Repeal the 19th Amendment

[68Charger]

I think it is a crock of New-Age Bee Ess.
Suggesting I receive my understanding of God's word from a wealthy mini-ministry that caters to empowering women, instead of from the Bible, is laughable.
I suggest you put down the latest best seller and try reading straight from the good book.

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?

1 Corinthians 11
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

11 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

[/INDENT]Not a lot of room for (mis)translation.

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)

[68Charger]

Another thing that is lost on knuckleheads... if men are the "head" of their wives......

Is the fall not the responsibility of men? If Adam wasn't a pussy, wouldn't the entire biblical story not have happened? Isn't it his responsibility to LEAD and not follow? To say, what the f you holding there eve, no I'm not eatin' that shit!

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you are the head of the department and responsible for all actions thereunder, or your not.

If you want to be a man, you better not think of a woman as your bi--h. Corinthians 11 is one of several that establish that you are to treat your wife as christ treats you.

How many of you actually do that? You're wife burns something on the stove, you bitch her out. She wants to do something wrong, you go along with it and then give the blame thereafter. Thats the conduct of modern man, its not "biblical" but they want to pretend it is.

People are idiots.

AMEN!
Very well put, trot...

Many men in the church will blame Eve (and therefore all women) for original Sin...
But where was Adam when Eve ate from the apple?
There has been debate about this- but I believe the original Hebrew indicates he was "With her", the previous verses in chapter 3 indicate "you" and "we", implying they were together.

So Adam went passive, watched his wife sin without intervening, and then participated himself. He's just as guilty.

[davsel]

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

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.

#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.

[Rucker61]

OP, how long have you been married?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I am fairly certain you posted without reading the article cited above.
I am also fairly certain you have not spent much time studying the Bible; specifically what it teaches in regards to roles of men and women, husbands and wives.
Therefore, your uninformed opinion holds little weight.

I do not understand why people do not recognize the differences between men and women, and instead, pass laws to suppress this obvious fact. Truly amazes me how many people go along with it. Just one more sign of society's downfall.

Are you advocating some sort of "Christian Sharia?" Merely being provocative for discussion?
I'm seriously confused.

You'd want to repeal 19, but what about 1?

[<MADDOG>]

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!

[cysoto]

It's refreshing to see that misogyny is alive and well in the 21st century...

[Jamnanc]

Umm. In bible times, men were at war a lot of the time. They had several wives. The wives ran businesses for the family and themselves.

Proverbs 31:10
King James Version (KJV)

¹⁰ Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
¹¹ The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
¹² She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
¹³ She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
¹⁴ She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
¹⁵ She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
¹⁶ She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
¹⁷ She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
¹⁸ She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
¹⁹ She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
²⁰ She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
²¹ She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
²² She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
²³ Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
²⁴ She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
²⁵ Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
²⁶ She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
²⁷ She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
²⁸ Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
²⁹ Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
³⁰ Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth theLord, she shall be praised.
³¹ Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.


Doesn't sound like bigotry to me. Just sayin

eta: I don't support the repeal of the 19th amendment, but do think that much damage was caused to women's quality of life during ww2. Women became a large part of the work force causing more competition for jobs, eventually causing the need for most women to work outside the home and negatively impacting the historic family unit.

[Jamnanc]

Another thing that is lost on knuckleheads... if men are the "head" of their wives......

Is the fall not the responsibility of men? If Adam wasn't a pussy, wouldn't the entire biblical story not have happened? Isn't it his responsibility to LEAD and not follow? To say, what the f you holding there eve, no I'm not eatin' that shit!

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you are the head of the department and responsible for all actions thereunder, or your not.

If you want to be a man, you better not think of a woman as your bi--h. Corinthians 11 is one of several that establish that you are to treat your wife as christ treats you.

How many of you actually do that? You're wife burns something on the stove, you bitch her out. She wants to do something wrong, you go along with it and then give the blame thereafter. Thats the conduct of modern man, its not "biblical" but they want to pretend it is.

People are idiots.

Easy answer...yes. And if you think of your wife as your bitch, your doing it wrong.

[davsel]

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!

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