Nate Silver has compared, if only women voted and if only men voted, percentages. You can see the impact of women on the vote.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
The Male and the Female Vote
I don't want to preempt my own post from Wednesday with this little one, so please read yesterday's posting HERE.
Nate Silver has compared, if only women voted and if only men voted, percentages. You can see the impact of women on the vote.
Does this mean anything scripturally? Should Christians take this into consideration?
Nate Silver has compared, if only women voted and if only men voted, percentages. You can see the impact of women on the vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
No and No.
So anonymous,
It means nothing to a Christian that women aren't following male leadership? That's not in the Bible?
The burden would be on you to prove that according to the Bible a group of largely unregenerate female voters are to follow the leadership of a group of largely unregenerate male voters.
"Mordecai, call your office - Nabal wants a consultancy position."
Anonymous,
Before I get into an answer -- you're anonymity is fitting for having a woman rule over you. You'll get what you, you personally, deserve in having a woman as your ruler.
Male rule is God's design whether saved or unsaved. Man is still better off following God's design.
Isaiah 3:12, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." This is against God's design, women ruling over them.
The arguments in 1 Timothy 2:9-12 and 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 are based on creation order. God created the man to head the woman. Women are not usurp authority over men, and Paul's argument is creation order. "Adam was first formed, then Eve." His argument was general, for all men and all women. Same in 1 Corinthians 11.
We can start there.
Two more things,
God created the woman with a natural vulnerability, the woman was deceived in Gen 3, not the man, according to 1 Tim 2:14. Man fell, why? Because he hearkened unto the voice of his wife. He reversed God's design. This is the reason why women didn't vote until 1920. Do you think they were just less evolved people or backwards, and we've progressed with women being in charge? You can be politically correct and embrace that and admire yourself, but you'll still face God.
By the way, scripture teaches male and female equality, but not in their roles. You are the one who believes the female role is inferior or else you would be supporting what I'm saying.
For anonymous, here are some average unregenerate people. Let's see what they think:
Esther 1:15-18 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains? (16) And Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus. (17) For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. (18) Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath.
Whelp...
I'm almost forgetting that you probably voted for Meg Whitman for governor in 2010.
Where did I indicate I disagree with you, anyway? I only wrote that the burden was on you. Are you meeting it?
**Anonymous posters {}DESERVE{} to have women rule them**.........How so, pray tell? Does the Bible say this, too in addition to everything else I'm learning here for the first time? This is becoming a most educational discussion.
So FB apparently thinks that Esther 1 establishes that according to the Bible a group of largely unregenerate female voters are to follow the leadership of a group of largely unregenerate male voters (in their voting). Can he explain?
BTW, there are more women than men who vote every election, so we are ruled by women, contrary to Isaiah 3:12.
Anonymous wrote: "So FB apparently thinks that Esther 1 establishes that according to the Bible a group of largely unregenerate female voters are to follow the leadership of a group of largely unregenerate male voters (in their voting)"
No, I was showing that even the lost know the order of creation. For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Notice, it was not that Vashti was not following her king, it was that she was not following her husband that concerned them. Memucan did not say people would despise the king or his laws, but that women would despise their husbands.
Even though these were unbelievers, they knew that was a big problem. Every civilized society has known women follow their men, whether it is father or husband. That is why women voting is a problem. In a civilized society, it would just mean the married men would get two votes. In an uncivilized society, it means women will not vote with their heads, but on their own. It is easy to imagine the devastation, just look at America.
Anonymous,
It would be better if you just dealt with the arguments, since you asked for them.
The New Testament uses creation order as a basis for women submitting to male headship. My argument was about the women having the authority in the country. They've had it for awhile if you look at the elections. I added a graphic above in the article to help you understand.
I apologize for the first comment, which I changed, because I did say deserve. I didn't read far enough. I'm not allowing any more anonymous comments from you though. You can come back with your name. Yes, you deserve what you get.
Should women vote in elections?
Brian
Brian,
Are you the formerly anonymous person? That's a very short question that would require more than a yes or no answer. They shouldn't be voting, because it abrogates male headship and usurps male authority. If they vote the same as dad/husband, it doesn't.
I am a single woman whose father passed away in 2012. Can I vote? What are my options?
Celia Bechtel
Hi Celia,
Since the 19th amendment was passed in 1920, you can if you're at least 18 years old and a registered voter. Someday when Jesus sets up His kingdom on the earth, none of us will be voting. Do you think people will feel disenfranchised and wish they weren't in the kingdom?
Pastor Brandenburg, the 2nd half of your answer/question really doesn't apply to the present. Of course, when Jesus sets up his kingdom and rules over it, there will be no need for voting, and I don't believe anyone in the kingdom will feel it's necessary. I suspect it will be a different form of government than any have experienced save perhaps Adam and Eve in their unfallen state. That doesn't help those of us who live in an earthly republic where we have other rulers, and where the laws specify that women can both vote and run for office. If we follow the rules of this land, are women of voting age abdicating their responsibility if they don't vote? Are you saying they are disobeying scripture if they vote or hold office?
How would you apply this in your own family and church? Are women in your family and church allowed to vote? If so, do they vote only in accordance with their husbands and fathers? And (as in the question above) what about single women whose fathers have passed on? What should they do? I ask this not as a "gotcha" question -- I'm genuinely interested to know if this is something you are committed to strongly enough to make a policy for, or if it's just what you believe would be best, though allowing what our laws permit. Is this something that would be permitted, but only because of the "hardness of our hearts?" What would you say to a woman holding elected or judicial office who began to attend your church? Would she be allowed to continue in office and join your church? Given what you have stated above, we might be able to guess your answers to these questions, but we might be way off too.
Of course, the true ruler in the USA is the law (which won't be the case in the kingdom), and even our elected officials are (at least in theory) subject to the law and the people. That might change the equation somewhat, though you might still be against any women having a voice in making/passing/interpreting/enforcing the laws.
Hi Dave,
She asked if she could vote with her dad having passed away. She can. Should she? My wife and daughters vote the same as me. Identical on every count, which is I believe the proper application of the Bible for them. Even in our horrible situation today, Hillary wouldn't be winning if everyone did that. Our country would be drastically different if women voted identical to their husbands and fathers.
I asked the question about the kingdom, because women feel ripped off if they can't vote. When none of us are voting in the kingdom will we feel ripped off. I think women should be content following fathers and husbands -- that was my point -- which really is an application of 1 Cor 11.
Regarding our church, our women don't vote. We get the agenda out a week or more early and the women know to ask questions in advance, and that is how their voice is heard. Only men vote in our church. 20 plus years ago, our church, including the women, unanimously voted not to vote.
We don't have any women in office. I would recommend women not to take these positions. At Plebe-Parent weekend at West Point, someone at our table asked if we would send our daughter there. My wife and I laughed and said, "No way." We love the role of the woman. We need men to fulfill their roles and women to fulfill theirs.
Pastor B,
I am somewhat confused, but as I see no way to lessen this I will leave things as-is. Thanks for trying to help.
C. R. Bechtel
C.R.Bechtel,
You asked if you could vote? You can. Is it scriptural for women to vote? It is unscriptural to abrogate male headship. Women can do that through voting.
I hope you will continue to comment on the election from time to time. I am amazed and disheartened at being called a pragmatist for voting Trump when the objective unifying concerns have been the issues in the past at this point. The pragmatists are those embarrassed into political correctness by buzz words rather than disgusted and determined anew to do what we can on abortion (PP, Obamacare, Hyde Amendment, Supreme Court).
So how does this relate to this post. Not only the "abrogate male headship" concept but also in the support of what? Women's rights over and above religious freedom and right to life. The left knew that anything to do with "rape" and "abuse" would send us cowering on one hand and up in arms on the other.
Again, I look forward to more. It's hard to find people willing to remind us of moorings in all of this. The venom among Christians (SI included) makes it difficult to find a place to chat. Last election SI had ample articles reminding us to stick to the issues. This election the posts and comments are about as biased as the media. Who are the pragmatists?
Thanks for your work and words here.
Kayla,
Thanks for your support and encouragement. I will likely write more on the election. I can't wrap my brain around how some people are thinking about this election. It seems like they are throwing away a lot as an American citizen with their faulty thinking. It could be a very close election, influenced by this very narrow group of, I think, bad or wrong thinkers, who would ordinarily vote Republican. It seems to be a symptom of all of society now.
Our nation just voted for the wickedness of SSM. The stats have now been released - The typical SSM yes voter? Female. Suffrage is a judgement and a curse.
Post a Comment