Simple Woman for President Poll

Why do you insist on using a demeaning phrase like "don't make me laugh." It hardly helps your credibility.

Barak would only go to war if Deborah went with him. She was a judge in Israel and God never condemns that fact, as He never says that women cannot lead a company or a country. So now you say that though a woman cannot lead a country she can serve as God's mouthpiece?

Please present Biblical proof that a woman cannot serve in these capacities.

 

Neither of us has any biblical proof to support our statements, I never claimed to have Biblical proof. I also don't have Biblical proof that it is okay to drive a car.

This is an abiblical situation. There is nothing in scripture either way on women in authority in companies or countries. So I reckon the rest is up to us.

 

I can find no scripture that supports your ridiculous claim. In fact, the story of Deborah refutes your claim completely.

What exactly will you do the day you get pulled over by a female police officer? I'd love to see that. I'm curious how you got through college with all those female teachers. Or the female clerk at the DMV.

Sorry, but I question the scriptural objectivity of any man who is so insecure in his headship that he must think himself above all females in order to validate his own manhood.

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????



So much confusion so many loopholes it reinforces
the old saying "If the plain sense (the bible) makes common sense, (obvious logic) seek no other sense or it all becomes nonsense!" We all know what God's stand is on this for it is implied in the bible numerous times, we need to stop trying to run loopholes in and around God's word to suit are own tastes. This reminds me of the time I heard someone say that God approved of homosexual relationships as long as there was no sex involved because the scriptures only restrict homosex (loopholes). we need to stick to the bibles principles not those people over at N.O.W. waiting for your B.B.P.T aka bash, bombardment, posting, tactics.


Your servant
fishnbread

 

No one has been bashed or bombarded for their views.

Comparing support for a woman president to support for homosexuality is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

It is easy to attack those who don't see a problem with a female president of supporting NOW and not the Bible. You will have a hard time supporting your contention however.

 

Postedf by C4K

What do you think your trying to say? Your confused. Im not comparing Ecclesiatical-gynocentrics, with religious-heterosexual-simulated-homophiles, Im comparing loophole makers, with loophole makers. Second if you want to follow N.O.W over the Bible I won't in no way be dissident nor will I attempt to bind a single spectron of your spirit to the chair your sitting in. Third of all you and I both know that you B.B.P there is no need for you to get deffensive, you impose your views however you want no one here is going to execute you for that. The bible says in the book of 1 Cor 13:34 that a woman is not to lead a man yet you continue to attempt create loopholes in that piece of scripture with no evidence to support the hypothesis of any of your biblical loopholes. Please don't take my words as attacks because thats the last thing Im doing Br C4K, I happen to like you by the way.

your servant
Fishnbread

 

I Cor 14v34 has nothing to do with a government. It is in the context of a church service.

Fishnbread, you assumed in your post that replies would be bash and bombard posting tactics. Yet, you said this

the implication is clear, that those who support a woman leader would rather follow N.O.W. than the Bible. That is not the case.

You also said that those who think a woman can serve in office because there is no clear Biblical injunction against it remind you of those who say that homosexuality is okay as long as no sex is involved.

These are both unfair implications.

I am not "seeking loopholes" as you accuse, I am pointing out that the Bible says nothing about women being banned from political leadership.

Thanks for your kind remarks, but please don't assume others are going to B.B.P.T you while you are saying that they seek Bible loopholes.

 

Posted by C4K

No it has to do with authority in general Paul said that women are to be preachers because they are not to lead, if he was limiting it to church he would have said women are not to hold authorty in church, but he did not he said women were to be under obedience as also said the law at that time period. 1 Tim 2:12 also says women are not to have authority and there are no implications that he limited that to the church , the reason being is because it wasent limited to the church Timothy said women were not to be pastors because they were not to lead, if he was limiting it to the church it would seem much more reasonable that he would have just said don't let your women be pastors because to be a pastor is to take authority in the church.

Posted by C4K

Just as thoughs who support homosexual marriage would rather follow G.L.A.D than the Bible. If something or someone contradicts the bible, then supporting them is to contradict the bible.

