His Creation Order

[HappyChristian]

Hebrews 11:32
And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, OBtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

34Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.


Happy,
Deborah, the prophetess, prophesied that Barak would not get the glory, right? But the man was STILL WILLING to risk it anyway. Barak was not some sissy who was "hiding behind a woman" He was a man of faith who was not too PROUD to look to God as his helper....and he had the discernment to realize that this woman was a woman who was full of God, and he wanted God's presence in her to be standing on a hillside closeby while he was dodging the spears, arrows, and razorsharp swordblades, getting splattered with guts and gore. The whole point ma'am is that the man was looking to God for help. He was quite aware that a "woman's skirts" could not physically protect him. Furthermore, we have had some men who were willing stand for right and who ran for office but they were not voted in; and the more 'we the people' keep desiring evil things like abortion, those men will not be voted in.

I understand all of that. But he still wouldn't go unless Deborah went with him. And "we the people" don't all desire abortions: that is still a hot button issue that turns elections in many places. I know there have been good men who have run. Some have won and stayed only for a couple of terms. But they are getting fewer and fewer...

[JerryNumbers]

I would never say God made a mistake with Deborah being a judge during the days of the judges. Yet, we have very clear teachings in the New Testament of the position of Christ, man, and woman.

1Co 11:3 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.

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Many of today's people, even Christians, ignores these verses, and proudly put women over men, in church, out of church. God's children never should behave and or go by one set of rules in church, them leave them at the door of their church and behave differently and or go by a different set of rules in the world. We are told to wear the whole amour that we'eve been provided, not to pick and chose.

Of course God gives us the reason for this.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The woman was deceived, and clearly God does not want the woman to be the boss, for she is likely to be deceived and lead them astray of God's way.

Yet if that is not enough, there is even more.

Ge 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

It is true, there is a way that seems right to mankind, they walk in their own ways clearly ignoring God's clear commandments to us.

[heartstrings]

I understand all of that. But he still wouldn't go unless Deborah went with him.[/b] And "we the people" don't all desire abortions: that is still a hot button issue that turns elections in many places. I know there have been good men who have run. Some have won and stayed only for a couple of terms. But they are getting fewer and fewer...

No....
Barak wouldn't go without the help of God....pure and simple.
Deborah was not a "warrior" Happy, She was a prophetess. Do you not understand that one woman......or even one man for that matter..or even "a horse", the Bible says, is no protection in battle without God? Barak was looking to God in faith for the victory and he didn't let PRIDE get in his way. Barak is the one listed in the "Heroes of faith" in Hebrews 11, not Deborah. I have tried to tell you that Barak wouldn't go without her because he was depending on God's help but you won't admit it. You're still trying to paint Barak as a weakwilled wimp...and he was nothing of the kind. He was a God-chosen warrior who, in faith, was looking to God for the victory. Hebrews chapter 11. And you will not find one single time where I have put down Deborah, or her role in this.

[HappyChristian]

No....
Barak wouldn't go without the help of God....pure and simple.
Deborah was not a "warrior" Happy, She was a prophetess. Do you not understand that one woman......or even one man for that matter..or even "a horse", the Bible says, is no protection in battle without God? Barak was looking to God in faith for the victory and he didn't let PRIDE get in his way. Barak is the one listed in the "Heroes of faith" in Hebrews 11, not Deborah. I have tried to tell you that Barak wouldn't go without her because he was depending on God's help but you won't admit it. You're still trying to paint Barak as a weakwilled wimp...and he was nothing of the kind. He was a God-chosen warrior who, in faith, was looking to God for the victory. Hebrews chapter 11. And you will not find one single time where I have put down Deborah, or her role in this.

heart, don't put words in my mouth. I said he was hiding behind Deborah's skirts. If you want to accuse me of trying to paint him as a weakwilled wimp, so be it - although that isn't totally what I'm saying. I suggest you read some commentaries written by MEN who proclaim that Deborah was judge because the men weren't willing to step up to the plate. The fact remains that the Bible says that Barak told her he wouldn't go without her. WITHOUT HER. Please cite the verse that says Barak wouldn't go without the help of God (I still shake my head with wonder: women aren't supposed to be spiritual leaders, but here's Barak demanding she go with him, and it's okay because he only wanted her there because she could speak to God. Hmmmm)

I understand very well that one woman would be no help. And mayhap he did want her there because she could talk to God...but that still puts her above him, whether anyone wants to admit it or not!!! God told HER to call Barak. Why? She was a prophetess and a judge, perhaps that is the lone reason. Who really knows. He still wouldn't go without her...and that is what the BIBLE says, not anything I'm trying to paint.

