I won't read the post
And this, my friends, is why Jesus said in Matthew 7:6...
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Proverbs 12:15...
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
P.S. Roll Tide!!!
Unfortunately, you seem be be arguing from opinion and attitude instead of using actual biblical evidence.
Joel 2:28 is speaking of the end days
Are these not the end days? Even still, the verse clearly says that women WILL prophesy.
it say's nothing about old women with cool-aid hair.
Nor does it say that old women or cool-aid hair will not prophesy. Honestly, what kind of argument is that? The Bible doesn't mention that an orange man with golden hair will be a great leader. So what? Is Donald Trump not the official and legal President of the United States of America? Omission is not refutation.
Again, the Bible specifically mentions many prophetesses by name...
Miriam: Exodus 15:20
Deborah: Judges 4:4
Huldah: 2 Chronicles 34:22
Anna: Luke 2:36
Heck, Deborah was even a judge over Israel. Anna was an "old woman," at least 84 years old. And all of those prophetesses were not in the end days.
It say's daughters, meaning young women.
"Daughters" means female descendants. Just as "fathers" means male ancestors. Age is not a factor.
"Women are of the devil!"
Even spoken in jest, it is completely a lie. Women, just as men, are of God. Even Paul states so:
1 Corinthians 11:12 - For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
There's a reason the bible says women shouldn't preach
The Bible never says such a thing to my knowledge. Paul says that he doesn't allow a woman to teach a man (1 Timothy 2:12). That's Paul's personal restriction, and even then, it is in the context of a singular woman and a singular man, meaning in context of a marriage, not in a church. That is unless you also construe that a woman can bear children from any man in a church (1 Timothy 2:15).
You can bring up 1 Corinthians and such, but you must also consider the context. Paul was laying out a method of keeping order in a church that's in a large port city (Corinth), meaning it was filled with newly converted (still with untempered heathen tendencies) sailors and their wives. And if you know anything about sailors and the types of girls they generally associate with... yeah, that's what Paul was dealing with.
And seemingly by your logic, according to 1 Corinthians 14:35, unmarried women shouldn't even be present in the church. Paul's letter was about preventing disturbances in the church, not demeaning women. Had the men been the cause of the disturbances, he would have addressed them also.
Eve was beguiled, not Adam. Adam's mistake was following a woman.
Adam witnessed God's creative power with his own eyes. He personally saw God create every kind of animal. God gave Adam specifically the command to not eat the fruit of a specific tree. This all happened before Eve existed. Eve's only knowledge of such things was what she got from Adam. Adam's mistake isn't that he followed a woman, it's that he did not lead someone who was much less knowledgeable and experienced as he was. It was like a parent following a toddler out into the middle of traffic on a highway. He failed to protect her. That's why it was Adam's sin that condemned us all, and why Jesus became the second Adam in order to redeem us, not the second Eve.
woman should know thier place.
Their place is right alongside man. Each has their own roles to fill, and each is equal in the eyes of God. I'd suggest watching this video and also this video which cover many of the above topics, even the context of Adam and Eve.
As for my personal opinion, I would suggest that if a woman has more knowledge, wisdom, and experience than a man, the man would be absolutely foolish to not pay heed to her words. The man's rightful position in the household may be the head, but that man had better be able to fulfill that position adequately, or the household will fall apart. The same goes for the head of a church. But as far as preaching, teaching, and prophesying goes, a wise woman is infinitely better than a foolish man. An 84-year old woman is generally a much better teacher than a 25-year old man. Misplaced dogma and misinterpretations are just as dangerous as actually defying Scripture, so one must be very cautious.
May God bless us all with His wisdom and knowledge. Amen.
Amen, keep praying and keep the faith.
This helped to take the burden of worry off of me. So all I can do is share...
https://thedonald.win/p/11Rhcvv4K4/x/c/4DtEkAdSvQu
May God bless you!
Women as prophetesses is completely biblical... Miriam, Deborah, and Anna for examples.
Joel 2:28 - And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.
But as I said, accept it or reject it. It's your choice.
There's so much negativity, so much disinformation, who knows what to expect or believe? I felt the same. Then I watched this. Check it out if you will. You may believe it, you may not. Either way, remember that the reason America even exists is because the Founders acted "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
If you don't want to watch the whole thing, it starts getting intense at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1410&v=u7evOBf_E80&feature=youtu.be
And it goes even further at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1963&v=u7evOBf_E80&feature=youtu.be
I hope it brings you comfort and faith as it brought me. May God bless you, President Donald Trump, and the United States of America! Amen.
Indeed, pragmatism has its benefits. But it's best to be both pragmatic and principled. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive in most cases.
But further still, one must not forget about the reason a man holds certain principles. In my personal opinion, the principles of American patriotism are derived from "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." Man's Creator created him to be free, so his Creator will make a way for freedom if he stays true... whether through gifting him such qualities as wisdom, pragmatism, and faith, or through direct intervention such as raining fire, parting seas, or creating confusion in the enemy camp.
I would immediately point to George Washington as the perfect example. He was both principled and pragmatic, though I would suggest that he himself would argue that it was his principles that made everything else possible... and made him worthy of his gains from his successes. He used strategy, spies, surprise, and appeals to patriotism to lead his troops to victory, yet without Divine protection, he would not have survived even to the Revolution...