Posted by C4K

No my comparison is superbly fair. You simply miss interpred it.

Posted by C4K

See first answer for reference. BTW sorry for the long post I'll try to shorten my future ones up.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

You have yet to show me how supporting a woman for president contradicts the Bible. You cannot take a verse out of context and build a doctrine. Both of your passages, in context, are discussing the church. We cannot hold the state to the church's standards. Would you require the president to meet all the qualifications of a pastor?

All you have done is drawn your own conclusions and expected me to accept them as gospel truth.

I do resent your implication that I am no better than those who defend homosexuality or N.O.W. because I am somehow contradicting the Bible.

[ November 01, 2005, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

It is talking about her husband, thats all. The wife is to submit to her husband, that has never changed.

All women do not need to submit to all men.

Do you all even think that women should have the right to vote? After all, by voting for a man she is exercising dominion over him.

 

I am surprised to learn that there are people who do not believe that any woman ever has the power to exercise authority over any man, based on what God says about the church and home.

I have never been exposed to this concept before. It is totally alien to me.

After careful consideration I feel that it is an erroneous concept without scriptural basis.

 

I would not vote for a woman as President, but I think that is based on negative personal experience rather than scripture.

As a woman who has worked since I was 14, my experience has shown me that men, in general, tend to focus more on the task at hand and take things less personally while women tend to, in general, view things from "does the person like me," view. A man's report is rejected, he wants to know what is wrong with the report. A woman's report is rejected, she wants to know what they had against her.

All of that said, I always believed that the bible meant for Natonal Leaders to be spiritual leaders. I base this on scripture. Men cried out to God for judges and for kings. God used to personally select the leaders.

Given that, I think that there is something to be said for the concept that national leaders should be males, at least if you believe that church leaders should be male.

 

This is very courageous of you to say. I myself have similar views on unrelated topics, and I fully recognize that those prejudices (don't take that the wrong way) are strictly my own personal view, not based on scripture or anything else.

I applaud you for making that distinction publicly, and hope it encourages others to rightly distinguish their own viws in like accord.

 

I agree Johnv.

Thank you Texas for expressing your views in the manner you did.

 

As a Canadian, I cannot vote for the POTUS and didn't vote in this poll. But I am curious about the results so far. Could someone post them? Thanks in advance.

If the question were for a female Canadian Prime Minister, my vote would be yes.

 

62% yes - 38% no at the moment.

 

Posted by C4K

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, anywho to answer your statements. One, I am not taking a verse out of context the verese says what it says that being "do not allow a woman to take authority in church because they are not to take authority over a man in general". According to our assirsions a woman is not to take authority in the church, she is not to take authority in the home but God is perfectly Okay with them taking political authority? Please try to be reasonable! why do you think God would not suffer a woman to be the head of her husband and the head of her congregation? but suffer her to be the head of the entire nations husband? and theoretically all the congregations? Hem?

Posted by C4K

I have not drawn conclusions as you so coldly assirted! I simply pointed out obvious truth according to your statements Paul said "don't let your women be authorities in the church because women are not to be authorities in the church" seems a bit like the cat chased his tail scenario dosent it? That type of implosive corrisponding speach was not used at that time nor is it used now why because it's both nonsense and semi-logical. Paul told the church of Corinth not to to allow there women to pastor a church, okay at that point church authority was out of the question for a woman. Then Paul turns around and give his reason why a woman can't have church authority and the reason was because a woman is not to have authority at all, just use your sense would you tell someone don't take church authority because your not to take church authority? That's not even giving a reason, it's the difference between telling your son not to drink the mercury because he'll die and not to drink the mercury because..... don't drink the mercury. See my point?

Posted by C4K

I did not say you were no better nor did I make such an implication I simply stated that this situation reminds of another situation in which someone attempted to justify a homosexual relationship without sex, I resent you even thinking I would make such an implication about you, you are much more intelligent than that C4K, please don't play your obvious high intellect down by making such assumptions.

"If your kind of smart, play the part"

- fishnbread
Oops another long one sorry.

You servant
Fishnbread