[CPR]

Yes - both by men from the "status quo" part of the GOP, and both linked to opponents she faced in the primaries.


CPR - I'm not starry eyed about Nikki (perhaps you meant in your state, but I just wanted to let you know ). She's as human as any of the rest of the politicos. But I don't think she's 100% status quo. If she were, they wouldn't have tried to derail her campaign so viciously (the affair accusations). She did vote against the stimulus funds, once she knew how the feds strung them up. Is there someone else there who is running that would do a better jOB?

She was accused of having two affairs, but they were not both linked to opponents. Will Folks is a blogger and used to work for the current governor who is not running because he has reached his term limit of 2 terms. He has actually backed Haley for Governor. (Edited to clarify: Sanford has backed Haley). Larry Marchant did work for Lt. Governor Andre Bauer's campaign, but he was fired as soon as the allegation was made public. Bauer was opposing Haley in the primaries, but he was consistently polling a distant 4th (as he finished) and hurting her campaign wouldn't have helped him win ever.

As far as who would do a better jOB? Her opponent in the general election, Vincent Sheheen, has served in the legislature since 2000 and would bring about the type of cooperation that we need to get the state moving again. I can't stress enough the ability to work with the legislature in SC. The Constitution is specifically written so that the governor has very little power. He/She needs to be able to work with the legislature as it stands or the citizens of SC lose. I'm not saying that Haley definitely couldn't, but many of her statements and actions point to the fact that she will not.

Also, apologies, my "starry eyed" comment wasn't directed at you, just in general. Edited July 12, 2010 by CPR

[heartstrings]

I said he was hiding behind Deborah's skirts. If you want to accuse me of trying to paint him as a weakwilled wimp, so be it - although that isn't totally what I'm saying. If you want to accuse me of trying to paint him as a weakwilled wimp, so be it - although that isn't totally what I'm saying. I suggest you read some commentaries written by MEN who proclaim that Deborah was judge because the men weren't willing to step up to the plate. The fact remains that the Bible says that Barak told her he wouldn't go without her. WITHOUT HER. Please cite the verse that says Barak wouldn't go without the help of God (I still shake my head with wonder: women aren't supposed to be spiritual leaders, but here's Barak demanding she go with him, and it's okay because he only wanted her there because she could speak to God. Hmmmm)

I understand very well that one woman would be no help. And mayhap he did want her there because she could talk to God...but that still puts her above him, whether anyone wants to admit it or not!!! God told HER to call Barak. Why? She was a prophetess and a judge, perhaps that is the lone reason. Who really knows. He still wouldn't go without her...and that is what the BIBLE says, not anything I'm trying to paint.

If "hiding behind her skirts" and "hid behind a woman" isn't trying to paint somebody as a wimp, then I totally misunderstood.

Where are these commentaries?

[HappyChristian]

If "hiding behind her skirts" and "hid behind a woman" isn't trying to paint somebody as a wimp, then I totally misunderstood.

Where are these commentaries?

Albert Barnes, for one. I remember this discussion from a couple of years ago, and a couple of the guys on this board (including one who has posted in this thread) talked about the men of that time period not being what they should be, and one of the men posted info from the commentaries which seemed to agree with that thought. That doesn't make them right, because commentaries are written by men, not God, so they could be wrong. However, I doubt they would be far off.

I don't think Barak was a wimp, but I do believe that he was holding on to a woman. He may have, as has been stated, been doing it because she could get a hold of God, but can't you see that's still depending on a woman? And if her spirituality was the reason he wanted her there, that doesn't speak much for his own, does it? He did what God said, and yes he showed faith. But he did it with a condition (something a lot of Christians do!).

