up with the wife finally coming to her senses and leaving the husband. Now, I can't come up with any reason why the husband should be the leader of the household in that case. I do not share the viewpoint of the bible. It is a very male self rightous view that does not encourage the male to change to become more adaptive to the family's needs. It says, "The male is the leader of the family and every other important function, for [human] males are clearly the superior beings on the earth. Because god says so." And so according to the biblical world view, should the woman governors and woman leaders of other countries not be leaders anymore, and should instead turn their seats of government over to males who are obviously more deserving of those seats simply because they are males? andy
|
|
|
Post by Reality on May 29, 2004 21:48:12 GMT -5
First, why not hold mens feet to the fire then? Why not preach that men need to be leaders and providers of their families to start with? Has concerned women, and men, speaking up about men being better leaders and providers made a, positive, significant difference? Far from enough so far. According to some Christian's interpretation of the bible. Circumstances of life often require that both men and women be capable of and willing to fill the role of leadership and/or provider. A standard which deals with reality and not wishful thinking would be best.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 30, 2004 18:32:33 GMT -5
I have to admit, reading the above posts make me chuckle out loud. The two people that I've had the most disagreement with about various issues would mention me as a female candidate for President! lol ;D That's pretty funny. In all seriousness, I wouldn't want that stress in my life. Being leader of the U.S. can't be the most relaxing job in the world. Have you seen how quickly each President physically ages by the time they leave the White House? Regarding the reference to Bush's lack of intelligence -- I'll say that (while he doesn't have the best verbal skills), he is definitely no dunce. Eloquence is not the prime indicator in quality leadership, anyway, imo. Even though some people may totally despise Bush, they simply cannot (in reality) argue that he's "stupid". Not when he earned Bachelor and MBA degrees at Yale and Harvard and successfully learned how to pilot fighter planes.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 31, 2004 11:33:48 GMT -5
No. Your question indicates that you have missed the point.
We can do without these types of misrepresentations of what the Bible is saying.
I do not claim to understand alot of what was done in the OT, however I am prepared to say that if God said something should be so, then I will accept that, period.
I do think that the principle of a women being under the protection of either her father, husband does apply today. I do not want my daughter thrown to the wolves in the name of "independance". I do take my repsponsabilty toward my wife and daughters seriously because I see that God calls me to this role of leader, protector and provider.
I certainly don't see any question here. Please read the qualifications of elders and deacons and tell me which one could possibly apply to women.
Present, can you explain to me what your ultimate authority concerning truth is?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 0:00:56 GMT -5
“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 1, 2004 1:39:04 GMT -5
Oh give me a break! Any other student with low SAT scores (566 verbal, 640 math) would not have been accepted into Yale. A 'C' student at Yale? With his family background? His admission to Harvard was so out of line the some much more qualified people who were rejected have brought suit. But did he learn to fly well? According to his friend Donnie Evans, the last time he tried to fly the results were less than stellar and the plane ended up off the runway.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 1, 2004 1:50:49 GMT -5
No. Your question indicates that you have missed the point. Oh? You said your wife could do a better job yet you feel God wants the less qualified to do the job. That would, as I see it, mean that the best person will not be doing the job. What was the misrepresentation? Lot did offer his daughters, his virgin daughters, to be given to the crowd for their sexual enjoyment. And he was still considered honorable. What about in the name of adulthood? Suppose she does not wish to marry? Suppose she decided to share her life with another woman?
|
|
|
Post by ha on Jun 1, 2004 5:49:06 GMT -5
And funny it is ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 9:13:40 GMT -5
Please show where this ACT was called "honorable". Remember that David was called a man after Gods own heart but he too commited terrible sin. There are many honorable men who have sinned. That doesnt make their sin honorable.
Maybe you could provide a chapter and verse to illustrate your point. Are you saying that I am not responsible for my daughters when they reach a certain age? At which age do I cease being a father? And what standard should I use to determine my responsabilites toward my daughters? Yours?
An exception which does not disprove the norm.
An exception which does not disprove the norm. Of course she were doing it becasue she is a lesbian then she would be living in sin.
Could you please answer my question regarding what you accept as your standard of truth?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by look to Jesus on Jun 1, 2004 16:26:01 GMT -5
Quit quoting the old testament. Quote Jesus to back up your views...if you are a Christian. Just Jesus...not anyone else. And then twist it around to fit your views.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 19:21:20 GMT -5
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (Matt 5.17 KJV). Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 1, 2004 19:22:03 GMT -5
I have to admit, reading the above posts make me chuckle out loud. The two people that I've had the most disagreement with about various issues would mention me as a female candidate for President! lol ;D That's pretty funny. It just goes to show you that you can respect a person and their beliefs even though you do not agree with them.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 1, 2004 20:00:53 GMT -5
Please show where this ACT was called "honorable". I don't believe I said his act was honorable. I said he offered his daughters to a crowd for their sexual pleasure. You said that the bible says fathers are supposed to take care of their daughters. This is a story in the bible. It does not support your claim. It seems age has little to do with it. 25% of women do not marry. Not really an exception. Even though it seems to have a genetic cause?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 21:44:28 GMT -5
A short course in biblical hermeneutics might be helpful here. Just becasue it is recorded in the Bible does not make it right for crying out loud.
Sorry, I don't buy that it has a genetic cause any more than the sin of adultery has a genetic cause...it is all sin.
I wonder why you will not admit to where your standard of truth comes from. Is it because you do not have one or that you don't know what it really is?
I think answering this fundemental question will help alot.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 1, 2004 23:32:59 GMT -5
. . . . 25% of women do not marry. Not really an exception. Even though it seems to have a genetic cause? If I am genetically predisposed to rape and murder, does that make it ok? I agree with Robb. There has to be a standard higher than ourselves. What is yours? inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 2, 2004 1:13:50 GMT -5
A short course in biblical hermeneutics might be helpful here. Just becasue it is recorded in the Bible does not make it right for crying out loud. Well, not only was it recorded but the person who made the offer was allowed to leave the city safely. He was not condemned for the act but was rewarded with his life. The point was that many of the men in the bible seem to take better care of their cattle than they do of their wives and daughters. You are welcome to your beliefs. At one time people believed the earth was the center of the universe and, like you, damned people who believed otherwise. As it turned out the earth is not the center of the universe. People who suffered from epilepsy were though to be possessed and were burned at the stake. All because of a genetic defect. Isn't Jesus the standard that Christians are measured against? Really? How so if you pick and choose from the OT different parts to follow. Which parts do you think form the basis of your 'truth'?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 2, 2004 1:32:26 GMT -5
If I am genetically predisposed to rape and murder, does that make it ok? If there was any evidence to show that it was a genetic trait I do think you would need to re-evaluate whether it would be a sin. Can people be damned for something that is beyond their control? It would be like saying that having brown eyes was a sin. Left-handed people were once forced to use their right hand. Should we revert to burning people that were considered possessed?
|
|