Running Gator Posted April 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2017 35 minutes ago, OneLight said: It is more about placing yourself in the position of being a bad witness to those who just love to stir the pot, and placing one in certain temptations. In a position as the VP, there are a lot of people who would just love to spin a lie out of an innocent dinner and cause harm with their lies, so why even feed the lions? All this is not just morals, but wisdom. If it is wisdom and not morals, then why does having different morals matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 8 hours ago, OneLight said: It is more about placing yourself in the position of being a bad witness to those who just love to stir the pot, and placing one in certain temptations. In a position as the VP, there are a lot of people who would just love to spin a lie out of an innocent dinner and cause harm with their lies, so why even feed the lions? All this is not just morals, but wisdom. Billy Graham, Grady Wilson, George Beverly Shea and Cliff Barrows, who headed up the Billy Graham crusades, made a joint pact that they would not be alone with a woman in public or in private other than their wives. They did this to avoid scandal and out of a commitment to remain pure before God and they lived above reproach. Billy Graham's ministry remained scandal free to the consternation of the media that would have loved to sink their teeth into Graham like they had been able to do to other high profile ministries that had allowed scandal to get foothold on them. Pence is really doing nothing different than that. He is not allowing the media to gain the satisfaction of being able to topple the witness of a good Christian man who loves his wife. The culture of Washington DC is such that nearly every congressman has or has had, a mistress or visits prostitutes or something like that. It is a well-known part of that culture. Pence is guarding against the temptation of falling into that cultural morass, and he is reaffirming his commitment to his wife. And for that, he is now labeled "sexist." They can't find anything legitimate to criticize Pence about and they have to condemn him because he is Trump's VP, so now he is sexist. The Left hates traditional marriage and Pence and his wife/family are the epitome of a biblical family and biblical family values that the Left despises. You would think that every Christian around would applaud Pence's moral character and stance for biblical family values. You would think that in Christian circles that they would be a place of refuge for family values and that someone like Pence would not have "sexist" attached to his name just because he chooses to honor his wife. It's pretty disgraceful that, even in Christian circles, that a man who is upholding biblical values has his name dragged through the mud as "sexist" and even other Christians who affirm him are being accused of sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I pointed out earlier the logical inconsistency of calling both Trump and Pence "sexist" for the exact opposite reasons. Trump is sexist for not honoring his marriage and Pence is sexist for honoring his marriage. The biggest criticism that people like myself have received for supporting Trump was his moral values. We are accused to supporting a sexist man. Yet, some of the same people who carped and carped and carped about Trump's "sexism" are now calling Pence sexist. They can't have it both ways. You cannot call both dishonoring and honoring marriage, "sexist." What that tells me is that the hatred of Trump on the grounds of moral values isn't necessarily about moral values. It is for some, but for many, it was just a convenient avenue to criticize Trump. What this has really driven home to me is that had Trump never been divorced, or had never stepped out on anyone, had never said those horrible things in the Access Hollywood video, if Trump chose not to be alone with a woman that was not his wife, if he was like Mike Pence, he would have still been labeled "sexist." And the treatment of Pence and false accusation of sexism against him is proof that if they hate you, the enemy will take even something like marital fidelity and warp it into something evil, or "sexist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted April 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: I pointed out earlier the logical inconsistency of calling both Trump and Pence "sexist" for the exact opposite reasons. Trump is sexist for not honoring his marriage and Pence is sexist for honoring his marriage. The biggest criticism that people like myself have received for supporting Trump was his moral values. We are accused to supporting a sexist man. Yet, some of the same people who carped and carped and carped about Trump's "sexism" are now calling Pence sexist. They can't have it both ways. You cannot call both dishonoring and honoring marriage, "sexist." What that tells me is that the hatred of Trump on the grounds of moral values isn't necessarily about moral values. It is for some, but for many, it was just a convenient avenue to criticize Trump. What this has really driven home to me is that had Trump never been divorced, or had never stepped out on anyone, had never said those horrible things in the Access Hollywood video, if Trump chose not to be alone with a woman that was not his wife, if he was like Mike Pence, he would have still been labeled "sexist." And the treatment of Pence and false accusation of sexism against him is proof that if they hate you, the enemy will take even something like marital fidelity and warp it into something evil, or "sexist." Sexism, like racism comes in many forms. There are racist who are open and loud about it, we all know who they are. Then there is the more subtle forms of racism most all are guilty of. These are moving to the other side of the street when you see someone from a different race walking towards you on the sidewalk. Or when a person of color gets more attention from the security guard in a store than a white person. These actions are steeped in racism, even though you might not call the people doing them racist. They are often done without even being thought about. Sexism is the same. There are open and overt ssexist, like our current president. They demen members of the opposite sex based upon appearance and other specific traits. We all know who they are. Then there is the more subtle, mostly unconscious sexism. This is the mentality that treats one gender differently than the other. The idea that it is ok for a woman to do A, B and C, but not D, E or F, as those are 'man's jobs". The idea that it is "safe" to have a meal with one gender but not so for the other is one of those views that is based upon viewing women differently than men. If a male supervisor would have a meal in a public setting with a male subordinate but not a female one, then the supervisor is treating the two people with different standards and is giving