While I disagree with your interpretation here, Rev, I respect you for your opinion because you can logically explain it WITHOUT condemning women as hysterical, inferior females who cannot think for themselves. I understand your logic even if I do not exactly agree with it. Thank you for explaining your viewpoint in a godly, non-condescending manner. Others here would get better results if they could follow your example:thumbsup:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Women in Politics
- Thread starter Cutter
- Start date
Don't apologize to me.
You have taken a good bit of your time to follow women's rights through the history of our great Nation in your post. Seeing as how you and others believe that the rights granted by the State supersede those granted by God, I can understand how you reached your conclusion.
The woman is precious in the sight of God and was endowed by her Creator with her rights and privileges in the divine order of all things, political and otherwise. Man in his sin has sought to rob her more and more of her femininity, warmth, and motherhood. All under the guise of women's rights. And women in their arrogance and rebellion have went along with this plot that has infected the home, the church, and the Gov't. Women's rights have led women down the road of alienation toward a Holy God. Their pursuits have taught them that having a career is more important than having a family, a baby's life is their choice to make on whether it is convenient at the time or not, that the pulpit can be occupied by them and that God is OK with whatever a woman decides, because after all, the State has granted equal rights. Ladies that oppose the way of God and the teaching of the Word of God I have bad news. You've come a long way baby, but unfortunately it has been in the wrong direction.
I haven't seen that tone in this thread in any of the postings by anyone!
That's the truth and very well articulated!
This is a Conflicting Post...
... I say conflicting because, I agree that women's involvement in everything from politics to running businesses, to serving in the military, to teaching school is seen by many as being a conflict to their calling to be a helpmate and mother.
Many folks believe women should not even work.
The problem is, the nation does not see this strict application to Scripture, with the exception of the extremist Muslims, and a handful of nations that stand to suppress women and their right to be something more than a mother and helpmate.
I can only ask those of you how you'd "honestly" feel if by some slip of destiny, or, fate, your chromosomes reversed themselves, and you were born female. Would you be so ready to accept this lifestyle if you lived in this day and age where women are so freely allowed to be and do what they want and see for themselves? In the womb, we all start out female, and than the X and Y's do their thing, and the sex of the fetus is determined for life.
Someone with better knowledge of the biological order of life can probably explain it better than me, but, you get the idea, don't you?
How would you honestly feel, looking around and seeing other women free to be, while you are seemingly being held hostage, barefoot, and pregnant by men?
I'm not a feminist. I just can't help but wonder what Jesus would say about the woman's role in our society today. I guess we'll only know if they are committing a huge sin when we get to heaven and hear His words of judgment for their choice of living.
I'll say one thing in your favor, Cutter... this was one very difficult question to deal with. Congrats on making everyone think!:type:
... I say conflicting because, I agree that women's involvement in everything from politics to running businesses, to serving in the military, to teaching school is seen by many as being a conflict to their calling to be a helpmate and mother.
Many folks believe women should not even work.
The problem is, the nation does not see this strict application to Scripture, with the exception of the extremist Muslims, and a handful of nations that stand to suppress women and their right to be something more than a mother and helpmate.
I can only ask those of you how you'd "honestly" feel if by some slip of destiny, or, fate, your chromosomes reversed themselves, and you were born female. Would you be so ready to accept this lifestyle if you lived in this day and age where women are so freely allowed to be and do what they want and see for themselves? In the womb, we all start out female, and than the X and Y's do their thing, and the sex of the fetus is determined for life.
Someone with better knowledge of the biological order of life can probably explain it better than me, but, you get the idea, don't you?
How would you honestly feel, looking around and seeing other women free to be, while you are seemingly being held hostage, barefoot, and pregnant by men?
I'm not a feminist. I just can't help but wonder what Jesus would say about the woman's role in our society today. I guess we'll only know if they are committing a huge sin when we get to heaven and hear His words of judgment for their choice of living.
I'll say one thing in your favor, Cutter... this was one very difficult question to deal with. Congrats on making everyone think!:type:
Last edited by a moderator:
Because this issue is not addressed in scripture it is not as clear as some other things like the roles of men and women in the church and home. But it is certainly more clear than a great many other things like most of eschatology. I do not make a big issue out of it but I do not vote for women. Not because they cannot do it, in fact they can very often, but because of God ordained roles.
I was referring to posts #1 and #27. Words like "hysterical," "not gifted" and "how like a woman" are very condescending.
I appreciate posters who can explain their viewpoint without resulting to such tactics. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Just saying. . .
