So the other night at the recent Republican debate, three candidates said they would be fine with women having to register for the Selective Service. Those three were Christie, Bush, and Rubio. After the debate, Cruz said that he thought the idea was “nuts.” “We have had enough with political correctness — especially in the military,” Cruz said.
So let us talk about this for a minute, shall we? I have some random thoughts on the subject, which will probably require systematic organization later.
First, I want to say that there are a number of striking things about Rubio’s conservatism that I like. I like his free and open confession of Christ. I like how unabashedly pro-life he is. But this answer of his reveals that he is not functioning with an integrated biblical worldview at all. This is a profound and radical inconsistency in his professed conservatism.
Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.
A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense. We may have to fight later as a practical matter, but this is a matter of rudimentary allegiance.
The compromise runs deep also (as it does with Christie and Bush), because the formal legality of women serving in combat roles is merely weeks old. The speed with which some Republicans roll over so quickly on issues like this is revelatory. If conservatism were an ornate Persian carpet, this is a six-inch swath of orange shag sewn into the middle of it.
Conscripted women in combat is progressivism, pure and simple. It is an essential part of their egalitarian new world order, and this is why we need something other than what Dabney called a certain kind of conservatism — “the shadow that follows radicalism to perdition.”
Second, this is one of the things I admire about Cruz. He is willing to fight to reverse progressive gains, and not just promise to be a more moderate steward of ongoing progressive gains. He fights, and people don’t like him because he fights. Not only so, but he fights uphill.
I saw at least one person wondering if this position that Cruz took was “opportunistic.” Well, if it is, then Cruz is a lot smarter than anyone has given him credit for, and everybody gives him credit for being plenty smart. It is not opportunistic to say and do things that cause the arbiters of all that is acceptable to declare you even more unacceptable than you were before, which was pretty unacceptable. If Cruz sees past the establishment smoke machine to a genuine “silent majority,” one that is actually out there, then you might call him a brilliant psychic who is an opportunist with the opportunities that nobody else sees. If that is what opportunism means, I’ll take it.
Third, to the merits. The business of a military unit is fighting and destruction. Success or failure is measured by how lethal that unit is. Success or failure is not to be measured by whether or not a stirring and patriotic and politically-correct commercial for the armed forces can be made with some brave women in it. Grand and idiotic experiments in social engineering have to limit themselves to fiction — to movies, to fictional commercials, and to lying propaganda.
But what if someone responds by agreeing that military standards must never be lowered, but argues that any woman who can meet those standards should be allowed in? There are a basic problem. It is that social justice warriors, of the kind that are driving this whole business, lie all of the time. They do not submit to the way God made the world, so why would they submit to accurate descriptions of the way God made the world? They are at war with the science as much as with Scripture, and their response to any obstacle is always the same. They lie about it. If you refuse to see the difference between a man and woman, why on earth would you be willing to see the difference between accurate data and politically-fudged data? Everything is always all the same except for the difference between “the agenda” and that which is “not the agenda.”
Fourth, some Christians will want to say that the Bible doesn’t say anything about this issue, and so — they say — traditionalists are just getting themselves whizzed up for the sake of some old-timey cultural values. Where does the Bible say anything about this?
Let’s wade into this from the shallow end.
First, when God had His people go to war, only the men were mustered. Males, twenty years old and up, were mustered for war (e.g. 2 Sam. 24:9). Incidentally, not to get sidetracked, but forced conscription for men is not biblical either. In Scripture the men were mustered, but were not forced to fight. If they did not want to fight, even for dishonorable reasons like fear, they were free to go home. So when a government conscripts men, they are forcing them into a vocation that men are in fact called to perform, with the coercion creating an injustice. But when a government conscripts women for combat, that government has declared war on the permanent things. It is degrading to the women involved, and an utter disgrace to the men who allow it to happen.
The second point can only be understood if we understand strength and weakness in terms of teleology and design function. Men are stronger at some things than women, and women are stronger at other things than men. We can say that women are weaker only if we place men and women in the same realm at the same time. When their different callings are remembered, the question doesn’t really come up. So we see that an excellent wife in her calling is identified as a strong woman. In Proverbs, the phrase translated excellent wife is literally “woman of strength,” or “woman of valor” (Prov. 12:4; 31:10). But if you put her into the wrong realm, if you try to use the most expensive vase in the house to pound in tent pegs, you will get a different impression. And this is why Scripture speaks about the idea of women in combat dismissively the way it does. “The warriors of Babylon have ceased fighting; they remain in their strongholds; their strength has failed; they have become women; her dwellings are on fire; her bars are broken” (Jer. 51:30, ESV).
Third, the Bible flatly prohibits the kind of perverse thinking that would put women into combat. “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). That “which pertaineth unto a man” is a rendering of keli geber, which literally refers to the gear of a warrior. Men are prohibited from chasing after the transvestite kick, whatever that is, and women are prohibited from decking themselves out as an infantryman. It is easy for modern secularists to lump this in with the prohibition of clam chowder, but for those who read the Scriptures with understanding, it should be lumped in with the abominations of sodomy and witchcraft. Unfortunately, many Christians will fall for this latest abomination because it has been artfully decked out in red, white, and blue.
And last, the reason why this is a flash point issue should not be that hard to discern. For many conservative Christians, it has been possible to be somewhat shielded in a subculture where things like abortion and same sex mirage were issues on the evening news, but not day-to-day issues that applied directly to us. Those in favor of abortion were killing their own babies, not ours. Despite this, it is much to the credit of evangelicals and Catholics that they have sustained a vibrant pro-life testimony over the course of a generation when the outrage was largely being committed elsewhere. The whole issue of same sex mirage could have been the same kind of thing, and probably would have been, except that the intoleristas started to come after evangelical florists, bakers and photographers. That raised the stakes considerably. And now the Republican “establishment lane” is good with drafting our daughters. Well, that escalated quickly.
I have argued elsewhere that a man’s central obligation before God is to provide for his family and to protect them. He should bring up his sons to do the same. An essential part of that protection would be to protect your daughters from the appalling policy that would (apparently) be upheld by a President Rubio. So under a President Rubio, it is possible that some of my granddaughters might be drafted. But it is not possible for that to happen without a number of the men around them going to jail first.
“But it is not possible for that to happen without a number of the men around them going to jail first.”
My thoughts exactly.
Hear! Hear!
If that is what it takes, then so be it.
Or taking up arms.
