Easy answer...yes. And if you think of your wife as your bitch, your doing it wrong.Originally Posted by trot
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Easy answer...yes. And if you think of your wife as your bitch, your doing it wrong.
Is this the same Paul who never married?
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
Obvious from these statements you know not of what you speak.
It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
You dismiss my source as a "Wealthy mini-ministry", yet you are receiving your understanding of God's word from a Hedge broker?
Your grasp of translation is "laughable"
#1: Considering that 1 Corinthians was written in Ancient Greek (a dead language), and your quote is in English, then it was interpreted and translated already.
#2: The 3 most common mistakes when quoting the bible are context, context and context (not really, but I couldn't resist)... 1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paul to the church of Corinth to admonish them and try to bring them back to focus on what they should be focused on (Jesus) So the context of the entire book is not entirely relevant to VOTING, and is relevant to the actions of the CHURCH... the 11th chapter is related to WORSHIP... do you also believe that it commands women to have their head covered? That a man should not have long hair?
#3: The point of the link was to get you to learn- and what you were SUPPOSED to learn was that Women ARE NOT THE ENEMY... they are not yours to subjugate, to order around, to "own"... because that's they way you are coming across. I tried to guide you to the right path, but apparently we need to be a bit more obvious. The enemy uses things like this to cause division, to divide husband and wife, to pit them against each other without knowing that they are being manipulated. That was the entire point of the Ezer Kenegdo article- a husband and wife should be partners... there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her.
#4 If you really believe your wife should follow you without question, then why wouldn't you want her to vote- you get 2 votes that way
(I say this as a joke, but there is some truth to it- but in the context that if you are truly partners and agree, then your votes should align- with her choosing to agree)
Last edited by 68Charger; 08-20-2013 at 22:40. Reason: clarify #4
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. Unfortunately, I did not fall for your new-age ministry, and you are offended. Work it out with your pastor.Obvious from these statements you know not of what you speak.
It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Your grasp of "translation is "laughable"
#1: Considering that 1 Corinthians was written in Ancient Greek (a dead language), and your quote is in English, then it was interpreted and translated already.
#2: The 3 most common mistakes when quoting the bible are context, context and context (not really, but I couldn't resist)... 1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paul to the church of Corinth to admonish them and try to bring them back to focus on what they should be focused on (Jesus) So the context of the entire book is not entirely relevant to VOTING, and is relevant to the actions of the CHURCH... the 11th chapter is related to WORSHIP... do you also believe that it commands women to have their head covered? That a man should not have long hair?
#3: The point of the link was to get you to learn- and what you were SUPPOSED to learn was that Women ARE NOT THE ENEMY... they are not yours to subjugate, to order around, to "own"... because that's they way you are coming across. I tried to guide you to the right path, but apparently we need to be a bit more obvious. The enemy uses things like this to cause division, to divide husband and wife, to pit them against each other without knowing that they are being manipulated. That was the entire point of the Ezer Kenegdo article- a husband and wife should be partners... there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her.
#4 If you really believe your wife should follow you without question, then why wouldn't you want her to vote- you get 2 votes that way
#1 I do not believe many here can read Greek, so I posted in English. It is not a long quote, and I can PM you the original Greek if you wish. It will not change the meaning I assure you.
#2 Take your own advice and pay attention to the context of my post. Funny you should bring up veils. Have you been reading ahead? http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/74-2/
#3 So, now you are telling me what I am "SUPPOSED to learn?" And because I disagree (not as much as you may think) with you, you are now going to educate me further. Please. I must say I am impressed with the level of arrogance you have achieved.
#3-4 Please point out where I posted anything along the lines of, "subjugating, ordering around, or owning" a wife. Feel free to search my posts on other threads as well. Just one instance will suffice.
Before you mounted your high-horse and took on the task of enlightening me, perhaps you should have taken the time to read what I actually posted. You will probably be surprised to find that I completely agree with your statement of:
"...there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her."
The "partnership" part however implies complete equality. It's not meant to be quite like that.
Which brings us back to my point concerning voting - (In general terms) Women are motivated differently than men. This difference is incompatible with sound governing. Men have a natural God-given ability to lead. Women do not. Ann Barnhardt's eloquence is magnitudes above mine, but I try.
The feminization of society is a primary cause of its downfall. Men are no longer expected to act like men - In fact, they are encouraged to act/feel like women. Women are encouraged to act/fight like men. There is now such a complete blurring of the lines between men and women, and it is not meant to be this way.
Men and Women are different both physically and mentally. Each sex has their strengths and their weaknesses. These differences should be magnified and celebrated, not suppressed and denigrated. It is what makes a marriage and family work - always has been - always will be. The enemy is blurring the lines on purpose. Stop falling for it.
I was not offended, I just pointed out that you didn't know jack about Ransomed Heart ministries based on your statement- you formed a bigoted opinion, and ran with it.
I don't agree with Ms. Barnhardt's religious views, but I respect her right to believe it. I don't think you respect other people in that way, but I could be wrong.
Personally, I see it more like returning to the early Christian church by throwing away centuries of doctrine, dogma and idolatry that was injected into religion by MEN. Man has always corrupted religion to use it for their own gain- look at how Jesus confronted the Pharisees... Catholicism is one large organization that I think lost track centuries ago- I understand the tradition, the long history, but I can't agree with the doctrine... but that's a whole other discussion that I'm not trying to start.
