"Women rule over them": Should Hillary Clinton be President?

[redleghunter]

So, you're going to create your own scripture by what you
believe instead of what it says.

It would make discussions more polite and productive on these forums if we knew the liberal canon.

 

[redleghunter]

Bless you for recalling Deborah to this discussion.
I find it a bit disconcerting being female myself when I happen on male Christians who argue that God discriminates against the genders he created to be equal in his sight. Each have their own abilities to make the other whole and to serve God completely.
Such blasphemy as I reckon it ignores the passages in the new testament that tell us of those women that went forward and ministered the word of Christ. And some were even daughters of the Apostles.
So to hear that same blasphemous talk argue women aren't fit to lead a nation is further even more an insult to God and His plans. Being we're told those who lead us in God's name are put in that position of leadership by His will and His plan for the people of the nation He oversees.
I would think those chosen are those who are in his covenant. In the case of Hillary I believe no such thing is evident. And by her demonstration of that which nourishes her heart and compels her steps, I judge that the lord that she does listen to is nothing we want guiding her as leader of this nation for four years. It would amount to an unholy trinity of years being she would further Obama's vision should she arrive to assume his former post as the most powerful untrustworthy female in the world.

If I recall, the undertow Deborah encountered were men who were deadbeats who did not want to do their job as military commanders. She had her hands full during her judgeship.

 

[redleghunter]

I think this goes deeper than a ruler. It's talking about the
women running the houses and the men are henpecked.
Emasculated.

Indeed, in an era where Jezebel was quite known throughout Israel and Judah. She being the poor example evoked in Isaiah; as opposed to Bathsheba a positive example.

 

[Papias]

Achilles, did you vote for the McCain/Palin ticket?

What about everyone else? How many of us here voted for the McCain/Palin ticket?

 

[pat34lee]

What about everyone else? How many of us here voted for the McCain/Palin ticket?

I held my nose and voted for them, mainly for Palin.
McCain needs to go home and hang up his hat.

 

[Papias]

I held my nose and voted for them, mainly for Palin.

So then you think that the Bible is OK with a woman ruling over men, because Palin is a woman.

Or do you think the Bible only says that women shouldn't rule over men when it's a woman of one political party, but that when it's a woman of the other political party, the Bible says that it's OK?

Papias

 

[pat34lee]

So then you think that the Bible is OK with a woman ruling over men, because Palin is a woman.

Or do you think the Bible only says that women shouldn't rule over men when it's a woman of one political party, but that when it's a woman of the other political party, the Bible says that it's OK?

Papias

I would quit thinking of Hillary as a woman, if I were you. She is a criminal first,
and an anti-Constitutional socialist, if not full-blown communist.

 

[pat34lee]

It would make discussions more polite and productive on these forums if we knew the liberal canon.

The problem there is, like a living Constitution, it changes
every time the wind blows.

 

[Achilles6129]

What about everyone else? How many of us here voted for the McCain/Palin ticket?

No, I did not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. As a matter of fact, I have never voted. Just never really found anyone inspiring enough. I might vote this election though, and, as you can probably guess, it won't be for Hillary Clinton.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

What about everyone else? How many of us here voted for the McCain/Palin ticket?

I didn't vote. I was at a cafe that had an outdoor TV feed when Palin was introduced on stage as the VP pick for McCain. I'd never heard of her and thought she must be a tremendous politician and governor having been picked as his second.
Ha! Yes, that illusion was exploded rather quickly.

 

[tickingclocker]

"O My people! Their oppressors [n]are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths." Isa. 3:12 (NASB)

"12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim. 2:12-14 (NASB)

What do you think?

You are mixing up the spiritual realm with the human realm, assuming they are/should be the same. They are not. Politics is a human realm. They can be influenced by the spiritual, but remains a strictly human endeavor.

I've heard it said that.... When there are no wise men, God uses wise women to shame them.

 

[tickingclocker]

Christians do not answer in the negative to your question. You're aware of this. I am as well. Shall we move forward in the knowledge of Christ and God who calls whom he will to his church?

In this particular election come November the woman is unfit to lead. She's demonstrated that in lesser offices entrusted to her. And there is absolutely no rational capacity present in the argument that despite that record of unfitness in the lesser, that she would be more fit and able for the higher office.

Unfortunately the same applies to the opposing candidate. Not in office, but in business and in personal ethics. How ironic that Hillary remained with her first and only husband after publicly finding out about his infidelity. She forgave him. Yet when Trump was found to be cheating on his wife with a mistress, he divorces the wife and marries his mistress, then divorces her and marries another? He thoughtlessly exchanges women like marriage is Pokemon cards. Says a lot about where his "ethics" are.... not.

One lies. The other cheats. We have a choice between a liar and a cheat. Nice system we have going on down here, huh?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Unfortunately the same applies to the opposing candidate. Not in office, but in business and in personal ethics. How ironic that Hillary remained with her first and only husband after publicly finding out about his infidelity. She forgave him. Yet when Trump was found to be cheating on his wife with a mistress, he divorces the wife and marries his mistress, then divorces her and marries another? He thoughtlessly exchanges women like marriage is Pokemon cards. Says a lot about where his "ethics" are.... not.