[HappyChristian]

She was accused of having two affairs, but they were not both linked to opponents. Will Folks is a blogger and used to work for the current governor who is not running because he has reached his term limit of 2 terms. He has actually backed Haley for Governor. (Edited to clarify: Sanford has backed Haley). Larry Marchant did work for Lt. Governor Andre Bauer's campaign, but he was fired as soon as the allegation was made public. Bauer was opposing Haley in the primaries, but he was consistently polling a distant 4th (as he finished) and hurting her campaign wouldn't have helped him win ever.

As far as who would do a better jOB? Her opponent in the general election, Vincent Sheheen, has served in the legislature since 2000 and would bring about the type of cooperation that we need to get the state moving again. I can't stress enough the ability to work with the legislature in SC. The Constitution is specifically written so that the governor has very little power. He/She needs to be able to work with the legislature as it stands or the citizens of SC lose. I'm not saying that Haley definitely couldn't, but many of her statements and actions point to the fact that she will not.

Also, apologies, my "starry eyed" comment wasn't directed at you, just in general.

Sorry, what I read stated both men were linked to opponents. Thanks for clearing that up. As far as Sheheen goes, I know he is pro-choice, which would knock him out of the running for me. And then, this would knock him out even if he was anti-abortion:

One of Sheheen's finest moments in the Senate occurred just last year, Ford said, when Sheheen opposed Gov. Mark Sanford for wanting to reject $700 million in federal stimulus money.

"He introduced legislation (to force the governor to take the money)," Ford said.

Ultimately, the state Supreme Court forced Sanford to take the money.

"He's still a young senator, but he really showed great leadership on that."

http://vincentsheheen.com/news/state-friendly-rivals-ford-sheheen-share-suite-desire-be-governor

The stimulus is totally unconstitutional, and by forcing the governor to accept those funds, your state is now one of many that has even tighter hold over it by the federal goernment - in direct opposition to the 10th amendment. Sheheen sounds like a personable man, but he wouldn't get my vote, based on those two issues alone.

BTW - raising the cigarette tax (which is what Sheheen's site says he plans to do about health care)to help pay for health care won't work...just check out states that have done that.

[heartstrings]

Albert Barnes, for one. I remember this discussion from a couple of years ago, and a couple of the guys on this board (including one who has posted in this thread) talked about the men of that time period not being what they should be, and one of the men posted info from the commentaries which seemed to agree with that thought. That doesn't make them right, because commentaries are written by men, not God, so they could be wrong. However, I doubt they would be far off.

I don't think Barak was a wimp, but I do believe that he was holding on to a woman. He may have, as has been stated, been doing it because she could get a hold of God, but can't you see that's still depending on a woman? And if her spirituality was the reason he wanted her there, that doesn't speak much for his own, does it? He did what God said, and yes he showed faith. But he did it with a condition (something a lot of Christians do!).

Well, I guess I just look at this passage differently. I don't see a man depending on a woman, I see a man depending on the God of that woman....and that's why he is listed as one of the "Heroes of faith" in Hebrews 11.

[HappyChristian]

Well, I guess I just look at this passage differently. I don't see a man depending on a woman, I see a man depending on the God of that woman....and that's why he is listed as one of the "Heroes of faith" in Hebrews 11.

That's fine - but why didn't he depend on God on his own? That's my point.

[heartstrings]

That's fine - but why didn't he depend on God on his own? That's my point.

Many faithful Godly people have desired the help of a prophet....
Manoah did...Judges 13:8
The woman of Shunem did 2 Samuel 4
All of us who depend on God, why do we ask the Pastor to come when we are in the hospital?
Why do we ask other Christians to pray for us?

[CPR]

Sorry, what I read stated both men were linked to opponents. Thanks for clearing that up. As far as Sheheen goes, I know he is pro-choice, which would knock him out of the running for me. And then, this would knock him out even if he was anti-abortion:


http://vincentsheheen.com/news/state-friendly-rivals-ford-sheheen-share-suite-desire-be-governor

The stimulus is totally unconstitutional, and by forcing the governor to accept those funds, your state is now one of many that has even tighter hold over it by the federal goernment - in direct opposition to the 10th amendment. Sheheen sounds like a personable man, but he wouldn't get my vote, based on those two issues alone.

BTW - raising the cigarette tax (which is what Sheheen's site says he plans to do about health care)to help pay for health care won't work...just check out states that have done that.

Fair enough, we all have our political opinions - that's why we all have a vote!

