No doubt there will be a few upset MAGAs at your post here. But I have invited them to make a case for why the criminal candidate is the superior option for America and the world, and they can't do it. They tend to default into false criticism of Harris.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Women: What happens in the voting booth, stays in the voting booth
- Thread starter anna.
- Start date
... or more than half the women who have had abortions have had on one so far.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I might disagree with you on this a bit. I like to sometimes compare slavery to prostitution. Most of us would hate to be either.
If I was in a position of authority where I could set the laws and tell a person where they could hire a prostitute. Whose services you could buy and whose you could not. What you would expect to pay for those services. How long those services would last. How you could treat the prostitute (and not very nicely if we go by what the Bible says about slaves), it would be pretty difficult for me to then claim "But I am not for prostitution". The Bible, at least the Old Testament, is very pro-slavery. And the New Testament is not much better.
Yep, that's clearly the country's problem: Leftist (sic!) women who try to bully their mates.
This is how the good, decent Baptists of the Confederation of States justified owning humans for forced labor. The liberalism of governing that came out of the Enlightenment saw that Western nations slowly outlawed slavery. the USA, a highly Christian nation, was slower at adopting this attitude. It lead to a civil war to settle the social and political conflict.
But Christians still didn't learn about human rights. The Catholics and Lutherans of Nazi Germany had no problem arresting Jews, confining them is inhumane conditions, and then executing them to resolve their existence being a "problem". I wonder how they interpreted the Bible that allowed them to justify such actions. No doubt a similar flexibility in interpretation allows them to limit rights to women, and justify voting for a criminal guilty of sexual assault. The post by @wellwisher illustrates the corruption of Christian extremism on American society.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I definitely see where you are coming from.
When I said the bible doesn't promote slavery I said it as in the bible doesn't outright tell people to turn others into slaves (or at least it doesn't instruct the average Joe into doing so). But I can see why providing a legal framework where slavery is an acceptable practice can also be considered as promoting slavery.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a rather useful way of arguing the point. You could ask a Christian if that is promoting prostitution. In the past the feds have closed websites that only did part of that due to their claims that they were promoting prostitution by allowing women to advertise their services on them. Of course it did not help one businesses defense that sometimes the "women" that were advertised there were said to be not of age. That was the big no no that caused the feds to step in.
My housemate's son was having drug problems back when Backpage was a website for such services. His girlfriend use to "escort" for him When mama could not keep track of him looking for his girlfriend allowed us to know if they were okay or not. And yes, they were found guilty of promoting prostitution:
Backpage Principals Convicted of $500M Prostitution Promotion Scheme
A federal jury in Phoenix convicted three former owners of Backpage.com yesterday of multiple counts of promoting prostitution business enterprises and multiple counts of money laundering, including conspiracy offenses.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I hope you understood that my comments were directed to whoever put the ad together, not any woman in particular. The ad had a purpose, which was to persuade a certain demographic of women to vote for Harris. How well it did that was my only concern.
Incidentally, I understand your reaction, I just had two women, one of whom had no direct connection to the matter, give me what amounted to a direct order as to how I should do something (doesn't matter what). I reacted similarly to that.
Yes, it would be sensible to include women in the process. My understanding is that advertisers spend a lot of time designing their ads, with one objective in mind. Will the ad persuade the target demographic to buy the product? If including women in the process furthers that end then that's what they should do. Did you watch the show "Mad Men"? I stopped watching because of how the women were treated. Yes, "it's just a show" but it annoyed me. The show was set in the 1960's and hopefully things have changed.
Edit: I've found some info to start:
Vote Common Good aims to provide an “exit ramp” for Evangelical and Catholic voters who “have been taught that to be faithful, they must vote for Republican candidates regardless of the candidate’s character or policy positions,” the organization explains on its website.