One lies. The other cheats. We have a choice between a liar and a cheat. Nice system we have going on down here, huh?

But this thread is about the fitness of a woman to lead the free world.
I am not a Trumpeter by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just keeping on topic.

 

[HannahT]

So then you think that the Bible is OK with a woman ruling over men, because Palin is a woman.

Or do you think the Bible only says that women shouldn't rule over men when it's a woman of one political party, but that when it's a woman of the other political party, the Bible says that it's OK?

Papias

It seems to me that the bible has stories of women in leadership, and God didn't seem to have an issue with it.

Sadly, it's humans that only wish to look at a couple of verses...and not look at the bible in its entirety. Then of course claim that's okay, because they must cling to that couple of verses.

I don't care for Hillary. Trump doesn't do much for me either. I do fine it rather lame that people want to use the bible for the purposes of votes against her, because the bible does have stories of women - if you must twist this way - that rule over men with God's nod. So, do you think it is okay to ignore those portions of the bible in that fashion?

 

[HannahT]

"O My people! Their oppressors [n]are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths." Isa. 3:12 (NASB)

There are versions of the bible that use 'creditors' and not women in the verse you mentioned.

English translations which reflect the “creditors” interpretation are: the Common English Bible (CEB), the Good News Translation (GNT), the New English Bible (NEB), and the New English Translation (NET).

It seems to me if you read the entire section - not just the one verse? The point is more about God’s judgement for Judah’s rebellion, caused by bad leaders, was that Judah would be oppressed by even worse leaders.

Isaiah chapter 3 is an oracle of judgement foretelling the demise of Jerusalem and Judah, as a consequence of Judah’s rebellion against God, brought about by the vices and mismanagement of its civil and religious leaders. At the beginning of Isaiah chapter 3 we read that God is about to remove the capable and gifted people from Judah, including, or especially, the ruling classes of Jerusalem. (This is exactly what happened in the early sixth century when the Babylonians invaded Judah and began deporting their best and brightest.) - This is the context.

I'm not sure why people wish to cherry pick the overall context.

 

[pescador]

I would quit thinking of Hillary as a woman, if I were you. She is a criminal first,
and an anti-Constitutional socialist, if not full-blown communist.

Hillary Clinton is a woman, a wife, a mother, and has an outstanding record of serving The United States as the First Lady and as Secretary of State. She also was a senator from one of the largest states: New York.

1) She is not a criminal. She hasn't been found guilty of any crime.
2) She is not "an anti-Constitutional socialist". She is and always has been a loyal Democrat.
3) She is not and never has been a "full-blown communist". That is patently ridiculous.

These are just nonsensical slanderous statements with no basis in fact. If you can't be honest and factual, why post anything?

 

[ViaCrucis]

1. The passage in 1 Timothy has nothing to do with secular governance.
2. Even within the context of the Church this passage is one that results in a great deal of dispute--if taken in its usual English translation at face value it would contradict instances where women did teach men and were engaged in active roles within the Church; the most immediate and obvious example is the case where Priscillla and Aquila together helped teach Apollos things about the faith more accurately, or the fact that there were female apostles (e.g. St. Junia).

Regardless of the second point concerning the difficulty of the passage itself; the first point stands.

As to women in positions of civil authority and power? One word: Deborah.

And even if the Bible did have an issue with women in positions of secular authority (it doesn't, by the way) it would ultimately be irrelevant since the United States isn't a theocracy but a secular constitutional republic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, for Sepia and Jack, it's always seemed to me that we either accept the entire Bible or reject the entire Bible. I don't see how we can choose which parts to believe in without compromising the Bible's integrity.

Off topic, but as a point: if at any time the Bible were a monolithic thing you might have a point. But the Bible has never been that.

Do you accept Tobit as the word of God? If not, then you reject part of the Bible. Tobit may not be in your Bible, but it was in the Bible for the vast majority of Christians historically, and still is today.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pescador]

One of my pet peeves is when people take a single verse out of context, then apply it as a universal statement. In this case I'm thinking of 1 Timothy 2:12: " I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." This verse was written to address a particular heresy that was being taught by some women almost 2000 years ago that was contrary to the Gospel. It is absurd to think it applies to women universally, since there were women that were church leaders when Paul wrote this. It is beyond ridiculous to apply it to the question of whether Hillary Clinton should be President.

In addition to her being a lifelong Christian, she has both the experience and credentials to be President of the United States, a secular republic that has been established by God. Her opponent is not a Christian by word or deed and has neither the experience nor credentials to become President.

 

[pat34lee]

How ironic that Hillary remained with her first and only husband after publicly finding out about his infidelity. She forgave him.
One lies. The other cheats. We have a choice between a liar and a cheat. Nice system we have going on down here, huh?

Hillary knew about Bill long before he ran for President. She was the brawn
of the two, using his power to intimidate women from coming forward, and
destroying any who did.

She didn't forgive Bill, she enabled him. And at the expense of women he
groped, abused and raped. What a champion of woman's rights, huh?

Actually, our choice is criminal or unknown. Trump has no political past.
Hillary has enough political baggage for a dozen politicians. We know
exactly what she wants to do, and it's Obama on steroids. That hasn't
worked yet, and it won't for her either. Time for something different.