an unfair advantage to the male, even if they are not doing it purposefully. The excuse that it would avoid "the appearance of evil" is a weak one. There is no "evil" in two people sitting in a public setting having a meal together. Yes, it might cause some to gossip, but so does just about everything else. Many, many years ago when I was a young and recently married man I had women in a church all in a tizzy talking about me because I spoke to the same single female 3 weeks in a row while standing in the foyer after the service was over. It was just her and I standing there having a discussion about what I cannot even remember. But I do remember my pastor having a stern talking to me about it, but he never said a word to the gossips that were making things up because they had too much time on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: Sexism, like racism comes in many forms. Really bad analogy. There is no way to make an intelligent argument that says that two men, one who objectifies women and one who does not objectify women are both sexist. That is an argument devoid of any internal consistency. And to pretend that it even bears any resemblance to racism is nothing but laughable. Quote There are racist who are open and loud about it, we all know who they are. Then there is the more subtle forms of racism most all are guilty of. Honoring your marriage is not a subtle form of sexism. That is not an intellectually viable argument. What your argument does is diminish REAL sexism. It's like liberals who call everything racist; they diminish real racism when it actually happens. Quote These are moving to the other side of the street when you see someone from a different race walking towards you on the sidewalk. Or when a person of color gets more attention from the security guard in a store than a white person. These actions are steeped in racism, even though you might not call the people doing them racist. They are often done without even being thought about. That is a really bad analogy and bears no similarity to a married man avoiding being alone with a woman in public or private with a woman who is not his wife. The example you give would only be analogous to a man who avoids women, altogether, who won't talk to them at all. Quote Sexism is the same. And now, here comes the faulty comparison. Quote There are open and overt ssexist, like our current president. They demen members of the opposite sex based upon appearance and other specific traits. We all know who they are. Then there is the more subtle, mostly unconscious sexism. This is the mentality that treats one gender differently than the other. The idea that it is ok for a woman to do A, B and C, but not D, E or F, as those are 'man's jobs". The idea that it is "safe" to have a meal with one gender but not so for the other is one of those views that is based upon viewing women differently than men. A more appropriate way to look at it is not that it demeans the opposite sex to honor one's marriage covenant, but rather, it actually honors the opposite sex. A married man chooses not even have lunch alone at a restaurant with a female co-worker that he is not married to isn't demeaning her at all. He is protecting her honor and the honor of his wife. He is honoring both his wife and his co-worker, who might also be married. He is honor not only his marriage covenant, but the marriage covenant between her and her husband, as well. He is showing the kind of respect he would want from the other husband if the situation were reversed. There is no way that anyone can make an intellectually sound argument that such behavior is "demeaning" to women. That is a impossible jump in logic for anyone to make. And yes we do view women differently than men, and we should because women are different than men. Looking at women differently doesn't mean that one hold them in lower esteem or views them as inferior, it can actually be quite the opposite. "Sexism" is a false value that is being assigned to this just to have something to knock down. And in addition, single men should not be having dinner alone in private or public with married women who are not his sister, or mother or daughter. It is just as inappropriate for single man to be having dinner with married woman as it would be if he were married. It honors a woman that he thinks enough of her and respects her so that he does not want anyone thinking ill of her, that she might be gossiped about. He thinks enough of her that he behaves in a manner that protects her honor, in private and public. Quote If a male supervisor would have a meal in a public setting with a male subordinate but not a female one, then the supervisor is treating the two people with different standards and is giving an unfair advantage to the male, even if they are not doing it purposefully. That is complete nonsense. This is not about refusing to eat the same table with a woman. It is about a married man not eating ALONE with a woman who is not his wife (or sister or daughter). The appropriate thing to do is to have someone else at the table. The appropriate thing to do is to have another co-worker at the table so there is more than just two people. Arrange to bring someone else along. That's wisdom, not sexism. Quote The excuse that it would avoid "the appearance of evil" is a weak one. There is no "evil" in two people sitting in a public setting having a meal together. It's not a weak argument at all. You see, for Christians, we believe that the Bible ought to be obeyed and Paul's admonition is not simply avoid evil, but the potential appearance of evil or the appearance of something sinful or inappropriate. It means not doing anything that could reasonably be misinterpreted. A married man eating at a table in a restaurant with a woman who is not his wife, maybe a co-worker or someone he went to school with, and his wife nowhere to be seen, can give off the wrong signals even if there is nothing sinful actually happening. We are not to behave in a manner that calls his character into question and calls into question the character of the woman he is with. Quote Yes, it might cause some to gossip, but so does just about everything else. It's one thing if the gossip is manufactured, but when you behave in a manner that causes reasonable people to conclude that something inappropriate is going on, one cannot really complain that he is being gossiped about, especially if he brought on himself. Quote Many, many years ago when I was a young and recently married man I had women in a church all in a tizzy talking about me because I spoke to the same single female 3 weeks in a row while standing in the foyer after the service was over. It was just her and I standing there having a discussion about what I cannot even remember. But I do remember my pastor having a stern talking to me about it, but he never said a word to the gossips that were making things up because they had too much time on their hands. Which is why we avoid all appearances of evil. We don't live in a way that gives fuel to gossip. That is all Pence is trying to do. He is trying to avoid that trap. And there is nothing "sexist" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted April 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2017 10 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said: If it is wisdom and not morals, then why does having different morals matter? My words were inclusive, not exclusive. It is both. I see someone who would not even want the appearance of doing something wrong associated with them as something good, yet people these days call good evil and evil good. Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted April 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,924 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, OneLight said: My words were inclusive, not exclusive. It is both. I see someone who would not even want the appearance of doing something wrong associated with them as something good, yet people these days call good evil and evil good. Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! This is such a silly discussion, really. There are two things in play here: how we, as Christians, should react if we see a man dining with a lady not his wife; and how Christian men in positions of power/influence should conduct their lives in public. To the first, if I as a Christian man saw someone dining alone with a woman not his wife (and knowing nothing more of the situation) I would think nothing of it. Now honestly - there might be some mitigating factors. Such as, are they at something like a McDonald's in a brightly lit dining area? Or is it a more 'intimate' setting, in a darkly lit back corner of the dining room? Or is it something in between? Yes, it would (always) be wrong to gossip about such things, but the darkly lit back corner scenario would raise questions in my mind. I would keep them to myself, though. But to the second thing - how Christian men should conduct themselves in public. I applaud VP Pence for taking the stand that he did - and am somewhat surprised to see negativity towards it expressed here. Given all the harassment controversy of the last 20 years or so - Bill Clinton, David Letterman, Roger Ailes, now Bill O'Reilly - would it not have benefited these men to have a similar public stance? Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted April 5, 2017 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted April 5, 2017 On 4/4/2017 at 6:28 AM, Out of the Shadows said: My wife would probably get upset if I had such an antiquated rule as this meal rule..... She has always preferred we treat both men and women equally.... But to some I guess.... that is not a very Christian thing to do.... I Would Indeed Hope That A Godly Husband.... So husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself. Ephesians 5:28 (GOD'S WORD® Translation) Would Not Treat His Wife Like A Man.... Let your spring be blessed. Rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe and a graceful deer let her breasts satisfy you at all times. Be captivated always with her love. Proverbs 5:18-19 (New Heart English Bible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 38 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: This is such a silly discussion, really. It's not "silly." It's actually quite serious and somewhat disturbing, really. Quote There are two things in play here: how we, as Christians, should react if we see a man dining with a lady not his wife; and how Christian men in positions of power/influence should conduct their lives in public. Yes and no. How we react to a person seeing a man potentially committing adultery is a different discussion, really. What this thread is about ultimately, is about a Christian man who publicly honors his wife and marriage covenant and getting dragged through the mud for it. Quote To the first, if I as a Christian man saw someone dining alone with a woman not his wife (and knowing nothing more of the situation) I would think nothing of it. Now honestly - there might be some mitigating factors. Such as, are they at something like a McDonald's in a brightly lit dining area? Or is it a more 'intimate' setting, in a darkly lit back corner of the dining room? Or is it something in between? Which is why we should always err on the side of caution when interacting with the opposite sex, particularly as Christians. Holiness is something worth guarding Quote Yes, it would (always) be wrong to gossip about such things, but the darkly lit back corner scenario would raise questions in my mind. I would keep them to myself, though. You might, but most others will not and that is an important factor in all of this. The reason we should avoid such a thing (regardless of the atmosphere) is because of the real damage it can do. Quote But to the second thing - how Christian men should conduct themselves in public. I applaud VP Pence for taking the stand that he did - and am somewhat surprised to see negativity towards it expressed here. You wouldn't think he would be called "sexist" on a Christian message board, would you? You would think that a man honoring is wife would not be mocked and called sexist on a site like this. Sadly, that is not the case. Quote Given all the harassment controversy of the last 20 years or so - Bill Clinton, David Letterman, Roger Ailes, now Bill O'Reilly - would it not have benefited these men to have a similar public stance? It would have benefited them greatly, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted April 5, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2017 3 hours ago, OneLight said: My words were inclusive, not exclusive. It is both. I see someone who would not even want the appearance of doing something wrong associated with them as something good, yet people these days call good evil and evil good. Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! But his desire to keep from the appearance of evil is rather limited, in my opinion. I personally think being as closely associated with someone like Donald Trump as he now is gives the appearance of evil, after all we are known by the company we keep. Which is sort of the problem with the whole "appearance of evil" passage, it is used by Christians in the same manner that Political Correctness is used, as a tool to control the behavior of others. According to a post above me talking to a woman standing in the foyer of a church qualified as the appearance of evil. Where does it end? Would it be appropriate for me to tell someone that I feel the car they drive gives the appearance of evil in the form of greed? Should they care that I feel that way and change the car that they drive? Is is wrong to walk down the beer aisle as the local grocery store as it gives the appearance you might be an alcoholic, which is evil? There is nothing evil in having a meal, the evil is in the minds of the individuals that see it and make false assumptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts