How did Huckabee get this far?

[Non Rev]

I went to his web site so I could learn more about him. And there is very little posted about his life. Such as, where was he born?, and when? (how old is this guy?) who are his parents?, are they still alive?, does he have siblings?, where did he go to school?, and which seminary did he attend? Did he get ordained over the internet?
:unsure:

Nothing..zip...nada.

Oh, and he does support and will fight for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage to be between a man and a women only. :down:

Thanks to Wikipedia:

Early life and education

Huckabee was born in Hope, Arkansas,[4] to Mae Elder (1925-1999) and Dorsey Wiles Huckabee (1923-1996), both natives of Hope. His surname is of English origin.[5] His father worked as a fireman and mechanic, and his mother worked as a clerk in a gas company.[6] His father was a strict disciplinarian, and left a lasting impression on young Huckabee, which he has turned into a well-honed aphorism. Speaking to Charles Gibson of ABC News, he explained with a grin: "My father was the ultimate patriot. You know, he’d lay on the stripes, and I’d see stars."[7]

Huckabee's first job, at 14, was working at a radio station where he would read the news and weather.[8] He was elected Governor of Arkansas Boys State in 1972[9] and is a Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Alumnus. He was president of Hope High School in 1973.[10] He has one sister who is a middle school teacher.[11]

Huckabee married his wife, Janet McCain, on May 25, 1974.[11] He graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University, completing his bachelor's degree in Religion in 2½ years before attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, where he dropped out after one year.[12][13][14] He has two honorary doctoral degrees: a Doctor of Humane Letters, received from John Brown University in 1991, and a Doctor of Laws from Ouachita Baptist University in 1992.[15][16]

 

[local 12 proud]

Then enlighten me oh wise one for I am but a stupid scheduler with only a 1st grade edumikation.

If being enlightened is what you desire then seek GOD!

You need to read the words of Paul and understand that he was comparing a husband and wife relationship to Christs relationship with the Church, an analogy. He wasn't advocating quiet obedience and subservience, quiet the contrary!

What does the Bible mean when it says that wives are to submit to their husbands?

Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself
Here

 

[Garfield1966]

If being enlightened is what you desire then seek GOD!

You need to read the words of Paul and understand that he was comparing a husband and wife relationship to Christs relationship with the Church, an analogy. He wasn't advocating quiet obedience and subservience, quiet the contrary!

What does the Bible mean when it says that wives are to submit to their husbands?

Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself
Here

Your link pretty much goes along with what I have heard when this issue came to light several years ago.

I guess I am more interested by what Mr. Paul does not say. He says that that there will be times when the wife, at times, must put aside her disagreements and follow the lead of her husband, whom God has placed in her life as the head.. Since he never says that the opposite is true (that there may be times when the husband must put aside his disagreements and follow the lead of his wife) that too me sounds like the man has the final say. He should be a benevolent ruler but he is the ruler.

I did not meant to imply that the bible allowed a man to treat his wife as he saw fit. That interpretation does not (at least in my opionion) fit in with the general tenants of any religion. How ever, religions tend to be sexist. Te Catholics do not allow women to be priests or Bishops. The orthodox jews do not allow female rabbis or allow them to be in the same portion of the Wailing Wall. Muslims have similar beliefs. So it stands to reason that women would not be given the same status as men. Men may have been expected to treat women well, but there was never a question as to who was in charge and who had the final say. According to the article you linked women should look out for their self interest (abuse and the like) but the final authority seems to rest with the man and I did not see anything in your link to refute that.

Given the above, I still disagree with Huckabee's stance insofar as religion and the Constitution are concerned.

 

[local 12 proud]

Your link pretty much goes along with what I have heard when this issue came to light several years ago.

I guess I am more interested by what Mr. Paul does not say. He says that that there will be times when the wife, at times, must put aside her disagreements and follow the lead of her husband, whom God has placed in her life as the head.. Since he never says that the opposite is true (that there may be times when the husband must put aside his disagreements and follow the lead of his wife) that too me sounds like the man has the final say. He should be a benevolent ruler but he is the ruler.