You stated that there was "Not a lot of room for (mis)translation." and that I should be assured it was simple to translate, I simply stated that it was already translated- and interpreted when it was translated. I am not an expert on Ancient Greek, nor do I claim to be- for some reason I'm not very assured... I don't know why (just being honest, your demeanor, perhaps?)
I brought up veils, because I thought you'd bite and further reveal your idolatry (yep, he went there)... and Ms. Barnhardt is making a leap by claiming that allowing women to vote is responsible for undermining a man's authority over his household- if that's all it took, then it was very fragile to begin with.
I'm amused that you're impressed, because my entire intention here was to emulate your arrogance towards my "new age bee ess" link.
I thought I'd just see how you think your medicine tastes... I could have just gone after Ms. Barnhardt, but that seemed too easy.
In case you didn't notice, not a lot of people were buying what you were selling here- perhaps it was your eloquent language, or your condescending attitude.
Hmm, suggesting they be stripped of constitutional rights in order to control them? Certainly that's a form of subjugation- I tend to run all "religious" doctrine, dogma, etc through a "control" filter. You look at the fruit- if the primary purpose of it is to control people, then is it likely to be used for evil? In nearly all cases, I would err on the side of freedom. I don't consider any church immune from corruption and mis-use of power, since they are run by man.
I'm highly amused that you think I was on my "high-horse" for suggesting you read something from a ministry, yet you started this thread from a blog that's run by a single female Catholic and have suggest that I didn't read it, and then suggest I read further about veils... No amount of me reading Ms. Barnhardt will lead to me agreeing with her, I'm afraid. Most of her blog entries I start out agreeing with her, and then at some point she starts about doctrine intended to control and create power and she loses me completely.
I'll agree that we are mostly close here- but I'll take issue with your statement that "Men have a natural God-given ability to lead. Women do not." I'll agree with your next statement that you lack some eloquence, tho...
I think I know what you're trying to say here, but the WAY you're saying it is just devisive- it doesn't convince anybody, it just makes you sound like a misogynist.
There are certainly many men that lack the ability to lead- perhaps it is because they have become "feminized" as you put it, or they lack self-confidence required to inspire.
There are also some women that are leaders (Joan of Arc comes to mind)... so making a statement that generalizes ALL men and ALL women is just not accurate.
You and Ms. Barnhardt completely lost me in the second paragraph of what you quoted- "effectively castrated" because my wife can vote? really? Allowing her to exercise a constitutional right that I also have is effectively removing my testicles? She's basically saying "well, that's it- we let those women-folk vote, now we're all going to hell in a handbasket!" If allowing my wife to perform a civic duty by helping to choose elected officials completely undermines my authority in my household, then I really didn't have any to begin with... I'm not threatened by it, and I don't consider my wife my "adversary", or even a "co-husband" because the government recognizes her right to vote. I don't see how it nullifies my ability or authority to decide what's right for my family (including my wife). To tell you the truth, my wife looks to me for information on how to vote- we discuss it together, and fill out our mail-in ballots (can't stand going to the polls) and send them in- it's something we do together, it doesn't drive us apart.
I know I'm late to responding, and the thread has gone in a completly different direction- but I did not have time to respond earlier with life being lived.
Last edited by 68Charger; 08-22-2013 at 07:31.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
From reading your other posts, I'd expect nothing more. The bar is low.
I will not abide this abomination. (1224)
OP, how long have you been married?
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
If it is any consolation, there were serious arguments, lead by John Adams, during the drafting of our Constitution granting equal rights and suffrage to women.. Example:
Ref: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch13s10.html
"But let us first Suppose, that the whole Community of every Age, Rank, Sex, and Condition, has a Right to vote. This Community, is assembled--a Motion is made and carried by a Majority of one Voice. The Minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the Right of the Majority to govern, and the Obligation of the Minority to obey? from Necessity, you will Say, because there can be no other Rule. But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary Nurture of their Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. And Children have not Judgment or Will of their own. True. But will not these Reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that Men in general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property, are also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own? If this is a Fact, if you give to every Man, who has no Property, a Vote, will you not make a fine encouraging Provision for Corruption by your fundamental Law? Such is the Frailty of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds to his Interest."
So I believe the writer of the article, and especially the arguments of biblical passages, are inane to say the least. Then again, I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night!
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill
“It is well for that citizenry of nation are not understand banking and money system, if they are, I believe there would be revolution before Tuesday morning.” Henry Ford
My feedback: http://www.ar-15.co/threads/33234-lt-MADDOG-gt
Excellent point.
It amazes me how many people today deny that the United States (Constitution) was founded on religious principles - While at the same time singing praises to our founding fathers. History escapes most.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
Umm, where do you see that in that language he is supporting your argument in regards in to women's rights? Spin much?
And while most of the founding fathers were indeed religious, they too knew history; which is why there is no mention of religion in the Constitution with the exception of the 1st Amendment, which pretty much nullifies your comment...
I am under the impression by your posts that you are predisposed to your beliefs, regardless of facts that may counter them; so I'll end it here before I expend any more of my time.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill
“It is well for that citizenry of nation are not understand banking and money system, if they are, I believe there would be revolution before Tuesday morning.” Henry Ford
My feedback: http://www.ar-15.co/threads/33234-lt-MADDOG-gt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