I don't disagree with the old saying although sometimes the vinegar is hard to resist or hard to swallow.
I don't have any problem with post 1. Post 27 came as the typical defensive response - full of bitterness or accusations - which sought to draw the topic away from what was originally presented into an attack on women. It received a due response. It illustrates why the topic can be so difficult to discuss with someone.
Nothing I'm saying discredits women in any way. It merely points out that by God's design men and women were created differently to serve different functions and roles both of which are to glorify Him. It has nothing to do with relatively value of the two sexes. It has to do with what happens when we drift and wander way outside God's design in our thinking and our actions.
You're thinking as if being male or female is a question of value! That's not it! God valued both male and female else He would not have created them. He created woman for man and both for His own glorification. He created them differently and assigned them different functions and roles such that His plan would be carried out. He doesn't ask us if we want to be male or female - He decides that. The word of God is the word of Jesus Christ from the beginning to the end. That inspired word includes a great deal of information - directly and indirectly - about the intended role of men and women and their relationship to each other. It was much more clearly understood in Biblical times than it is today. We - mankind - has greatly altered His design thinking we know better how it should all work. We - men and women - have become selfish about ourselves and seek what we want, what we think is good for us, and not what God said. We have instilled into the minds of men and women alike new roles and function that have turned our society upside down and we have proponents of it that laud it as a great success. Yet at the same time we see the miserable consequences of it all around us.
I can accept this, Dragoon. What bothers me are posts that condemn women as the bane of society, when men also contribute to the decay. We've had different threads about WOMEN working outside the home (one of which was started by the OP of this thread), WOMEN"S dress, WOMEN should not vote, etc. If men did what they were supposed to do instead of pointing fingers at the ladies, maybe the women would follow their leadership and not feel the need to step into the vacancies left by the men.
Again, I'm not saying I agree that women should not be in politics, but that if they ARE in the wrong, BOTH men and women are at fault, not just women. I think you and I agree on this.
Just because the nation was doing whatever they wanted at the time didn't mean this one instance was apart of that. Otherwise, it would have been recorded in a more negative light. And every person who did good in the OT is not included in Heb. 11.
Also, you seem mention of the other nations having queens and such, and while they were pagan, the female leadership is never one of the things they are condemned for.
Funny, what about Sarah Palin? While we're at it, should women be media figures either? What about Ann Coulter, Laura Schlesinger, etc?
That seems more like a Democrat vs Republican issue than male vs female.
And part of that corruption was being overbearing and overdoing their "dominant" role in the past, and treating women like chattel. It still goes on in countries that maintain those "old values", such as Italy, where the man can run around, and the women must stay inside the house. (Catholic countries, mostly. Did that church actually do something right?)
God gives specific leadership roles for home, and church.
Nowhere in Scripture is women leading in government prohibited.
Discount it if you will...but Deborah was a good example that has been ignored.
And I must agree with others on here, Cutter...there are several folks on here with whom I disagree more, position-wise, than I do you.
However, it seems to me as though you attempt to be offensive. You seem to take pride in getting folks "riled up." We are called to speak the truth in love. You can't choose to leave off those last two words.
C4K, Mrs. Thatcher is a great example of a great, strong, female leader.
Nowhere in Scripture is women leading in government prohibited.
Discount it if you will...but Deborah was a good example that has been ignored.
And I must agree with others on here, Cutter...there are several folks on here with whom I disagree more, position-wise, than I do you.
However, it seems to me as though you attempt to be offensive. You seem to take pride in getting folks "riled up." We are called to speak the truth in love. You can't choose to leave off those last two words.
C4K, Mrs. Thatcher is a great example of a great, strong, female leader.
That's a very valid point that I always try to make in this type discussion. Men have failed - even abdicated - their responsibility to be leaders. They don't set a good example, they don't take on the difficult responsibilities, they don't honor their wives, they don't protect their families from temptation, etc. Likewise, there have certainly been many women step up to take the role either for these failures or just out of the necessity of an unexpected loss. The problem with authority is the responsibility. Adam found that out when God cornered Him over what they had done and the weasel tried to blame Eve who, indeed, had brought him the temptation yet he was responsible for it. The over-riding issue is that God had a perfect design and we, because of our rebellion, pride, stubbornness, greed, lust, etc. drift and wander far away from that design for no good reason other than we want to and think we know better than God. We should all - men and women - humble ourselves before Him and seek to fulfill our roles in harmony and in complement to each other in the kinds of relationships and functions that He intended.