As far as Sheheen being pro-choice, he's remained pretty quiet on the issue, I know that he would support making adoptions easier, among other things that the government could do to make it easier for a woman to carry her pregnancy to term. Honestly, there isn't a whole lot that the governor has the power to do about the issue and the legislature has already passed about as many restrictions on abortions as they legally can. I'm not saying you're wrong (and honestly, it isn't a sticking point for me) but on what information are you saying that he is pro-choice?

As far as the stimulus, I supported them taking the funds and still do. The state is in a tough place financially for a lot of reasons, but without that money a lot more jOBs would have been lost. Sometimes we have to be pragmatic and realistic about things.

I don't tend to get into discussions about specific candidates in online forums, but I just can't resist when it's about my beloved home state!

[HappyChristian]

Fair enough, we all have our political opinions - that's why we all have a vote!

As far as Sheheen being pro-choice, he's remained pretty quiet on the issue, I know that he would support making adoptions easier, among other things that the government could do to make it easier for a woman to carry her pregnancy to term. Honestly, there isn't a whole lot that the governor has the power to do about the issue and the legislature has already passed about as many restrictions on abortions as they legally can. I'm not saying you're wrong (and honestly, it isn't a sticking point for me) but on what information are you saying that he is pro-choice?

As far as the stimulus, I supported them taking the funds and still do. The state is in a tough place financially for a lot of reasons, but without that money a lot more jOBs would have been lost. Sometimes we have to be pragmatic and realistic about things.

I don't tend to get into discussions about specific candidates in online forums, but I just can't resist when it's about my beloved home state!

Actually, his own words...I watched a Q&A vid where all the dem candidates were questioned re: whether or not they would push to have abortion made illegal if Roe v. Wade were turned around. He said no. That IS something that a governor or any legislator can push for - whether they would be successful or not would remain to be seen. In a transcipt of the interview (the part that didn't make the vid I saw,) when pushed for an answer as to whether he was pro-life or pro-abortion, he said that he thought they should work to reduce abortions, and mentioned adoption...but then wouldn't state whether or not he was one or the other - other than to say he personally wouldn't do it (that's pretty much code for "pro-abortion"). But he never really answered yes or no. A simple question, really a simple answer.

"I think the debate is all wrong," Sheheen said. "You can't simply say someone is pro-choice or pro-life. You have to say where can we find consensus and the consensus ought to be where can we reduce abortions in South Carolina. The governor can do that by helping make it easier to adopt."

Asked if he were for abortion rights, Sheen said "on a personal level, I do not think abortion would be the appropriate thing to do."

"Then you're pro-life, not pro-choice?" Sharpe asked.

"I think you're trying to divide us, just like the Republicans. I'm not going to fall into that trap," Sheheen responded. "The question is how can we reduce abortions in South Carolina."



Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/06/02/2210110_democrats-clarify-abortion-views.html#ixzz0tZURn1zn

Abortion is a very divisive issue - and it does boil down to whether or not someone is pro0life or pro-"choice." His answer is a typical politician's non-answer.

As far as the stimulus funding: the entire premise of the "stimulus" is unconstitutional - and those who pushed it, and those legislators who accept it, are not being true to their oath of office: in which they swear to uphold the Constitution. And, I can pretty much guarantee that if you looked deeply, you'd find that it hasn't created jOBs. We're still in a recession (with double digit unemployment, something the stimulus was going to cure), CPR, no matter what BO has tried to say. He and his ilk lied when Dubya was in office, saying we were in a recession, when numbers showed a growing economy, and he's lying now, trying to say the economy is recovering. It's not. And the "stimulus" junk has done nothing but hurt people. Anytime a tax burden is laid on a people, it hurts. It doesn't help. And it hasn't.

Im surprised, actually, that a Christian would say a politician's stand on abortion isn't a sticking point.

[John81]

Actually, his own words...I watched a Q&A vid where all the dem candidates were questioned re: whether or not they would push to have abortion made illegal if Roe v. Wade were turned around. He said no. That IS something that a governor or any legislator can push for - whether they would be successful or not would remain to be seen. In a transcipt of the interview (the part that didn't make the vid I saw,) when pushed for an answer as to whether he was pro-life or pro-abortion, he said that he thought they should work to reduce abortions, and mentioned adoption...but then wouldn't state whether or not he was one or the other - other than to say he personally wouldn't do it (that's pretty much code for "pro-abortion"). But he never really answered yes or no. A simple question, really a simple answer. Abortion is a very divisive issue - and it does boil down to whether or not someone is pro0life or pro-"choice." His answer is a typical politician's non-answer.