For what it’s worth, the bill currently in the House was intended to be a “poison pill” on the issue. Representatives Hunter and Zinke are veterans who firmly oppose women in combat positions. As I understand it) they brought forth this bill to get more abruptly and (hopefully) shockingly from the brass deciding that women were “eligible” for all positions to the logical conclusion of that thinking: women drafted for combat. It’s worth making your opinions known to your representatives, so that it can be shut down sooner instead of later.
Proverbs 31:25,
She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
So noted Lady Alice!
What’s the HR #?
I’m trying to find it, but in the meantime, here’s a fairly good article that explains what they’re doing:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/04/reps-introduce-bill-requiring-women-to-register-for-draft.html
I cannot find a number for it anywhere, but it’s titled the “Draft America’s Daughters Act”. I did find Zinke’s press release: https://zinke.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/combat-veterans-zinke-hunter-introduce-legislation-requiring-women
Basically, they’re trying to force the discussion out of the administration & military bureaucracy and into congress & the legislative process.
The acronym is schweeet: DADA.
Sometimes when you venture down the slippery slope to make a point you end up joining your opponent at the bottom instead…
Or put another way: Sometimes making an argument “ad absurdum” just reveals how absurd things have actually become…
Sometimes when you venture down the slippery slope to make a point you end up joining your opponent at the bottom instead.. ^^This! I’ve about decided to not use reducio arguments anymore. Our detractors lick their lips and swallow the absurdum like it was chocolate ice cream. Futurama, “Love and Rocket”: Bender: “You are one narrow-minded spaceship, Planet Express Ship!” Ship: “Whoah, whoah. Why should my tax money pay for art I find offensive?” Bender: “Would you censor the Venus de Venus just because you can see her spewers?” Ship: “That’s filthy! Why not create a national endowment for strip… Read more »
Did you know that “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights bill for the exact same reason? Conservative legislators decided that since liberals were so hellbent on outlawing discrimination on the basis of race, they would make them look silly by throwing “sex” in there with race, figuring that they would make them “put their money where their mouth is.” Did they really think discrimination on the basis of physical characteristics was evil? If so, then why should it be legal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sex? So they added that language, because they thought Congress… Read more »
One thing to note (and I’m not setting out to defend Rubio or anyone) is that the draft is not necessarily into combat roles. It is possible to imagine a situation where women are required to register, with a law stating that any conscription of women would be to stateside jobs supporting the war effort.
It’s possible to imagine that, but I’m pretty sure it’s impossible for that to happen, given the course of events. (Barring, of course, the sense in which nothing is impossible.)
That’s probably true. Any changes will probably go towards gender neutrality. But given the strong anti-war sentiment since Vietnam, and the technological advances in modern warfare, I think it’s highly unlikely that conscription for combat (men or women) will happen in my lifetime. It’s much easier to imagine a situation where non-combat conscription was offered to all.
In spite of technological advances, a heavy war may be necessary as part of a larger economic stimulus program. Remember that the last time our nation shouldered this much debt, it was in justification of a world war. To carry this much debt during the tranquility of economic peacetime begins to look unsustainable at some point.
Yes I think a heavy war is definitely possible in our future. But the only reason I can imagine for the US to conscript for combat is if the purpose (of course it would not be promoted as such) were a culling of the surplus population (HT: Ebenezzer Scrooge). God help us all if that’s ever the case.
EDIT: I guess there are other scenarios, like if the US somehow lost the ability to deploy its military technology and they kinda had to regress to a mostly ground game.
My thought exactly. I heard recently (from an acquaintance who had served in the armed forces) that for every combat role in the military, there are at least 5 or 6 non-combat positions. If the ratio is anything close to that, it seems to me that it would be feasible to give *all* drafted people (male and female) the choice between a combat or a non-combat role. I can’t recall any specific passages of Scripture talking about such things, but I believe it was common in the ancient world for women to bring food and clothing, and carry out other… Read more »
Whatever the ratio is, I bet it’s way higher now than any time in history, and still increasing
Of course, today, we fight luxury Presidential wars, Trump style. I.e. we fight undeclared wars that we have no thought or risk of actually losing in the militaristic sense (though we often lose them in every other sense that matters).
True, but while the conflicts we’ve been involved in for the last 20 years (and arguably even longer than that, if you don’t include the Cold War) have presented no existential threat to the United States government, it’s not hard to imagine a realistic (if improbable) scenario where we get into exactly that sort of war with a country like China, or a coalition of Russia and its allies, etc.
That may be so, but once you’re in the Army you’d be as fungible as tax money going to Planned Parenthood for Medicare reimbursment. They send you where they want you, and if gender no longer disqualifies you from combat, I’m not content to play those odds with my daughters.
This would also apply to any female currently serving in any capacity, right?
I would assume any person getting combat training would be so. Once you’re in the military they put you where they need you. For the record, I don’t want my daughters in any of the 5 branches of the service. Combat or otherwise.
Ok, fair enough. You just might be on to something there.
Once chuck comes over (or under) the wire, everyone is a rifleman.
The enemy doesn’t tend to respect our “non-combat” arbitrary lines either.
Yes. Even conservatives have allowed this to become a question of “can they?” instead of “should they?” The problem is that they gave up the “should they?” argument a long time ago – like when they agreed that there are no essential differences between the genders in the marriage controversy. It seems that some, at least, are trying to play a political game of chicken with the young women of America. They are trying to take the women in combat thing to its logical conclusion in the hopes that it will make people back off. That is they are saying… Read more »
So, where do we draw the line? Registration or actual conscription?
No registration and no conscription. No women in combat. Period.
Right, so I draw the line out there beyond the Magellanic Cloud.
Seems kind of like asking, “Where do we draw the line? Dousing the house in lighter fluid and piling up the kindling or actually striking the match?” Or are you asking about where we draw the line for our duty to disobey the law?
There’s actually a reasonable ground for my question. The military does not want a draft, and Congress would rather die than institute a draft, so it’s a safe bet there never will be one. In that context, Christian fathers will want a good reason for going to prison over this. It’s not a matter of your daughters going into combat. It’s a matter of providing the government with her name and address. I really don’t think we could prevail in an insurrection over THAT.
Yeah, I think it’s a fair question in that context. But I wasn’t clear initially on whether you were asking about drawing the line on what legislation is a good idea or drawing the line on where we are obliged to stand against the law.