I did not meant to imply that the bible allowed a man to treat his wife as he saw fit. That interpretation does not (at least in my opionion) fit in with the general tenants of any religion. How ever, religions tend to be sexist. Te Catholics do not allow women to be priests or Bishops. The orthodox jews do not allow female rabbis or allow them to be in the same portion of the Wailing Wall. Muslims have similar beliefs. So it stands to reason that women would not be given the same status as men. Men may have been expected to treat women well, but there was never a question as to who was in charge and who had the final say. According to the article you linked women should look out for their self interest (abuse and the like) but the final authority seems to rest with the man and I did not see anything in your link to refute that.

Given the above, I still disagree with Huckabee's stance insofar as religion and the Constitution are concerned.

You left out this part!

Marriage, according to God's design, is a relationship that returns love for love, service for service. Husbands and wives love and sacrifice for one another differently. Husbands love their wives by protecting, cherishing, and serving them. Wives submit to their husbands out of respect and love. Both the husband and the wife are given vast opportunities to show Christ's love to one another. It is not always easy, but marriages can best reflect God's redemptive work in our lives by following the principles of Christlike love and submission.

But hey, If your wife wears the pants...

 

[Garfield1966]

I do not agree that the portion you cited refutes my point. The man serves the woman, the woman submits to the the man. I do not see that as semantics. Submission by its definition means that someone else is in charge. Give that women were considered property and hod no rights in most western societies of the time seems to substantiate the argument that men had the final say.

 

[local 12 proud]

I do not agree that the portion you cited refutes my point. The man serves the woman, the woman submits to the the man. I do not see that as semantics. Submission by its definition means that someone else is in charge. Give that women were considered property and hod no rights in most western societies of the time seems to substantiate the argument that men had the final say.

I know, its a hard concept to grasp. 🙄

 

[Garfield1966]

I think it is a very simple concept.

Believers are trying to take their late 20th century ideas of equality and fairness and try and impose them on a document written over 1,000 years ago. That simply does not work nor is it supported by any writings of that time. Women were until recently considered as property. It was only 88 years ago that women were given the right to vote in this "christian nation". When this nation was founded on "christian princibles" women were not allowed to vote, were nt allowed to hold property. They were not even a citizen of the nation insofar as rights were concerned. They barely had more status than a black man born in this country.

No where in any of the literature that you have pointed out or anyone else for that matter does the bible say that woman are equal to man or that a man would ever have to submit to a woman. I am not arguing that the bible gives man the right to do with the woman as he sees fit (although given the hypocritical punishments for womens transgressions verses mans transgressions does lend a bit of credence to that argument) the bottom line remains that according to what you llinked to as well as al other sources I have seen, the man is in charge and has the last say.

I am not sure why it is that christians find them selves needing to sanities the bible for late 20th century or 21st century consumption. The Constitution was out dated in some ways and we took it, albeit kicking and screaming, into the modern era. While I realize the bible cannot be amended in the manner that the Constitution was, one can come out and say that certain concepts of the bible are no longer valid in this day and age and will not be followed. Just as modern society no longer stones people as mandated in a certain passage one can also say that women are not expected to submit to their husbands either.

Mr. Huckabee has chosen not to take that path as it his right. My guess is that alot of women out there along with men such as my self have no interest in electing a man to office that does not have the ability to come into the 21st century with modern concepts of fairness and equality.

 

[local 12 proud]

To illustrate, a team player must submit to the guidance of his coach. A good coach guides the team in strategy and utilizes the strengths of the players for the success of the team. A gifted player may debate a point with his coach, but there comes a point when, if they continue to disagree, the player must submit to his coach. Likewise, the wife, at times, must put aside her disagreements and follow the lead of her husband, whom God has placed in her life as the head. (Sometimes, it is not in the best interest of either the wife or the husband to submit, as in the case of abuse.)

If your wife is the Coach (wears the pants) thats your choice! 😛

 

[Garfield1966]

Are you sure that's the example you want to stick with? Last time I played sports the coach was the boss and I was the employee. I could argue with my coach till I was blue in the face. There were times when I presented a better argument and he agreed to my proposal but if he did not agree with me it was his way or I could leave. The option was never left up to me. The final decision was ALWAYS his. The coach/player interaction is not a democracy, it is a theocracy/dictatorship. He was a benevolent dictator but his decision was the only one that mattered in the end. And as per your example (and that of your link), the husband (in a 'truly christian' relationship) always has the final say.

You seem to have a fascination with my marriage. The relationship I share with my wife is a partnership. Neither of us has any more/less power than the other. We present our arguments and the best one wins. Both her and I have submitted to the others request/opinion when we deemed it warranted. I never have the absolute final say and neither does she. It's a partnership. 50/50 split.

 

[local 12 proud]

Are you sure that's the example you want to stick with? Last time I played sports the coach was the boss and I was the employee. I could argue with my coach till I was blue in the face. There were times when I presented a better argument and he agreed to my proposal but if he did not agree with me it was his way or I could leave. The option was never left up to me. The final decision was ALWAYS his. The coach/player interaction is not a democracy, it is a theocracy/dictatorship. He was a benevolent dictator but his decision was the only one that mattered in the end. And as per your example (and that of your link), the husband (in a 'truly christian' relationship) always has the final say.

Sounds like you should have quit that abusive relationship!

You seem to have a fascination with my marriage. The relationship I share with my wife is a partnership. Neither of us has any more/less power than the other. We present our arguments and the best one wins. Both her and I have submitted to the others request/opinion when we deemed it warranted. I never have the absolute final say and neither does she. It's a partnership. 50/50 split.

Marriage is not 50/50 its about giving 100% from both sides, anything less and someone is getting short changed.

you can't stand Christianity and thats why you try and tear it down but you just admitted your relationship is based on mutual respect, that is exactly what paul was teaching. the more you try and find fault, the more you prove my point!

 

[Garfield1966]

Who said anything about abuse? The coach is the boss and has the final say. That is how it should be. Show me a successful team where the player can do as they wish if they disagree with the coach.

Do you deny that in a coach/player relationship that the coach has the final authority?

Apples and oranges. Authority is split 50/50. No mention was made of effort being put into the relationship.

I could care less about christianity or any other religion for that matter. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike christianity. This is merely an argument about the definition of submission. It is a personal choice for a person to believe in what ever they choose to.

Respect is a separate issue from authority. Yes I agree that according to your link the man should show respect to his wife. What he does not say and does not endorse is that authority should be divided equally. No where does it say that a man must/should submit to his wife. It only says that he should respect her.

I agree with your point about respect. Please show me where authority is split equally.

BTW, who wears the pants in your house?

 

[local 12 proud]

BTW, who wears the pants in your house?

I Do! B)

“The only thing that holds a marriage together is the husband being big enough to step back and see where the wife is wrongâ€￾
Archie Bunker

We know who wears the pants in your house, huh Garf

 

[Garfield1966]

As you like to say …."right over your head".

By admitting "you wear the pants" you have proven my point. You are saying that you have absolute authority in your house. The implication of the pant wearer is that they make the rules. You are proving the point that you have been disputing. You have proven that your wife must submit to you since "you wear the pants" in your family. That is exactly what the bible tells you to do.

I cannot help but wonder if your wife would agree with you. I have met many men who think they wear the pants but very few who actually do. Most are in a 50/50 deal but do not even know it.

As I stated earlier, my marriage is an equal partnership with no one have more authority than the other. We have equal says as to what goes on in our household. She is not required to submit to me nor I to her. Authority is split 50/50.

 

[local 12 proud]

Yes Garf, Im the KING of my Castle!!!!! B)

....Alas, I have no Queen.

Works great for me though, I can leave the "Terlit" lid up.

BTW...Should'nt you be running a bubble bath? 😛

 

[delldude]

Do you guys know why men usually die before their wives?


Because they want to......