As far as the stimulus funding: the entire premise of the "stimulus" is unconstitutional - and those who pushed it, and those legislators who accept it, are not being true to their oath of office: in which they swear to uphold the Constitution. And, I can pretty much guarantee that if you looked deeply, you'd find that it hasn't created jOBs. We're still in a recession (with double digit unemployment, something the stimulus was going to cure), CPR, no matter what BO has tried to say. He and his ilk lied when Dubya was in office, saying we were in a recession, when numbers showed a growing economy, and he's lying now, trying to say the economy is recovering. It's not. And the "stimulus" junk has done nothing but hurt people. Anytime a tax burden is laid on a people, it hurts. It doesn't help. And it hasn't.

Im surprised, actually, that a Christian would say a politician's stand on abortion isn't a sticking point.

Good post!

As well, principle should take precedence over pragmatism. If one is willing to compromise their pinciples for the sake of being pragmatic that means what they are calling their principles are not solid.

Abortion is murder. While all should hate this, Christians should especially hate this and refuse to vote for anyone who is willing to allow unborn babies to be murdered.

Anything a State "receives" from DC comes with strings attached. Many of the things stimulus money funded was only short term and the States which accepted that money are required by DC to keep those things going using their own money once the stimulus money runs out.

[CPR]

Actually, his own words...I watched a Q&A vid where all the dem candidates were questioned re: whether or not they would push to have abortion made illegal if Roe v. Wade were turned around. He said no. That IS something that a governor or any legislator can push for - whether they would be successful or not would remain to be seen. In a transcipt of the interview (the part that didn't make the vid I saw,) when pushed for an answer as to whether he was pro-life or pro-abortion, he said that he thought they should work to reduce abortions, and mentioned adoption...but then wouldn't state whether or not he was one or the other - other than to say he personally wouldn't do it (that's pretty much code for "pro-abortion"). But he never really answered yes or no. A simple question, really a simple answer. Abortion is a very divisive issue - and it does boil down to whether or not someone is pro0life or pro-"choice." His answer is a typical politician's non-answer.

As far as the stimulus funding: the entire premise of the "stimulus" is unconstitutional - and those who pushed it, and those legislators who accept it, are not being true to their oath of office: in which they swear to uphold the Constitution. And, I can pretty much guarantee that if you looked deeply, you'd find that it hasn't created jOBs. We're still in a recession (with double digit unemployment, something the stimulus was going to cure), CPR, no matter what BO has tried to say. He and his ilk lied when Dubya was in office, saying we were in a recession, when numbers showed a growing economy, and he's lying now, trying to say the economy is recovering. It's not. And the "stimulus" junk has done nothing but hurt people. Anytime a tax burden is laid on a people, it hurts. It doesn't help. And it hasn't.

Im surprised, actually, that a Christian would say a politician's stand on abortion isn't a sticking point.

His response was exactly as it should have been. The question is a non-issue because there is no sign that Roe is going to be overturned so it would really be best to focus on things that the governor can and will be able to affect during his term(s). I think that you are being unfair and putting words in his mouth because there is nothing in his comment to allude to "pro abortion". He said that he didn't think it would be the appropriate thing personally (and for the record I agree), but he really just resisted assigning labels that are emotionally charged and divisive. Honestly, if we really want to stop abortion, then the best thing to do is to help women in that situation. Give them options and support so that carrying their baby to term and opting for adoption is a viable option. Instead of making abortion illegal or so difficult and restrictive, why don't we focus on making the alternatives easier? It makes sense and it's realistic, and I'd rather support a candidate who wants to do that than someone who wants to bang their head against a brick wall yelling about how a decision needs to be overturned that, quite frankly, just isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.

As far as the stimulus, I didn't say it created jOBs, but that it saved jOBs that would have otherwise been lost. In economic terms this is very different, but in personal terms, when your jOB is saved, it means a lot! Recessions can take time to recover from and we are starting to see some promising signs, but you are correct that many people (myself included) are still affected adversely by the economy.