The president is in servitude of man.
2007-09-14 04:47:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Leena 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
Um, that's just rather silly and not worth the effort to answer, so I'll stick with the question this should have been instead of the silly anti-christian propoganda question it really is. I wouldn't vote for Hilary, though if we had a decent female candidate, such as Condoleesa Rice running, I'd vote for her. Don't trust any candidate regardless of race or sex, who doesn't stick to their own ethics. Ethics don't change with the popular opinion, so if they're changing their positions often, then they didn't really have any ethics in the first place. We have an overabundance of presidential hopefuls who are flip-flopping all over the place.
2007-09-14 04:52:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Clintons are a pair of serpents. Compare a Margaret Thatcher to a Hillary. One with class, the other just a bichee woman on a power trip.
In the OT it was considered a curse to be ruled by a woman. Many men today, in the home, on a bigger leadership scale, are weak and fail and in rushes a bossy bichee woman to fill the void. Not good. Look at the female leadership today: Hillary, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi...ewwwww!
2007-09-14 04:50:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
ok-- your question made the hair on the back of my neck stand up
i believe that the story of Genesis is just that- a story
i'm not saying that i don't believe in God or that i'm not a spiritual and religious person, but i believe the bible is the word of God written by the hand of man. THE HAND OF MAN is falliable , it can be misled, and it can decieve
even if the first copy of the bible on earth was literally the words that God spoke every copy that has been made, every time it has been translated, every time some else came along and wanted power over others something of the original was lost or added or emphasized
have you ever played grapevine? a group of people can't pass a sentence through ten mouths without losing something-- it's unusual for it to still have the same general meaning much less the same words
now handwrite something a page long and give it to a friend to copy-- repeat ten times and i bet you have something different-- now say that paper is precious, you don't have access to a dictionary, you're reading something written on homemade parchment (if you're lucky) with homemade ink written with a quill/sitck/anything the previous writer had on hand-- tell me how accurate a copy you get after ten times using the same language--
or send a sentence to someone you know who's fluent in another language, have them translate it and send it to some one else
if you send:
I am going to wear my pink dress to the party
and have it translated from english to french- to german- to russian -to spanish- to arabic- to japanese- to madarin chinese and back to english you get something about fishing on a little island in polynisia - we actually did it in high school
and that's what people with comprehensive multi-language dictionaries can do-- not people who had to guess when they came across words they didn't know or recognize
probably not what you wanted to know, but the word servitude set me off
2007-09-14 05:14:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by pkateh 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
At the time of the writing of the Bible there were laws prohibiting women from holding public office and usurping authority over men. Since there are no laws of this kind today, here in America, I would vote for a woman. Also, it was not God's original plan that women should be in servitude to men. If you notice in Genesis also, woman was created from man's rib, which is in his side, so woman was intended to be by a man's side, not beneath or behind him. She was put in the secondary position only as a punishment for her disobedience in the Garden of Eden. If we believe that Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, we must also believe that through faith in Him, we are also restored to our original position in God, and that man and woman were both created in His image and after His likeness.
2007-09-14 04:56:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by beattyb 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I vote for the best candidate in my opinion after research. This is regardless of race, sex, or religion. I would vote for a woman, but there are none running that are qualified in my opinion to hold the nations highest job. My personal opinion of Hilary is not printable on this site. Her recent troubles with criminals even though she gave the money back shows her ineptitude for the presidency.
2007-09-14 04:51:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by aswkingfish 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not so! Eve was formed from a bone taken from Adam's side not from his back-side. She was to be Adam's "help meet". Because she would be the vessel of life she was given the roll of caretaker and homemaker. Adam was to be the provider and protector. There is nothing in the scriptures that I have found that would indicate that a nurturing leader of a nation would be inappropriate. In the home however, the husband has the last say the responsibility for any consequences.
2007-09-14 04:49:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nora Explora 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
No where in the bible does it say a woman is servant to men. God called Eve a help meet for Adam. God put Adam in charge of the garden setting up that man should take care of the things of God while taking care of his family. God set up an order and it works well. It doesn't make men superior to women just that they have different jobs and responsibilities that go with those jobs. Modern churchs allow women preachers against Gods rule and say that maybe God changed his mind. My God, the God of the bible, is unchanging. Follow his laws and you will be fine. God set it up for a reason. IF we change it we say we are smarter than God. I THINK NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-09-14 04:50:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by jesussaves 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Leena's answer was great!
Having a female president has nothing to do with Genesis. By the way, I think you need to reread your Bible as you are misinterpreting.
Here's a good place to start learning how to interpret the Bible: equip.org
2007-09-14 04:49:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by m_c_m_a_n 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think a man may be better suited for the position,
but every candidate must be judged by issues much more important than gender.
And as for Hilary Clinton -
I don't consider her a woman
(she may not even be human).
2007-09-14 04:49:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by no one 5
·
4⤊
0⤋