When he was a British officer in 1755, Washington fought in the Battle of the Monongahela. He survived a French and Indian ambush where a third of his force was wounded and another third was killed including his general. He himself was terribly ill at the time, but he still fought, even after two horses were shot out from under him. After the battle, he found four bullet holes in his jacket. So I would say that following the right principles can indeed trump pragmatism in itself... who knows who will be the next George Washington if they stay true?
Making a mistake and betraying your country are two extremely different things. If you are following the Constitution which you swore to do, you cannot be a traitor. If you follow the Constitution, but make a mistake in the manner how you do it, you are not a traitor.
Yes, he failed in his role as a check and balance. But he followed what he believed was the proper Constitutional course of action. That's not betrayal.
At the end of this, when Trump is restored as the rightful President of the United States, and also on the Day of Judgment, Rand Paul can stand tall and proud knowing that he did not waver from his Constitutional convictions.
To condemn a man as a traitor for making a mistake leads to a very dangerous path. You can start with George Washington. You can go to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. They actually were traitors, in a sense... much more so than Rand Paul could ever be. Washington literally fought against his king, and killed his fellow British soldiers. Adams and Jefferson both committed treason in writing and signing the Declaration of Independence. Beyond treason, they all committed many mistakes along the way. But they are all considered great heroes and patriots because they stuck to their convictions that Man should be free.
So in this case, I shall have to disagree. I consider Rand Paul much more of a hero and patriot than a traitor, though an imperfect one, as all heroes are.
But at least he was quite entertaining... much more so than that Hamilton fellow.
That would only work if ALL politicians did nothing wrong. Personally, I want President Trump to have the best security possible... even if only because the Leftist politicians antagonize and demonize him to the Leftist crowd. They are the true danger to Trump and other good politicians who do nothing to deserve such threats on their own.
You can read his reasoning here...
Following the Constitution is always a virtuous course of action, whether you're the first or the last.
Rand Paul always tries to do that... even when he makes mistakes. I believe he made a mistake this time by not objecting because I believe his first Constitutional priority was to be a check and balance instead of worrying about setting a bad precedent.
That's why I disagree with his action, but I won't call him a traitor for following what he believes was the Constitutional thing to do. Not like the others who only care about their political future.
If they all were like Rand Paul, truly doing what they believed was Constitutional, we would never ever reach a situation like this. But if men were angels...
Heck, Washington, Jefferson, Madison... they were all imperfect, they all made mistakes... and they were the Fathers of the Country, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution itself. Without men who follow what they believe is truly right even when all seems lost, then there never would have been the the United States of America. Let's celebrate people like that, and encourage everyone to do the same.
I'm really starting to get ticked at Lin Wood...
Yesterday on Parler, he posted something saying that we all got played, and Ashli Babbitt's shooting was staged, and she is still alive. Today, I found that the post has been removed, completely disappeared, and he has posted several images that honor her.
It seems he also removed his posts about Trump flying to Texas.
I really want(ed) to trust and believe him. But he is showing himself to be more and more of a deceitful person. He can claim to be an imperfect person all he wants, but the flip-flopping and post-deleting are signs of a deceiver. Guess what, Mr. Wood, Lucifer is imperfect also... that doesn't justify his actions.
Liars and traitors. Benedict Blackburn and Benedict Bill.
I was hoping we had gotten rid of such snakes after Corker and Alexander retired... especially Corker. I would sooner vote for Satan himself than that arrogant idiot.
I'm disappoint also, though I don't blame him like I blame the others... they did it for their own political motives. As I just said elsewhere in the thread:
I believe he was mistaken by not objecting, but at least he is using a Constitutional argument for not doing so. In my opinion, he just failed to consider the fact that he is a check and balance to the other branches of government.
Be it still, Rand Paul remains the one in Congress I trust the most to do what is right Constitutionally... even when it results in something against his own favor or desire. That is something that cannot be bought or found in most men. May we place 99 more like him in the Senate!
Me too, I believe he was mistaken by not objecting, but at least he is using a Constitutional argument for not doing so. In my opinion, he just failed to consider the fact that he is a check and balance to the other branches of government.
Be it still, Rand Paul remains the one in Congress I trust the most to do what is right Constitutionally... even when it results in something against his own favor or desire. That is something that cannot be bought or found in most men. May we place 99 more like him in the Senate!
If you want to see cowardice look at Loeffner
And Marsha "Benedict" Blackburn of Tennessee.
And "Benedict" Bill Hagerty of Tennessee.
Liars and traitors, the both of them. May they stay in the D.C. swamp, and not be welcomed back to the State of Tennessee or into the new Patriot Party. May God bless America, the patriotic American People, and President Donald Trump! Amen.
I'm not saying his decision was correct, I personally disagree with it. However, his reasoning was based on the Constitution, which you can read here...
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1346936086191288323
As I said, he failed to account for his role as a check and balance. His reasoning is sound assuming that everyone does their Constitutional duties, but they didn't. That's where his argument is lacking.
not even Rand Paul
Rand Paul is one member of Congress that I trust the most. I disagree with him sometimes, but his actions are always based on the Constitution in my knowledge, even not objecting to the certifications today. His reasoning is a good one, but it failed to consider the fact that he is a check and balance toward the other branches of government, and the other branches (both federal and State) are not performing their own Constitutional duties.
Of course the Left cries. Go watch all the meltdown videos after the 2016 election.
They don't win because they organize. They "win" because they lie, cheat, and steal.
Fortunately, God is in control of this, and He will not suffer such wickedness to rule over a just People. This is all in His hands now.