So, where do we draw the line? Registration or actual conscription? This is a good question with big ramifications. Background: my dad belongs to a small religion (Unamended Christadelphians) that practices conscientious objection to military service and jury duty. They’re serious about it – some of them have gone to jail. It’s not the conscription per se, but the forcing to be agents of the government, so to speak, that they object to. His folks do register for the selective service, and they make their CO status known at the draft. Now here’s where Bro. Steve’s question gets good –… Read more »
On solely a legal point (not in opposition to the principle), since 18 is the age of majority, what charge would a father be subject to if it is the daughter that is not registering.
I’m not sure. The way things are going now, any 18 yro woman who does not register would probably encounter some “soft despotism” type of retribution like garnishment of wages or something. Which brings me to another thing – if they know where to find the people in the first place, why do we need to register? Isn’t everybody’s name, dob, ssn, and address given to the IRS each April 15?
I was just trying to understand what charges the men “going to jail” would be facing. With the now extant absolute autonomy that the law grants to the age of 18, it would seem as if the legal apparatus would be upon the person failing to register.
The SSAN is another issue entirely, but does create linkage. With no foil fedora in view, the premise of requiring a number for someone’s child is diabolically simple.
“No Time for Sergeants” is one of my favorite movies. At the beginning, a young Will Stockdale (Andy Griffith) is tracked down to his backwoods Georgia home by a “draft man” for failing to report. Stockdale’s father doesn’t want Will to leave and threatens the draft man with a shotgun. The whole scene is hilarious (and reminds us of a time which people didn’t get freaked out by guns). I would remain unarmed, and not at all threaten violence, but I would gladly stand as a physical barrier if any military representative were trying to conscript my daughter into combat… Read more »
Not “absolute autonomy”…you can certainly kill and die for your country, but you can’t buy beer or cigs.
But in California you can buy medical marijuana at 18. As much as you like and as often as you like. But cigarettes? Heavens no!
I think this would presuppose government agents showing up at the door and demanding that the girl, helplessly clinging to her mother, come along with them. Dad says over his dead body, and goes to jail.
Since the communists and liberals (but I repeat myself) were heartily in favor of “draft-dodging” and fleeing to Canada during the Vietnam draft, I am sure that they will also support young ladies doing the same now. Right?
No registration and no conscription for anyone, male or female.
As a tactic to destroy feminism even more than it’s destroying itself, the “conscript women too!” is logical but not likely to have good outcomes.
Rubio lost me when he said that. Anyone who believes that women should be conscripted for combat has lost any claim to being called a conservative.
With all due respect, it seems to me that you were not particularly a fan of Rubio before he said that. There are so many issues on which to judge those who seek to represent us, that even if we could agree on what the conservative position should be on each and every issue, it would not be right to say that someone cannot be called a conservative unless they take every one of those positions. And therefore I’m skeptical of litmus tests. And even if you did find that rare candidate who was a ‘pure’ conservative, it seems likely… Read more »
Have you read what I’ve been saying about Rubio for the last couple months? If not, perhaps you should refrain from imagining you know what I think of him based on two sentences. The truth is that I generally like the guy, but there are some issues that, IMO, speak volumes about a person’s moral and intellectual foundations. Accepting the idea of “equality of the sexes” is one of those things. Anyone who buys into it — to the extent that they believe women should be conscripted for combat just like men — shows some serious lack of judgment. So… Read more »
No, I haven’t read anything else you’ve written about Rubio. I read Doug’s blog frequently, but rarely delve into the comments. I’m just really skeptical of folks who proclaim that they were supporting Candidate X, but now that they heard them say such and such, they can no longer support them. I find that 99% of the time, they were actually already lukewarm at best in their support of that candidate, or else they’re just concern-trolling. Perhaps, though, you’re in the 1% who are really sincere in saying such a thing. None of the current candidates running in the GOP… Read more »
“Men are stronger at some things than women, and women are stronger at other things than men. We can say that women are weaker only if we place men and women in the same realm at the same time.” Wilson has inadvertently admitted his position here. Sentence one, that men and women each have some strengths, cannot be true if sentence two, that women are weaker if men and women are in the same realm at the same time. I always appreciate it when patriarchs are honest that they believe women are always and in every instance inferior to women.… Read more »
I’m not following your logic. Please expand on this.
Karen wrote:
If Karen is going to pretend to be a barometer of honesty in this forum, she will first need to start being…honest.
Nope. He didn’t say it was true of every realm. He was saying one sex can be called “weaker” than the other only within specific realms, not overall. He was in fact saying you CAN’T say women are weaker overall, because we are never inhabiting only one realm at a time. You can only say “women are weaker” if you are limiting the statement to a realm, not as an absolute. Oh, and of course even if he had meant “women are weaker in general,” conflating that with “women are inferior” and “women suck” is completely dishonest. Unless you think… Read more »
Nope. If he really meant that women are sometimes stronger, he would have said stopped at the first sentence. There is nothing in that second sentence to indicate that he intends it to be limited to things like upper body strength. Also, given that Wilson believes women should never exercise any kind of public authority and shouldn’t earn our own money or choose our own husbands, it’s a little rich to argue that he doens’t believe women are inferior.,
Doug Wilson saying women shouldnt be able to earn money… citation please. Falsely attributing one idea to someone in order to nullify another idea that he actually has. I’m sure there’s a word for this logical fallacy. But I dont know what it is. I’m a bit of a simpleton: I just call it a lie. And you talk as if strength is the only thing that matters. Maybe you dont believe this, but is seems to be the basis of your argument. If someone isnt as strong, she isnt as good. People dont go to the ballet to observe… Read more »
So, exactly what does Wilson think women excel at doing?
Cite your previous statements first, before you’re entitled to an answer. You’re not entitled to cross-examine in order to impeach Wilson on your own terms if you won’t even deal honestly with what you already claim to know about him.
On choosing husbands: Wilson believes in father-guided courtship, and that he has the right to approve men who want to spend time with his daughter before the boys get to see her. That implies that women aren’t allowed to choose their husbands. He has also repeatedly said that women should stay home and do housework, which precludes them having jobs. Further, I see nothing in his writing indicating that he respects or even likes women very much. He likes a fictional idea from his own head of what women are, but us actual females in the real world he wants… Read more »
“He has also repeatedly said that women should stay home and do housework, which precludes them having jobs.” You really aren’t that lacking in information to think that women can’t earn an income from home, are you? Since you see nothing in his writing indicating that he respects or likes women very much, stop commenting here and come back in several weeks after you’ve read more of his writing than three-sentence excerpts in hit pieces by bloggers, because it’s obvious that you haven’t. Then we might actually be able to have a useful conversation. I look forward to it. Either… Read more »
Karen, I don’t know where you’re getting your notions, but you are evidently not familiar with Pastor Wilson’s own family. His wife worked as a teacher for many years. His elder daughter still works as a teacher and previously owned her own business. His younger daughter also previously owned her own business. Oh, and all three make money from book royalties, These are smart, competent women. Loving involvement by a father in courtship by no means implies that women aren’t allowed to choose their own husbands…it rather implies that they don’t have to choose them all by themselves. Again, I… Read more »
You may not agree with Mr. Wilson ideologically, but one thing I think is obvious to those who are more familiar with him. He likes and believes in strong women. His wife and daughters are such women. They are well-educated, smart, witty, and earn money ( at least I know his wife teaches or has taught, as well as at least one daughter who had/ has her own business). And yes, they are also keepers of their home.
Also, approving of whom your daughter dates, is very different from choosing whom your daughter dates.
I cant really speak for him, but he, in this article, and as I mentioned to above, referred to the most expensive vase in the house. I think thats a reference to value, beauty, treasure. Granted, thats being, not doing. I think being is more important. Wilson has previously referred to being or identity as being most important, much moreso than anything one does. What does he think women are good at doing? Worshiping would probably be at the top of the list. Reflecting Gods glory in a way men dont do as well, generally. But worshiping is probably the… Read more »
“Sentence one, that men and women each have some strengths, cannot be true if sentence two, that women are weaker if men and women are in the same realm at the same time.” Uhm, we are weaker physically! That is why we have men’s and women’s sports, that is why we have light weight and heavy weight competitions. In fact, it’s a bit cruel to suggest women are equally as strong as men… and then send them into a fight. That is like a set up for failure. Even men among men know their own imitations. It’s an odd world… Read more »
Well… we used to have women’s sports.
The people arguing for women in combat never claim it will make the military stronger or more effective. It always comes from political correctness and false ideals of “equality”. Women in combat will make our military weaker, our units more vulnerable, and will result in more soldiers being killed (both men and women). But at least the feminists will feel good about themselves. “So why do men and women perform so differently in combat-related tasks? First, physiologically and psychologically, women and men are significantly different. Men are not simply bigger women with different plumbing. Men’s blood carries 10 to 12… Read more »
Yes, these are valid arguments. Having served over 20 years in the military I have known women who could get a maximum score on the male physical fitness test yet could not maintain the pace under heavy load in a combat conditioning hike. And I have known of female unit leaders sobbing on the shoulder of their platoon sergeant after a convoy in which they received enemy fire. However, the response to the “can they” argument will always be that some can. They will say, just set the physical standards the same for all and some women will be able… Read more »
The six-inch swath of orange shag is a reference to Trump’s hair, right?
#ohnoyoudiint
Since I believe in the absolute and total sovereignty of God, and that He is wise and omniscient beyond our ability to conceive or comprehend, and that He is able to exercise that sovereignty without ever compromising our free will, it occurs to me that what He is doing here is a bit of reductio ad absurdum in our national conversation. To carry Pastor Wilson’s analogy to it’s conclusion: Will we recognize the patch of orange shag sewn into the Persian rug as actually a swatch of the clown’s toupee, or we will pronounce it a testament to the glory… Read more »
“real good” writing strikes again! ; – )
It strikes me that one (mild) barrier against my daughters being drafted might be a statement in the church constitution objecting to forced conscription of women. Not a terribly hard Biblical case to make.
My husband likes to take comfort in the fact that the PCA has our daughters covered in this respect — they passed a position paper decades ago against women in combat. I’m not sure how effective it would be if it came down to it, but I appreciate the fact that it exists. It speaks well of my denomination, IMO.
Lucky you Lady Dunsworth! I would think a PCA statement agianst women in combat with that much history behind it, would make your PCA down right “Amish” in the context of this question.
Although do ask our “Tony” if you get a chance. Somehow I might be “proof-texting”! ; – )
The CREC has this tucked away in an official document:
“It is not lawful for women to be mustered for combat service, for our Lord has declared it an abomination for women to don the martial attire of a man (Deuteronomy 22:5). Christian fathers must protect their daughters from being seduced or coerced into such a circumstance, and the Church must support them as they do so.”
Mr. Wilson, my ONE issue with your article is this: in todays military, soldiers perform tasks that were considered non-military tasks in the past. We have enlisted men cooking, enlisted men sewing uniforms, doing repairs, enlisted men doing bureaucratic tasks….. these were all thing that were indeed handled by the ladies in scripture.
So I would say, biblically, that a woman could be in the armed forces, just not on the front lines. Your point about male and female clothes is well taken, but camo pants and jackets are pretty gender neutral…
“Damon”,
Gender neutral means unfit for either sex…
J.P.
That is silly. White socks? Raincoats?
Gender neutral means it has no characteristics that would define it as masculine or feminine. Like a couch. or a television. Of a bazillion other objects that we interact with every day.
Having served a tour in Vietnam (Phu Bai, Nov ’69 – Jun ’70) . . . and having served at Army posts from Presidio of San Francisco to Stuttgart, Germany to Anjong-Ri, Korea and others in between . . . and having served as a platoon sergeant in an infantry line unit (2nd Plt, Co D, 1st Bn, 15th Inf (Mech), Harvey Barracks, Kitzingen, Germany, Jan ’86 – Dec ’87) . . . and having retired from the U.S. Army on July 15, 1989 . . . I can honestly say, without hesitation or further qualification, that I have never… Read more »
You give no reasons for your disagreement other than committing the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.” Your appeal to your vast experience means nothing without something to explain you have taken your position. I’m sure that there are many with equally impressive credentials who would clearly state their reasons for keeping women out of combat.
During my tenure in the Army I had known many female soldiers (MPs, field medics, etc.), both superior and subordinate to myself, and found that their dedication and abilities were never considered insufficient due to their gender.
Footnote: This is not a new concept. Women have been in combat for centuries.
‘Nuff said.
But they weren’t combat soldiers.
Are you Len from BTWN? I swear, that’s the voice I heard when reading your comment…. :-)
We’re quickly arriving in a time where “combat” happens behind a computer screen in a kind of virtual war. I’m not particularly pleased about this, but the face of combat is changing.
I believe this oft-heard notion is really overstated. Has there been a shift in that direction? Certainly. But one only has to consider the course of U.S. military action over the last two decades to realize that there are still many, many boots on the ground in the line of fire.
It seems to me from reading the newspaper that many soldier deaths are the result of IEDs encountered as troops are moved from one place to another. I think that even in a age of computer warfare, this would be a constant problem.
Second, this is one of the things I admire about Cruz. He is willing to fight to reverse progressive gains, and not just promise to be a more moderate steward of ongoing progressive gains. He fights, and people don’t like him because he fights. Not only so, but he fights uphill. Rafael Cruz also asked Obama to parole the traitor Jonathan Pollard, and has said that if he’s elected, he’ll consider granting Pollard a full pardon. Cruz may be a fighter, but he’s not fighting for America, let alone people like you and me. He’s fighting for the Sheldon Adelsons,… Read more »
I am wondering why you don’t see Mark Zuckerberg and Sheldon Adelson as being people “like you and me.”
They may be like you. But they’re certainly not like me.
How can that be? Is it because they are rich and powerful, or is it because they are Jewish? Are you okay with rich and powerful Christians? Are you okay with Jews who are not rich and powerful? I am not trying to provoke you, but I really don’t understand how a different religious faith (if that is the issue) makes you unable to recognize your common humanity with your fellow Americans.
I recognise common humanity, but I also recognise disparity of interests. The societal environment that benefits rich and powerful Jews is rather different from one that benefits us.
Do you believe that rich and powerful Jews have a worse impact on the culture than do rich and powerful Gentiles? In other words, is your issue with the religious faith or the ethnic background (or both)? Or is it with an alien urban culture where the specific religions don’t matter but the ideology does?
Ethnic background. And yes, Jews have been a disproportionately large negative cultural influence — but this was only possible because of the establishment of the USA as a multicultural empire.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this with me.
But still, some how, our “Boss” is a Jewish carpenter! ; – )
Not a bad boss either!
I have no problems with Christians of Jewish descent nor have I heard of anyone who has. The vast majority of Jews, however, are either atheists or adherents of Rabbinic Judaism (which specifically arose as a rejection of Christ).
But you said your issue was with ethnic background. Wouldn’t a Christian of Jewish descent still have the same ethnic background, and thus wouldn’t you have the same issue? I also wonder – is that you believe rich, powerful, urban gentiles don’t and never would have the same negative impact as Jews of the same description, or do you not care so much about impact as long as they are gentiles?
Well, obviously Jews would not have amassed wealth and power in American
society without the assistance and permission of Americans (including
rich and powerful ones). So one can’t blame them as the source of the
problem, really. Nevertheless Jews have contributed significantly to the atomisation of society, working to destroy social cohesiveness and traditional mores. Naturally this doesn’t apply to all Jews, but it certainly does to ones like Sheldon Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jonathan Pollard.
ashv leaves the overall impression that he has not been in accord with any political ideology since the fall of the Third Reich.
My position has been consistent for years: I unconditionally support restoration of the Stuarts.
Off topic. What happened in 136 AD? I am trying to close out a debate with some guys who claim Christianity is heresy and that the messianic law and rituals will be restored “someday”. That is a key year for them. thx
probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
Bar-Kokhba. That was one of my (now) 3 year old’s first words. Not even kidding.
Terrifying.
It was at first, but now he just wants to be an American Ninja Warrior like his brothers, not the leader of a Jewish revolt. Crisis averted. On a side note, we are making sure we are only reading history from the apostolic period now that our 5 month old will be learning to talk soon. Lesson learned.
Agreed. I had googled that too. This makes sense. The Jews of the time where trying to rebuild their temple and maintain the Judaic system (?Correct term) of sacrifices etc. This looks like the final humiliating destruction of that goal. They are now adamant in the role of Torah over the affairs of all men (I surmise this) and from this flows are their arguments for one man, many wives, many marriages. Remove the role of Torah and replace it with Christ and they have no ground. I am going to assume this is it. They also have a phrase… Read more »
Several in which they differ significantly from you and me. Among others: 1) You and I believe in and worship Jesus Christ. They don’t. 2) They are worth tens of billions of dollars. I am not, and I’m pretty sure you aren’t. 3) They are both eligible for instant citizenship in Israel, based on nothing but their race, a state which officially rejects Jesus Christ, and funds ultra-Orthodox yeshiva where kids are taught that the Virgin Mary was a whore, and that Jesus Christ is boiling in hot excrement for all eternity. You and I are not eligible for instant… Read more »
1) True, and that’s the primary difference. Has nothing to do with their Jewishness per se, but it does make them not like you and me and Jill in a significant way. 2) True. Matters much less than #1, but it no doubt makes a difference in the way they look at the world. Works in the other direction too – I’m not (and guess you’re not?) utterly destitute, and we look at the world differently than the destitute do. 3) I suppose they are. Their eligibility doesn’t really matter to me unless they do apply for citizenship in Israel… Read more »
#4 is no secret.
http://www.fwd.us/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/lets-deal-with-reality-and-pass-immigration-reform-108065#.U6NPB_ldX2P
I see. However, the point to be made there is not so much that they are different as it is that they are wrong.
I don’t think that’s a productive way to view it. Is it wrong for wolves to eat sheep? Certainly the wolf and the shepherd differ on whether it should be allowed, but they aren’t ever going to agree on a moral framework under which to judge the question.
It’s wrong for people to eat people. The fact that the people being eaten are in any respect different from the cannibals does not make the cannibals any more or less wrong, the cannibal’s (or for that matter their victim’s) moral framework notwithstanding.
I am eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return because I am the mother of a half-Jewish child. The purpose of the Law is not specifically to favor “the chosen” but rather to ensure that no Jew or his/her family will ever again be stateless in the face of persecution. It is difficult for me to see how anyone could have a problem with such a law. Clearly, the very rich are different from you and me. But do Bill Gates’s or Donald Trump’s billions offend you as much as Zuckerberg’s? However, I give you Pollard. I don’t… Read more »
I think it’s a great idea and would encourage any Jews who are nervous about anti-Jewish sentiment in America to move to Israel.
Amount of money isn’t the problem; it’s what the money is used for. Zuckerberg is using his to destroy communities and support political censorship.
Also, they are part of a group that has agitated for the release of the traitor, Jonathan Pollard. Adelson himself urged Mitt Romney to set the traitor free.
What kind of people agitate for the release of traitors?
Regarding the argument that women who meet the physical qualifications should be allowed in: People don’t consider that men have a natural, biological predisposition to protect women in danger, and it’s hard to believe that goes away on the battlefield. Thus women will serve as a distraction as men expend an inordinate amount of energy trying to protect women from harm, resulting in combat inefficiencies. There is also that whole issue about all the raping that American soldiers do. Reportedly five percent of all women in the military have been sexually assaulted. Of course the actual number is higher due… Read more »
For once Ben I am 100% in agreement with you! :)
“Rape prevalence among women in the U.S. is in the range of 15–20%, with different studies disagreeing with each other. (National Violence against Women survey, 1995, found 17.6% prevalence rate;[9] a 2007 national study for the Department of Justice on rape found 18% prevalence rate.”