Wow -- I'm amazed that this topic is still under discussion. Well then, I would have been amazed if I were still in high school and people were discussing this back then (and that's way back then).
My current representative is female (she's excellent and I plan to vote for her again in November) and a friend works in the congressional office of another female rep. Two very effective female representatives.
Oh well, back to Rob & Laura and then Ricky & Lucy are on a 9 o'clock ...
My current representative is female (she's excellent and I plan to vote for her again in November) and a friend works in the congressional office of another female rep. Two very effective female representatives.
Oh well, back to Rob & Laura and then Ricky & Lucy are on a 9 o'clock ...
The entire Bible - the inspired word of God - gives example after example of men He selected to lead His people in every institution He brought into existence. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Mosses, David, Solomon, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, all the Apostles - all the historical leaders of the people - were males. Even the pagans were lead and ruled by men. The few women exceptions were just that - exceptions by unique cause. Was God a sexist because of this? No, He was merely following His own design for man and woman which He instituted at the creation. Did God think less of women? No, not at all! He simply used man as man and woman as woman.
The greater part of this history was played out long before the Church came to be. The institutions of marriage, the family, the home, and the government were already established with men in the leadership roles. The business of governance, of war, of judging, etc. was given to men. The coming on the Church did not change that but only reinforced it with specific admonitions against women leadership in the Church. When, God, in the person the Son, came to earth He came as a male.
No doubt God used women in His will as He did men but their roles were not the same and the exceptions were very few and for specific situations. No doubt courageous intelligent capable women have served in interim times of history but those are the exceptions for whatever reason and not the norm nor the design. God created man with the attributes for leadership. He created woman with the attributes to help and nurture. He gave intelligence and abilities to both but designed them to lean a bit differently in order to most effective at their roles. Man was created first and then woman. Man needed a woman as a helper and she was created for Him as part of God's plan. God gave man responsibility for woman's actions as is evident by His asking Adam - not Eve - what they had done.
Man has no more inherent value than woman - both are His creations and belong first to Him. Man did not create woman - God did. But God did put man over the woman.
The example is clear from the whole of the Biblical story as well as the specific verses that touch on the subject. It is not limited to the home and to the Church but to life in general.
We shouldn't think we're smarter than God by ignoring the historical record He has given us in His word. We shouldn't make women to feel they are inferior unless than pursue and excel at all the same roles as men and, likewise, we shouldn't do so for men. Men need to step up to their responsibility and not give temptation to women to have to take their place.
The greater part of this history was played out long before the Church came to be. The institutions of marriage, the family, the home, and the government were already established with men in the leadership roles. The business of governance, of war, of judging, etc. was given to men. The coming on the Church did not change that but only reinforced it with specific admonitions against women leadership in the Church. When, God, in the person the Son, came to earth He came as a male.
No doubt God used women in His will as He did men but their roles were not the same and the exceptions were very few and for specific situations. No doubt courageous intelligent capable women have served in interim times of history but those are the exceptions for whatever reason and not the norm nor the design. God created man with the attributes for leadership. He created woman with the attributes to help and nurture. He gave intelligence and abilities to both but designed them to lean a bit differently in order to most effective at their roles. Man was created first and then woman. Man needed a woman as a helper and she was created for Him as part of God's plan. God gave man responsibility for woman's actions as is evident by His asking Adam - not Eve - what they had done.
Man has no more inherent value than woman - both are His creations and belong first to Him. Man did not create woman - God did. But God did put man over the woman.
The example is clear from the whole of the Biblical story as well as the specific verses that touch on the subject. It is not limited to the home and to the Church but to life in general.
We shouldn't think we're smarter than God by ignoring the historical record He has given us in His word. We shouldn't make women to feel they are inferior unless than pursue and excel at all the same roles as men and, likewise, we shouldn't do so for men. Men need to step up to their responsibility and not give temptation to women to have to take their place.
Last edited by a moderator:
None of those examples were intended to be normative. There were no women in government at the time because they didn't let women be in government. Pagan and Jew alike. That's descriptive, not normative.
God called the men that He did to the service that He did. It is clear that He selected men for leadership. That's the written Word we have to go by. It's both descriptive and normative. If God had not intended it to be so then surely it would not have been so. He would have chosen females to do what he called Noah, Abraham, David, etc. to do and, perhaps, He would have been incarnate as a woman rather than as a man. We've come to think that because we have more "things" today we're smarter than the people of older times - we're not!
Last edited by a moderator: