I guess I am not alone!

Here folks, is the problem with theocrats. They assign a Biblical role to every act of civil government.

 

When is the last time America had a good leader by your definition? Why do you hold women to different standards that men.

Was Reagan a good leader? He and the Iron Lady were virtually twins in their policies. How could one be good and one be bad.

Yes, she did as much as possible in a sin cursed world to bring the UK back into biblical standards of human government, just like many
male leaders have done in the US. Like presidents, she was not a dictator so could not fix it all by herself.

You are hard pressed to be critical of Mrs Thatcher as leader my friend. Admit it, she, like Deborah, is another exception to your interpretation of God's standards.

 

Yes - I agree 100% with this statement.

 

So what are you going to do when the new President Clinton is elected in 2008? Are you going to submit to her leadership as told to do in Romans 13?

 

Okay, I need a history lesson. Just how had the men who voted on the 19th ammendment failed in their jobs before they voted on it? Links will do.

LOL! Of course I do! My husband is a strict Democrat and very anti-Republican (which used to mean he would vote for a bad Democrat over a good Republican, but I'm slowly converting him. ). Of course there are going to be certain elections in which my vote cancels out his and vice versa. We knew that from the beginning! I was raised by a Northern Republican and he by Southern Democrats, but I don't think that is what God was talking about when He said not to be unequally yoked!

When our votes cancel each other out, what happens? Absolutely nothing! The election will be carried by the majority and so we will abide by it, regardless of how each of us voted.

Do we ever have political discussions? Yep! And our children are learning to make their own decisions because we can debate the issues and differ in our opinions without bitterness or (enter negative emotion here). Our marriage doesn't suffer from differences of opinion on how the government should be run.

 

Ron and I don't always vote the same either. We aren't as far apart as MK and her husband, but we don't always see eye to eye on the pols.

We talk about the candidates. We frequently agree, but not always. We go vote. We usually talk about it as we watch or read the returns.

This has never upset any of the delicate balance because there is nothing delicate in the balance -- it's firmly in place.

 

I like that Bitsy. And you are correct, there is no delicate balance in marriage if there is a firm Foundation upon which it is built!

 

What about ole John Adams and the rest of his ilk? Did they follow Romans 13 when they rebelled against British authority? Did they follow Romans 13 when they threw another person's property (tea) into the Boston Harbor? I don't find scripture saying "no taxation without representation". Scripture says to pay your taxes and live peaceably. They did not.

You are taking biblical priniciples that apply to church administration (in context) and family relationships (in context) and applying them to the administration of a secular government. That is a problem because you are taking them out of context. You mentioned Hitler. Hitler often claimed to be a Christian and to be bringing about biblical principles in his government and its policies.

The very long history of merging the church and the secular government has always (without exception) produced religious persecution for one group or another; including imprisonment and execution.

Let's stick with the bible, in context, so we can avoid that situation.

peace to youraying:

 

Here is where I have to step into this discussion again (continued from the other thread), and say this. It would NOT be true representation in your perfect world for the likes of ME. A woman who was single until she was in her mid 30's, who stayed in her parents' home and cared for her ailing parents until she was no longer needed and finally DID marry. A woman who is now widowed at the age of 50. A woman who has spent her entire adult life paying her own way (out of financial necessity) AND caring for her parents' family, and then (out of financial necessity) working outside the home while married, and now widowed and working to earn a living (out of financial necessity). How am I "represented" in that "perfect world"? Where would MY vote have been represented when I was in my early 20's caring for a father who was too ill to CARE about politics or go vote for himself--much less anyone else? Where would it be represented NOW--who would cast my vote for me? Whose counsel should I heed? My father is past the age of caring about politics and is no longer informed of even local issues, much less country-wide concerns. I have no husband. I have no PROSPECTS of a husband (and I don't intend to look for one). Yet I am a part of the country, the state, and the city in which I reside. I have to work; I have to pay taxes. Do not my paid taxes entitle me to a vote--a say-so in how the elected officials represent ME?

Please believe me when I say I am asking this without rancor or any kind of negative emotion aimed at you (I know it's hard to tell on this BB). I am merely curious where I fit in, in that perfect world. I believe YOU believe that THAT world IS perfect. And I believe you and your home is a happy one, and that you are living the life that you know God would have you live. I am just wondering how women (like me) without a voice in that world would speak? Because I know you realize that it is NOT your perfect world out here in America--and we can't get the genie back in the bottle. So, if you would strip me of my right to vote if you could change the laws in this REAL world--I am just curious what would become of me. Because someday, some man who believes as you do just might do that. And I want to understand the thoughts behind it and how it would all work.

Thanks.

 

The Monstrous Regiment Of Women

That was an eye-cather , I'm sure . The Reformer , John Knox studied at Geneva under John Calvin . Several years later Knox had written "The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women ".

What follows is a part of a letter (5/1559 ) Calvin wrote on the piece which he confessed he had not read . He just knew "the tenor of the discourse" .

Two years ago , John Knox in a private conversation , asked my opinion respecting female government . I frankly answered that because it was a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature , it ought to be held as a judgment on man for his dereliction of his rights , just like slavery ; that nevertheless certain women had sometimes been so gifted that the singular blessing of God was conspicuous in them , and made it manifest that they had been raised up by the providence of God , either because he willed by such examples to condemn the supineness of men , or thus show more distinctly his own glory . I here instanced Huldah and Deborah . I added to ther same effect that God promised by the mouth of Isaiah that queens should be the nursing mothers of the church , which clearly distinguished such persons from private women . Finally I added in conclusion , that since by custom , common consent , and long-established usage , it had been admitted that kingdoms and principalities might be by hereditary right transmitted to women , it did not seem proper to me that this question should be mooted , not only because the thing was odious in itself , but because in my judgment it is not permitted to unsettle governments that have been set up by the peculiar providence of God . Of the book I had not the slightest suspicion , and it had been published a whole year before I was aware of its existence .

 

All of this is a moot point, anyway. Women have the right to vote. And I am not under the authority of any man except my Pastor, my husband, and Jesus. What happens when my boys turn eighteen? I'm STILL an authority figure for them!
You do not have any authority over me.

Sopranette

 

It is not necessary to use profanity to make your point.

 

The expression is, "You ain't the boss of me!" Of course, since I ain't the boss of you, you are under no obligation to correct your post.

 

Our God-given role is submission to the man? Here I thought all along it was submission to your husband. Silly me, guess I missed that part of the Bible. Care to point it out for me?

 

I've always wanted to say that! May I quote you?

Of course it may lose all authority when I cite the source as one angry beaver.

 

LOL! You said it! Sheeesh! If he doesn't go on...and on...and on....*yawn* What a one trick pony. I'm thinking his wife is getting a secret chuckle over all his posts, though! Meeh...maybe.

Sopranette

 

I sure am glad I wasn't drinking anything, when I read that! :laugh:

Dale, quit arguing with Sopranette and answer my last post!

Sopranette, leave Dale alone long enough for him to answer my last post!

 

From the OP:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.