While there is such a thing as apples vs. oranges in statistics, the military might be the safest place, if the above statistics are measuring the same thing.
Or… all the statistics could be questionalbe. How certain is anyone?
Thank you, Reverend Wilson. On one of the points below: The ONLY reason why the US has conscripted men has been to provide NUMBERS, and numbers are for the GROUND — for infantry. Don’t live in a dream-world, people. More: It is still base and cowardly to make your daughter go anywhere near the battle lines of a war. What the heck do you think they will experience there? There is no MILITARY reason for it. There is no reason for it at all. It is a part of the unreal ideology of Sameness — Egalitarianism run even madder than… Read more »
Rubio also seems to be firmly in the neocon tradition of calling for perpetual war which makes the possibility of the draft being reinstated all the more likely.
American conservatism is a form of liberalism, and always has been.
The “Evangelical Republican segment” of the Republican Party (whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) has constituted a very significant minority of the party. Nevertheless, the leadership of the party has demonstrated by actions over some years that it has chosen to take the easier-way-out, leaning toward offering lip-service to many conservative “values” over effective action to advance those values. The party’s dilemma this year is that many conservative voters are justifiably angry with social-engineering gone amuk, are smart enough to recognize lip-service when they see it, are going to opt for something else, and many in this segment will… Read more »
Hilarious.
I appreciate the optimism of william, and we can certainly hope that the GOP, as a party, will get a clue some time before its complete irrelevance. I would just caution in the meantime that we not hang our optimism and hope on a sudden GOP enlightenment. Because even if it wakes up from its moral coma, the solution to our problems still won’t be political.
You’re right about not hanging optimism on a sudden GOP enlightenment. Such an enlightenment is only one possibility that’s desirable because it’s simply desirable to have a party that considers itself conservative and which also can deliver–instead of dither– with regard to advancing conservative values. If such delivery cannot be realized by a given conservative political party, there are other avenues that may prove more useful to the cause of advancing conservative values. I fully agree with your point that the political avenue is not crucial in itself in struggles related to problems involving morals.
Much better for American conservatism to be completely destroyed, since it has served as the branch of liberalism most likely to deceive evangelical Christians.
What about women serving in Congress?
If they can’t fight war, can they declare it?
If they shouldn’t be sent to war, should they be able to send you to war?
If abandoning your family for the battlefield is terrible, is abandoning your family for D.C. terrible, also?
If they don’t have to register/can’t be drafted is it fair that they should vote? Personally, I’m against the draft in the first place, but as long as selective service is in place there is no justification for it being a requirement imposed only on young men, not anymore.
I think the only possible answer is not to have a draft. If women are legally entitled to complete equality in the workplace, if they can be firefighters and SWAT team members, the government can’t really argue that such frail flowers must be kept out of other kinds of danger. And the government can’t legally use scriptural reasons. I don’t like the idea of women in combat. But I am struggling to understand how this can be averted using the means at the government’s disposal.
I see that, but is that not because we’ve slid down a slippery slope and now that we’re at the bottom we have to admit the logic of “well, if they can be police and firemen and SWAT, and NOW they can go into combat-explicit roles in the military, then, gee, I don’t know why they shouldn’t be drafted”? We have a country that demands the blood of its children for the sake of “constitutional rights,” and now she’s demanding the blood of her women to guard, protect, and keep venerated that “constitutional right.” I’m not going full Westboro, here,… Read more »
Yes, I think it is exactly because of the slippery slope. I don’t think conscription for women is always a terrible thing. During the second world war, women in England were conscripted for national service–but not for military duty. The country’s back was against the wall, and I can see the necessity of drafting women for war work. My mother was a telephonist; my aunt was a WREN. Women could work on farms, in munition factories, in hospitals, and so on. WRENS not only did not see combat; most of them did not leave England. I don’t think conscription would… Read more »
Well, I’m not opposed to women fighting *at all*–just their moving into war while there are still men available and able to go to war. We’ve got several guns in our home, but my philosophy regarding the defense of my home and wife is NOT to tell her to cower in the corner if there’s ever an intruder when I’m not home. Nope, we both practice using guns, because if I, as the frontline, the Marines (I’m not in the Marines–it’s an analogy), the “first over the hill”, am not at home, then she becomes the next line–and she knows… Read more »
This reminds me of Lewis: he did say “battles are ugly when women fight,” but he also gave Jill a prominent role in the Last one.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Nearly all American Christians are radical leftist feminists, just not quite as radical as the most extreme feminists. One of the hallmarks of feminism is the blatant double standard, and the double standard doesn’t get much more blatant than in this case. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly says that people shouldn’t be discriminated against on account of their sex. And I’m sure that if Donald Trump were proposing that we draft only non-whites, people on here would be raising all kinds of cain, because exempting whites from the draft would discriminate… Read more »
That’s more or less what I meant. It’s been about a generation, or two, (depending on how you count a generation) since we could require men to register, let alone draft men but exempt women, without hypocritical injustice to men.
Well, to yours and Norris’ point, yes, I get what you’re saying and doing, but surely you can admit that being at the very end of our chasing out the reduction ad absurdum is not a state we’d like to stay at for any prolonged period.
It may be useful for waking us who live in this geographical region (I don’t think speaking in terms of “America” as one united entity will be very relevant at that point) to our need for repentance, but it’s by no means a sustainable equilibrium.
You’re probably saying something there, but I’m having a hard time deciphering what it is; perhaps my fault. What I’m saying is, absurdities and impracticalities aside, since women have the right let them also have the responsibility. Why should it be all advantage for them? What we’re already doing is unsustainable anyway, and it’s not like we face any external existential threats, at least not the kind an army would do much about.
I’ll try to clean up my wording and be more concise. What I meant was that the conscription of women–along with every other insanity we’re assuming and celebrating such as homosexual “marriage,” passing laws requiring the construction of special bathrooms for mixed up men and women, allowing children to decide their own gender, excusing 50-something year-old men who just decide that they’re actually 6 year-old girls, etc, etc–is a part of our race to the bottom of the slippery slope. Getting to the bottom of that slope and having to swallow every single ounce of crazy that our logic dictates–if… Read more »
Yes. Yes. No.
Plus running for congress doesn’t have to entail “abandoning your family.” People in the second stage of life can be politicians, but they don’t make very good infantrymen.
Well, I follow that, and I’m not quite ready to pass hard rules regarding women in Congress, but the people who come to mind are Republicans like Joni “Make’em Squeal” Ernst, who is a veteran and supports drafting women, and Martha Roby from my own state, though not my district, who DOES have young children (NRO calls her a “working mom”). I also did some back-of-the-napking “calculations” about the female composition of Congress since the first female was elected to Congress and found that, over that period around 45% of the female members were Republicans (let’s assume that translates to… Read more »
Congress hasn’t formally declared war since WW11, so in answer to your question, “If they can’t fight war, can they declare it,” yes apparently. Also, congresscritters are mostly men.
“If abandoning your family for the battlefield is terrible, is abandoning your family for D.C. terrible, also?”
Not “terrible” perhaps, but undesirable. We shouldn’t be living in a world where the things that women do, home, families, community, are perceived as having so little value, that we are compelled to go into combat or politics.
I know we’ve been involved in a truckload of skirmishes over the past 50 years, but which conflict was World War Eleven? I seem to have lost count…
Ha! So true. Blame the keyboard, it often makes me say things I didn’t intend to say.
I think the example of Deborah serves to answer this. As a judge she called Barak to fight Sisera. So I think a woman in leadership can declare war. I believe Elizabeth I did.
But an army should consist of men.
Well, I grant you the case of Barak, Deborah, and Jael.
But, that’s the story of a man refusing to play the man, and as a result, God disciplines that man by giving his glory to a woman.
Hardly a parable FOR widening the available roles of women.
Hardly a parable FOR widening the available roles of women. Women should not in general go to war. I am with Doug on this. But if we find ourselves with women leaders then they can act by making godly decisions, including a call to war. I don’t think the general principle is negated by (some) specific circumstances. While I oppose a female draft, I also think that the female Kurdish fighters that oppose ISIS are worthy of honouring. If all the men are outside the gates fighting the enemy and a few break through into the city I have no… Read more »
“You traditionalists need to develop a more realistic view of what it would actually be like to have women in combat.”
It’s like “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”, right? ; – )
When Trump was asked “What is conservatism or what is a conservative?. He looked as if the newsman had asked him to explain the Theory of Relativity. His answer showed he had a similar familiarity on both subjects. I recall Bob Dole saying that he was not bound by the Republican Party Platform. At lease he was honest about the fact that he rejected the many social conservative parts of the platform. Of course, that ripped it for me, but most politicians do give lip service to the platform even if they have absolutely no intention of supporting it as… Read more »
When Trump was asked “What is conservatism or what is a conservative?. He looked as if the newsman had asked him to explain the Theory of Relativity.
Yes, thank God Trump isn’t a conservative. If he were, he’d be proposing amnesty and making some civil rights hustler’s birthday a national holiday, just like Reagan did.
Now there was a real conservative!
They all have to get registered for selective service, first. Right?
Must be few men in Washington. with over a million professing Christians within 3 hours drive of Olympia, less then 1000 show up (mostly women and children) to protect women’s right to privacy. Lots of blow but no show. Pathetic.
Aren’t you tired of talking about women yet? There are other things to write and think about in this world. Obsessed much?
I think that any proposal to register women for the draft has such profound implications that it merits discussion by Christians. It would be hard to discuss this without some reference to women.
Ladies and Gentlemen, once again, Adam4d.
http://adam4d.com/obsessed/
Who said anything about sex? When you see the word women do you just think of sex?
Defense officials comment on drafting women, Time magazine pushes it, the media widely reports on it, and it makes its way into the Republican debate, but when this blogger finally comments on it, he’s the one obsessed?
https://www.google.com/search?q=analogy
I believe he was counting on you to have the mental dexterity to apply the thought behind the comic to a different case. Perhaps jigawatt will know better next time.
It’s when men stop thinking about women that societies get into really deep trouble.
Oh, wow, he talks about things that concern half of everyone in the world directly, and everyone else who loves them indirectly but quite closely, and he should go think about other things, because it’s clearly only an obsession.
Way to be a concern troll.
Forget conscription. It is only the shiny object to distract us from the godless policy of allowing women into combat positions. This is what needs to be turned back. We are having the wrong discussion.
More than hurt feelings are at stake!
Remember, kids – John Piper says “Don’t think of women in combat as women, but as a New Kind of Warrior.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/a-new-kind-of-champion
Appalling. If someone is not viscerally repelled at the prospect of young women beating each other up, how do we even begin to explain why it is wrong?
Exactly. And this Holly freak is a heroine to millions of Christians, and John Piper, one of the most influential evangelical leaders in America, glorifies her as a New Kind of Champion. But Christians are against women in combat? Yeah, right.
I read a little more about this. Holly’s opponent ended up in the hospital. She kicks people in the head for pay, and some conservative Christians are okay with this?
Yes; millions of them apparently. As I said, John Piper is one of the most influential evangelical leaders in America, and he published that garbage on his site. They only put up the “editor’s note” at the beginning after they got some flack from some Christians who still think there are actual differences between men and women. How anyone could oppose gay marriage and drafting women because “men are men and women are women” and think that freak is a Christian, let a lone a heroine is beyond me. She’s as sick and perverted and disgusting as any man who’s… Read more »
Which wasn’t the point of that atrociously written artical.
Jail? I was actually thinking more like, “over my dead body!”
Each of the candidates mentioned said, “…if they can meet the standard…” Which standard? From the Air Force Academy website – here are the admissions standards. Requirements for max pull-ups: Men 18, Women 7; max push-ups: Men 75, Women 50;Max Basketball throw: Men 102′, Women, 66′; 1-mile run: Men 6:36. Women 7:35. The lower standard for women betrays the reality that a woman can NOT do whatever a man can do in combat. Additionally, when both mom and dad are vulnerable to deployment, what happens to the children? Well, you make provisions for them as you would your home and… Read more »
The Scriptures Doug quoted are wise and a provision from God who loves women and esteems them.
But they’re about 50 years late and a trillion dollars short.
Wonder if that was the thinking 50 years before the Reformation as Rome was bilking wads of cash from the faithful? Poor God, He must be wringing His hands in Heaven over this one.
I read the last chapter, and guess what, folks? We win!!!!
GO USA!!!!
Could we amend that to GO BODY OF CHRIST!!! Of that kingdom we know there will be no end. So, how should we then live in the USA?