Julia Roberts Says ‘Women Still Have a Right to Choose’ in Voting Booths, Even if Their Husbands Support Trump: ‘No One Will Ever Know’ How You Vote
Julia Roberts says women have the right to choose any candidate in the voting booth, regardless of what their husbands think.variety.com
Vote Common Good
Vote Common Good is inspiring, energizing, and mobilizing people of faith to make the common good their voting criteria. And, we train and support candidates to connect with Evangelical and Catholic voters.www.votecommongood.com
But I haven't found anything on how the ad came together.
You probably won't. I don't think they (advertisers in general) are too forthcoming on that, for various reasons. Vote Common Good seems to have produced the ads, they say "our ad".
Incidentally, my interest in advertising goes back to a book The Hidden Persuaders (1957 by Vance Packard. I read it when it came out or soon after and was shocked to learn how much the ad industry manipulated us through subconscious triggers. I imagine they have become much better at it since then.
The verses cherry picked by some people in this thread (people who really lack expertise in quoting scripture) are not intended to put men forward as superior. They are about religious marriage and are spoken to a particular group in response to a letter we do not possess. The letters we have do not explain explicitly why men are in charge, but they do not belittle women either; and we can interpolate why the men are in charge and that it has nothing to do with any superiority. The Jewish law does make a distinction with varying distinct values for people of differing ages and sexes, but this is ignored in Christianity. In Christianity the previous difference is specifically set aside as not Christian with Paul stating there is neither male nor female in Christ. It is not Paul who starts this, however, but Jesus who talks directly with women and his teacher John the Baptist who (I think) baptizes them. Notice Jesus has female disciples? That should not be the case if he considers males to be superior. Also we know why the 12 apostles are males, and its because they are emissaries to the twelve Jewish tribes. After them come female apostles such as Junias.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I find it funny that you accuse others of cherry picking when you do it yourself. There are multiple references to different guidelines being provided to women and men through the New Testament. But you ignore that to pick the one case that could be possibly interpreted as there being no difference between women and men.
Once again cherry picking. Junias is only referred once in the entire bible and it is unclear whether she is an apostle at all. There is also no reference to any other female apostle.
Last edited:
Yep. Big eyeroll from me.
I think if you dug a little deeper and looked into the Jewish understanding, you would come to a different perspective on Leviticus and Numbers. If you studied the why’s to the different applications of what you call “spoils”, you would also have a different perspective.
Then you also have to deal with two testaments since the new removes the old.
The Exodus
Abolitionists did get their positions from the Bible.
And the verses before it.
That wives have to vote how their husband tell them, for one.
Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
Ephesians 5:21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.
Is there a reason why in a marriage we should not come into a loving agreement?
You didn’t debunk my position with any credible logic.
It is what “seems” to be what you are suggesting?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I find it curious that you refer to the existence of a given jewish understanding (which you don't even specify) and at the next sentence you refer to the New Testament removing the Old which is obviously not a jewish perspective.
Like Exodus 21 where some of the rules for slavery are specified therefore allowing slavery under those conditions?
None of which support your position.
The fact that you dislike the conclusion doesn't mean it is not accurate.
Absolutely none of that entails that a loving agreement is necessary when making decisions in the context of a marriage. Obviously I don't mean that such an agreement is undesirable either.
I did. I have already explained what Romans 14 is about. It is about disputable matters of faith as clearly stated in the very first verse. One group thought they had to do eat a certain way, else they would be eating unclean food and acting contrary to God's will. The other group felt differently towards food. The solution provided in Romans 14 is to let people act in accordance to what they believe to be in accordance to God's will. This has absolutely nothing to do with disputable matters of politics.
If you dislike what God commands and wanna call it a dictatorship, feel free to take it up to him.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
No, I never saw Mad Men, but I've heard that aspect of it. If I ever did watch it, I would want to see if the show was presenting sexism as something to be skewered, and if so if they did it well. Otherwise, I wouldn't watch for the same reason you stopped.
Yes, they did produce it, and they formed their organization specifically to create off-ramps for evangelicals. I know that much, but it would be interesting to read sometime what the backstory was on how they created the ad.
Incidentally, my interest in advertising goes back to a book The Hidden Persuaders (1957 by Vance Packard. I read it when it came out or soon after and was shocked to learn how much the ad industry manipulated us through subconscious triggers. I imagine they have become much better at it since then.
