Repeal the 19th Amendment

[68Charger]

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.

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.

#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.

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?)

#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/

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.

#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..

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.

#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.

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.

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'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.

[Ronin13]

I'll just say this, and comment no more on the subject-
If someone here thinks we should adhere completely to a book written 2,000 years ago (roughly), as written, despite all the ideas that are clearly out-of-date (owning slaves, women are 2nd class citizens, etc,) then you cannot get angry with those who want to adhere to the mind-numbing and violent rhetoric of a "prophet" from years gone by (See: Mohammad and Islam).

I see it this way- the bible is a good map, but should not be adhered to 100% and is not the end all be all say on all matters. Then again, I question and steer away from any religious zealots that are "true believers."

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

I'll just say this, and comment no more on the subject-
If someone here thinks we should adhere completely to a book written 2,000 years ago (roughly), as written, despite all the ideas that are clearly out-of-date (owning slaves, women are 2nd class citizens, etc,) then you cannot get angry with those who want to adhere to the mind-numbing and violent rhetoric of a "prophet" from years gone by (See: Mohammad and Islam).

I see it this way- the bible is a good map, but should not be adhered to 100% and is not the end all be all say on all matters. Then again, I question and steer away from any religious zealots that are "true believers."

Some people say similar things about the 2nd amendment...

[davsel]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...28&version=DRA

Acts 28
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.

24 And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not.

25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking this one word: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet,

26 Saying: Go to this people, and say to them: With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.

27 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut; lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore to you, that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.

[<MADDOG>]

[Rucker61]

What did Jesus have to say about men and women?

[centrarchidae]

Maybe, but once USDA starts writing checks and BLM starts leasing grazing land at a quarter of the free-market rate, they ain't exactly limited-government people anymore.

it would have put the brakes on the liberalism too. i dont personally know any liberal ranchers or farmers. Im not saying they dont exist, but I never met one in 40+ years. Also, I have never met a rancher or farmer who listens to rap or wear skinny jeans, so there maybe some extra benefits too.

[68Charger]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...28&version=DRA

Acts 28
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.

24 And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not.

25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking this one word: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet,

26 Saying: Go to this people, and say to them: With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.

27 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut; lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore to you, that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.

I'll use the Douay-Rheims edition, since you seem to favor it:

Romans 16:17-18

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


¹⁷ Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

¹⁸ For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.

2 Corinthians 2:5-11

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


⁵ And if any one have caused grief, he hath not grieved me; but in part, that I may not burden you all.
⁶ To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient, which is given by many:

⁷ So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

⁸ Wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your charity towards him.

⁹ For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things.

¹⁰ And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

¹¹ That we be not overreached by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices.

[ringhilt]

If you want to have a serious discussion about who gets to vote, forget about owning land, forget about any religious principles. The right to vote should come down to who has responsibilities in society and who does not.
Men have rightfully earned their right to vote by being productive members of society who also have obligations to society. Women were given their right to vote without any obligations to society. Men are required (by law and social convention) to man up and take care of their spouse and/or any children they father. Women do not have this mandatory obligation. Women have options. Their body, their choice. Men are required by law to register for the draft at age 18. Women are not. Men get drafted during war time, women do not. Women have options. This is not to say women do not contribute greatly to society. They do. But, women simply do not have the same obligations and responsibilities as men. Society bends over backwards to help women at every turn with affirmative action, shelters, job assistance. Even social convention says we are required to help women. Its women and children first. When the Titanic went down and there were not enough life boats. Who were the majority of deaths? Men.

When women cowgirl up and take on the same responsibilities and obligations as men, then absolutely YES, give them the right to vote. I know and work with many women that will make smart choices and provide a different viewpoint from my own. The feminine side of things. But women need to have skin in the game just as men do in order to vote.

I would even extend this to those who are on public assistance. For the year(s) you are on public assistance you do not get to vote at all. When you get off public assistance, you get your right to vote back. why you may ask? Well if you are on public assistance what are you going to vote for? More money from the public treasury.
If we restricted voting to those who have responsibilities and obligations to society we wouldn't have so much of this bleeding heart liberal crap. Those with skin in the game will carefully consider their votes and what direction they steer the country. Those who receive largess from the government dole will invariably vote for more largess from the government. And once they outnumber the productive class, it is a death spiral into oblivion.
And we might just be there already.

My $1.02 worth.

[Rucker61]

If you want to have a serious discussion about who gets to vote, forget about owning land, forget about any religious principles. The right to vote should come down to who has responsibilities in society and who does not.
Men have rightfully earned their right to vote by being productive members of society who also have obligations to society. Women were given their right to vote without any obligations to society. Men are required (by law and social convention) to man up and take care of their spouse and/or any children they father. Women do not have this mandatory obligation. Women have options. Their body, their choice. Men are required by law to register for the draft at age 18. Women are not. Men get drafted during war time, women do not. Women have options. This is not to say women do not contribute greatly to society. They do. But, women simply do not have the same obligations and responsibilities as men. Society bends over backwards to help women at every turn with affirmative action, shelters, job assistance. Even social convention says we are required to help women. Its women and children first. When the Titanic went down and there were not enough life boats. Who were the majority of deaths? Men.

When women cowgirl up and take on the same responsibilities and obligations as men, then absolutely YES, give them the right to vote. I know and work with many women that will make smart choices and provide a different viewpoint from my own. The feminine side of things. But women need to have skin in the game just as men do in order to vote.

I would even extend this to those who are on public assistance. For the year(s) you are on public assistance you do not get to vote at all. When you get off public assistance, you get your right to vote back. why you may ask? Well if you are on public assistance what are you going to vote for? More money from the public treasury.
If we restricted voting to those who have responsibilities and obligations to society we wouldn't have so much of this bleeding heart liberal crap. Those with skin in the game will carefully consider their votes and what direction they steer the country. Those who receive largess from the government dole will invariably vote for more largess from the government. And once they outnumber the productive class, it is a death spiral into oblivion.
And we might just be there already.

My $1.02 worth.

Jerry Pournelle, science fiction writer, stated it more simply: if you pay taxes, you vote.