Eye opener: no he’s not. It’s all an illusion. The banks created two super parties and then backed both of them. It doesn’t matter who you choose. They pick the puppets and let you cast your vote. Sadly some people think it’s a fair election. Neither the liberals or conservatives will ever back some wildcard. They allow whoever to step up knowing full well they have the winner. Both parties have probably been grooming their candidates for the last twenty years. Nobody just runs and wins. It’s an invitation, not left to chance.
Women Equality
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
kaylagrl
Guest
No, sorry, I utterly disagree. If you don't think Trump winning didn't put everyone in a tailspin and catch everyone by surprise you haven't been watching news for the past 3yrs. They're still in a full on temper tantrum and trying to get him out of office
Except everything you just said doesn't fit the last election. Everyone thought Trump was a joke including the Republican party.
Regardless if your conspiracy theory is true. I'm happy with the President.
Of course Trump won. Hilary was psychotic. It’s all smoke and mirrors. None of those people live in the real world. The game of politics isn’t about making positive change, it’s about getting elected. If it was a fair election there wouldn’t be parties. There would just be leaders. You pick the best candidate, not based on party, but merit. Jimmy Nobody who would be the best never even gets a chance because he doesn’t have the infrastructure nor finances. It’s just rigged.
The words "I do not" indicates that this was Paul's opinion. God did not say "I do not permit" but rather Paul. God may or may not permit but this passage is merely Paul's personal opinion on the matter of women in positions of authority over men or being allowed to teach.
Correct. Most people do not know that Radical Feminism is an offshoot of godless Communism. Communisms's goals have always been to destroy societies from within, and since the family unit is the most basic unit of any society, if they can destroy families through Feminism, then they have achieved their goals. In all Communist countries, the governments pit family members against each other. As a result there are more broken families in America than not, and more single fathers and mothers than not. And broken families result in crimes committed by children without parental guidance and support. Which then leads to the drug culture, and all that goes with it.
Speaking of women's equality in general, Western women are MORE EQUAL than men. Check out the bias against fathers when child custody cases come up. Also women are generally not regarded as abusers, although many are in fact serious abusers. And of course now we know that the #MeTooMovement was a total hypocritical farce. As long as the attacks were against conservatives and/or Christians, there was a *sisterhood*. But they all were photographed as practically naked even while attacking men for responding to their nakedness. However when Liberals and Democrats have been exposed as sexual predators (e.g. Biden), they are *innocent* even if they are guilty. And let's not forget that women were throwing themselves at Weinstein until it became expedient to attack him. They all CHOSE to be with him for their own reasons.
That situation you described is very much illegal and a reflection of poor management.
The apostle Peter already ruled out this kind of nonsensical interpretation. He called ALL of Paul's epistles Scripture -- the Word of God -- not the opinions of men. See 2 Peter 3. And Paul himself affirmed that he was bringing the Word of God to his hearers. So that "I do not" is actually God's and Christ's ruling through Paul.
The laws for the king were in the Torah before Israel pressed for a king. If They hadn't asked for Saul, does that really mean there would have been no Davidic dynasty through Whom the promised Messiah came. Israel may have jumped the gun, but it's speculation to think about what may have been.
But in any case, there isn't really democracy in the Bible. The closest thing is rule by the elders, but the older men, leaders of tribes and such.
T
TheIndianGirl
Guest
On women voting, if women pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote. Or if women are not allowed to vote, should they be obligated to pay taxes?
Ironic is you making that statement with over 1400 posts.
But you don't really know why people choose to be here. Some may have crippling social anxiety and if it weren't for the internet they may barely talk to anyone at all.
Others, no doubt, have physical disabilities that make it hard to get out and meet people.
Nor do you know how much people interact offline. It may be plenty.
Also different people have different needs. I, for one, don't care for a lot of social interaction. Being online allows me get much of what I need, that would otherwise be uncomfortable to me. And when I get close enough to some people I will talk to them in other ways.
Also forum chatting is a much different creature and allows for more thought to be put into everything someone says. This allows for richer, more thoughtful discussions.
Interacting with people no longer needs to be limited to one thing. Communication is not one size fits all.
This thing you criticize for lacking intimacy may be someone else's lifeline.
Usually when tribes are ruled by elders, older men etc., the women need pay no taxes. Neither do they need to engage in men's work. Women's work in such societies is to stay home, look after the household, and give birth to children. Seems to work well for everyone (except the greedy and lazy kind who tend to thrive on government bureaucracy).
Yeah, Oh I already once. What do want, blood! LOl. Just read my other post.
'Women's equality' in it's present form is only viable because of the benevolence, or perhaps in some cases misguidance benevolent intentions, of men allow it to exist.
Back when the vast majority of men were working the fields, behind the plough if they were wealthy enough to have a beast of burden, there was not a big move toward equality in the workforce. Women took care of the little ones in the home, prepared food, and made clothing. Men worked out in the hot sun. Looking back over history, feminists can point to the very tiny percentage of people who did the ruling and controlled most of the wealth, who tended to be male. But the vast majority of men did not wield great power or huge amounts of wealth. Repainting history as a story of men oppressing women by virture of their controllling wealth and power is an inacccurate way of viewing the past.
S
Susanna
Guest
Maybe you should elaborate on what women’s equality in its present form is?
Then you perhaps should explain what you mean by saying men allow it to exist.
T
TheIndianGirl
Guest
Women staying at home, not working, for her whole life is not practical nowadays, especially in urban areas. People need two incomes, it is the difference between struggling financially versus being comfortable. Being in a marriage where the couple is struggling financially leads to other problems. I guess I would not mind being a housewife if the financial situation is comfortable, where we are not budgeting for every single item, there is money to spend on kids' hobbies like sports or music, have money to eat out sometimes, etc. The other issue is if the husband gets laid off, what happens then? It is for the benefit of both spouses if both work, but I understand if the mom wants to take a few years off to raise the child, if they can afford it.
That’s a valid point. We know what the blueprint looked like in the 60s. What it evolved into is hard to say. All I can tell you is that it went from, “We are women hear us roar!” to, “Happy wife, happy life!” Somewhere along the way they went from burning their bras to wearing yoga pants. It’s all so confusing.
We've seen women getting 'minority scholarships' and now women outnumber men in universities. The government has pushed for equality in marriage, but now we see a majority of no-fault divorces filed by women, and in many cases, the state gives the children to the woman and requires a steady stream of income, bleeding him dry financially. Now, masculinity is seen as 'toxic' and there has been a move toward accepting a woman's word against a man with no further proof, and he could lose his job, reputation, etc. In some jurisdictions, if there is a domestic violence call, the police haul someone off in handcuffs, and they may choose the man whether he is the one at fault or not.
So the 'equality' hasn't always worked out that way for men. Men were the ones who voted in women's right to vote. When there are a serious of social or political changes and upheavals, which have happened and will happen until Christ returns, it seems unlikely to me that egalitarianism toward gender will survive. It is possible that Christ could return before such changes occur.