I haven't read that, but I have read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, which covered ad industry manipulation. If you're aware you're the target, you can resist better, you have to know why the sugar cereals are shelved in the grocery story at the eye level of kids, and why you have to go to the back of the store to get the dairy essentials you came for. Of course they want you to walk past everything else first. And that's partly why (there are multiple reasons) I'm not on social media. I can't forget "if something is free, you’re the product."
It's OK because she's an autonomous individual and is free to vote for whomever she wants with or without her husband's approval. If she chooses to exercise her freedom and right, she can do it one of two ways - quietly or confrontationally. By your reckoning, if she wants to vote for Harris, she is obligated to incur his wrath.
But then you're an unrepentant sexist who sees women as inferiors who need to submit to their husbands as the following quote confirms:
Your neanderthal ways are for the past. Many have evolved beyond that:
I see you're still trying to whitewash the moral defects in your scriptures. How's that working out? Have you convinced anybody that you're correct?
He was offended that I would find a MAGA to show poor judgment and that I wouldn't trust his judgment as an employee or house/dog sitter.
Recap:
Me: If you vote for Trump, I can't respect you, man or woman, and I am sure that there are many who agree. I also wouldn't trust your judgment in other areas, thus I wouldn't hire you as an employee or to house and dog sit for me, because you either don't know right from wrong or don't care.
He: You just proved my point with your personal attacks. For what its worth, I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire.
He supports the candidate that wants Liz Cheney and now reporters shot. Of course's he's unwelcome in my home, workplace, and life.Moreover, he thinks I made his case and, with his response, I think he made mine. I didn't feel the need to say so upon reading his words, but now that you've called him out on it - and thanks for that - I thought I'd add that opinion now.
Last edited:
In Ephesians, the author gives advice to slaveowners. That advice includes a recommendation not to threaten your slaves, but it doesn't include a recommendation to free them.
I'd say that this is a tacit endorsement.
i’ve lost count. First with my immediate family, then extended family and from there probably over 1,000 at our church over the last 30 years and more in Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras and Peru.
No defects. The defect is in understanding the love of God who loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten son that whosever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life because He didn’t come to condemn the world but to save the world.
Obviously within the context of my signature.
I’m sorry… did I not say “2” issues?
Are you saying you don’t know the Jewish perspective? If you really are interested, have your thought of opening a post asking our Jewish friends on RF for the Jewish perspective? You probably would accept it better from their understanding than mine.
If you don’t like the two Testaments, why do you quote both? If you do accept both, then I stand by my statement.
You asked for one scripture… did you not like it? You know, “Let my people go?"
Only in the recesses of your imagination?
But my conclusions are right.
It sounds like you haven’t had a loving relationship.
I already explained Romans 14. I understand you want to bring a very narrow understanding because the actual application of the last few words doesn’t support your position “ for whatever is not from faith is sin.”. Since it encompasses more that just eating and resting, because "without faith it is impossible to please God” you have to truncate it as you did with Ephesians 5:21 and Genesis 1-3 and the end iin Revelation.
Again… it sounds like you don’t understand a loving relationship. I do support your right to hold onto your viewpoints.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You missed the point.
Either the jewish perspective is authoritative or it is not.
If you were to ask a jew their perspective on the New Testament, they would say it is not actual holy scritpture. Is the jewish perspective authoritative then? If it is not, why do you care about the jewish perspective on Leviticus and Numbers?
Another example of cherry picking. That was an one time event leading to the hebrews getting out of Egypt. As you are well aware, Leviticus and Numbers come after Exodus, and in both of them you will see slavery being allowed. Slavery was not in itself the issue in Exodus, but rather what people were enslaved and under what conditions.
Only in the recesses of your imagination?
But it is
It sounds like you haven’t had a loving relationship.
No arguments to address on any of this.
I have already said the underlying rationale is not applicable merely to dietary matters. It is applicable to disputable matters of faith as clearly said in the text, but not to disputable matters of politics.