• 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!

First Woman President Candidate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
14080034_1170535636326395_2154166173760288872_n.png
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Seems Victoria was against the hypocrisy of saying she was pro-life while advocating for capital punishment at the same time.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
She was not a candidate for President. She did not meet the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years of age.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I wonder if Rev. and others who say they are conservative agree with her stance on free love? The quote is from a speech she gave


"To woman, by nature, belongs the right of sexual determination. When the instinct is aroused in her, then and then only should commerce follow. When woman rises from sexual slavery to sexual freedom, into the ownership and control of her sexual organs, and man is obliged to respect this freedom, then will this instinct become pure and holy; then will woman be raised from the iniquity and morbidness in which she now wallows for existence, and the intensity and glory of her creative functions be increased a hundred-fold"
In this same speech, which became known as the "Steinway speech," delivered on Monday, November 20, 1871 in Steinway Hall, New York City, Woodhull said of free love:

"Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please, and with that right neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On abortion she also said....

Abortion is only a symptom of a more deep-seated disorder of the social state. It cannot be put down by law.... Is there, then, no remedy for all this bad state of things? None, I solemnly believe; none, by means of repression and law. I believe there is no other remedy possible but freedom in the social sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull#Free_love


She also was in favor of eugenics and favored the forced sterilization of those determined unfit to breed. I wonder who she felt should be given the power to determine who should be allowed to breed?
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
She was not a candidate for President. She did not meet the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years of age.
Actually, she could be - but would not have been able to take the oath of office until she turned 35

Now some other things -
She ran on the Equal Rights Party - not a major party. The Hillary campaign has made it clear that Hillary is the first woman candidate of a major party - besides - much ado about nothing.
Woodhull was a Spiritualist
Evidently saw no problem with divorce (she was married 3 times)
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Looking at her beliefs, and not just cherry-picking a quote on abortion, it shows clearly she was not a pro-life person in the modern sense of the word.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Actually, she could be - but would not have been able to take the oath of office until she turned 35

Now some other things -
She ran on the Equal Rights Party - not a major party. The Hillary campaign has made it clear that Hillary is the first woman candidate of a major party - besides - much ado about nothing.
Woodhull was a Spiritualist
Evidently saw no problem with divorce (she was married 3 times)

The GOP does grasp at straws.

How about we just say that she'll be the first female President?'
 

Jordan Kurecki

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Seems Victoria was against the hypocrisy of saying she was pro-life while advocating for capital punishment at the same time.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Do you think God is a hypocrite in the Old Testament for commanding Capital punishment for murder after the Genesis flood, and then in the Mosaic law for murder and adultery but also for condemning the Canaanites for offering their babies to Moloch? Does that make God a hypocrite too?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do you think God is a hypocrite in the Old Testament for commanding Capital punishment for murder after the Genesis flood, and then in the Mosaic law for murder and adultery but also for condemning the Canaanites for offering their babies to Moloch? Does that make God a hypocrite too?

No, but as God gradually revealed self to us and with the fullest revelation in Christ we learned that the OT view of God was not the revelation to follow, but to follow Christ.

If you want to reject Christ and follow the God of the OT, you may. But I will not do so. {Very gently said.]
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Do you think God is a hypocrite in the Old Testament for commanding Capital punishment for murder after the Genesis flood, and then in the Mosaic law for murder and adultery but also for condemning the Canaanites for offering their babies to Moloch? Does that make God a hypocrite too?

Must we go through this stupidity AGAIN. God is God. HE can command that a life be taken at any point that HE so chooses.

Get that. HE-When HE chooses.
After the Cross HE has not given the command to ANYONE to take the life of another.
HE ALLOWS the government to do so just as He ALLOWS the government to sanction divorce.

He has NOT advocated that Christians advocate for the taking of anybody's life after the Cross. It would be a foolish thing to do and God is no fool.

I mean seriously. What kind of God would sacrifice His Son so that everyone can be forgiven and not die only to turn around and say I want the people who are spreading my Gospel to agree with the taking of the life of another?

Christendom cannot be this collectively stupid.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
HE ALLOWS the government to do so just as He ALLOWS the government to sanction divorce.
So the death penalty is allowed.

He has NOT advocated that Christians advocate for the taking of anybody's life after the Cross. It would be a foolish thing to do and God is no fool.
So now the burden of proof is showing which "Christians" advocate for the taking of anyone's life.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Now that yall have allowed a couple of extreme far left wingers to derail this thread like they like to do when the op does not suit their liking it is time to close it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top