Like people on the second story of a burning building who’ve realized the fire department isn’t coming.
Harsh, but funny. :)
I have argued elsewhere that a man’s central obligation before God is to provide for his family
That’s fine. As far as it goes. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Because if a man’s central obligation before God is providing for his family, doesn’t it follow that one of a woman’s greatest obligations is not to compete with men who are trying to provide for their families?
How about a few sermons on that?
I doubt a good argument can be constructed from that angle — any argument that would bar women from the workforce on those grounds would also apply to men with no family to support.
Yeah, I guess if you believe that men should have zero income or assets until the day they’re married, then that makes sense.
To be more specific: should widows be barred from the workforce?
Typical American male feminist who thinks he’s a traditionalist. Because there are some rare exceptions, we can’t have common sense policies that encourage and allow men to provide for their families. Women now make up something like 57% of all college students. How many of them would you estimate are widows? 10%? 35%? 50%? How many female firefighters would you estimate are poor, helpless widows just trying to provide for their fatherless children? 85%? 90%? Widows have never been barred from earning a living in a Christian society. But you would take the fact that there are a few widows… Read more »
Since you know my views so well, I obviously would be wasting my time to explain them further. (Just don’t call me an American.)
You should change avatars. Your current one kind of implies that you’re not a feminist, so it’s dishonest. You should post a picture of yourself with a sign that says “I need feminism because without it, white Christian heterosexual males would let widows starve in the street.” You’re a good guy, with a lot of good insights, but on this one, you’re an unreconstructed feminist. Tossing out the wisdom of the Bible and centuries of practice that women should stay out of the workplace, because you claim to be worried about widow starving? And Paul addressed this very topic. He… Read more »
So what’s your solution?
Who said there’s a solution? As you said somewhere else, and which I thought was very apt, we should do what people on the second floor of a burning building should do when they realize the fire department isn’t coming.
Given that you clearly recognize gender differences, do you also believe there are some quite necessary jobs that are better suited to women? For example, do you believe that hospital nurses and primary school teachers should be men?
Yes. While, the vast majority of jobs were not open to women, hstorically, these caregiving/nurturing jobs have always been open to young, unmarried women (who were expected to quit once they got married), middle aged “empty nest” women, and old maids.
That sounds like radical feminist thinking to me. There are plenty of unemployed men who’d love those jobs.
LOL
So, in other words, you believe that providing for his family is one of a man’s greatest oblgations, but God doesn’t care if women are out there competing with him for jobs and driving down his wages, and getting promoted over him because she had sex with his boss?
Norris seems to be arguing from a zero sum paradigm.
Yes, that’s the point I was trying to make in my comment that supposedly had “nothing to do with” his.
I think Pastor Wilson’s frequent “sermon” that applies to that issue is that there’s not a limited economic pie that can only be cut into so many slices. A man has an obligation to provide for his family; he doesn’t have an obligation to do so by occupying position X at company Y.
Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
I never said a man is obligated to take “position X at company Y.”
We’re talking about tens of millions of women in the workforce competing with men for jobs, and driving down their wages.
And making it even worse, when you factor in human nature, a woman will often be given preferences in shifts, positions, assignments, etc, by bosses who are either having sex with her, or hope that by showing her favoritism they’ll get to have sex with her.
But that’s not what you said, either. You referred to “a woman” competing with men.
As for a woman “often” being given preferences in exchange for or in hope of sexual favors, I think you’d be hard pressed to defend that statement with any real evidence.
But that’s not what you said, either. You referred to “a woman” competing with men. Are you serious? If “men” have an obligation to provide for their family, then “a man” has an obligation to provide for his family. And if “women” shouldn’t compete with men for jobs, then “a woman” shouldn’t compete with “a man” for a job. Get it? As for a woman “often” being given preferences in exchange for or in hope of sexual favors, I think you’d be hard pressed to defend that statement with any real evidence. Again, do you seriously believe this nonsense you… Read more »
Seriously? You think you can cite Monica Lewinsky and the generally known occasional phenomenon of women using sex for personal advancement, to answer Valerie’s request that you establish that it’s “often?” Truly, most businesses that employ people are not Hollywood studios. It doesn’t happen “often,” and certainly not to the extent that it has significant explanatory value for an overall economic situation. Of course, if it is really so widespread that it gives women in the aggregate a significant competitive labor advantage over men in the aggregate, you can convince us by sharing the actual facts that led you to… Read more »
sure, dude, whatever you say. You claim to believe the Bible, but when it clashes with feminism, it’s out the window. Yeah, it’s rare for a man to try to get into a woman’s pants just because he finds her attractive. And it’s even more rare for a man who has some power, whether lots of only a little, to use that power to get sex from women. And women hardly ever trade sex for favors or money. Nah, when the Bible says “flee fornication” it doesn’t mean that men and women who aren’t married to each other should spend… Read more »
Um, I wasn’t asking for your interpretation of scripture, or male psychology, and I’m not a dude. And I’m certainly not a feminist, let alone a radical one. You, however, are no gentleman. I was asking you for a verification of a fact — the one hat you’re so sure of that when asked for verification, you go on the attack. But I have to leave now for a little while to attend to my domestic duties — while I’m gone, could you take a couple minutes to explain everything I think and all the other things I don’t know?… Read more »
Are you serious? If “men” have an obligation to provide for their family, then “a man” has an obligation to provide for his family. And if “women” shouldn’t compete with men for jobs, then “a woman” shouldn’t compete with “a man” for a job. Get it? Yes, I get that that’s what you’re saying, and I find the same fault with your argument that I found before. Of course you didn’t get what I was saying the first time, so I don’t suppose there’s much use in repeating it. As for the rest of your comment, I never disputed a… Read more »
Oh, Doug. Wow. I haven’t read a post on here in a while, and I come back to this one. Where to start? So many things, but I’ll just go with your application of Jeremiah 51:30. I assume you know that you have irresponsibly misapplied this verse but are willing to twist it to make your point anyway. If you don’t know that you’ve misapplied it, then that is really sad and does not speak well of you as an expositor. The verse is deriding the warriors by comparing them to women. It is not saying that they have actually… Read more »
This verse is not a condemnation of women as warriors. It is a
condemnation of men that behave like women–and, more to the point, of
men that behave like a bad, misogynistic stereotype of what women are
like.
Jeremiah 51:30 is an oracle of the Lord given by Jeremiah. The passage repeatedly says “Thus says the Lord.” These are Yahweh’s words against Babylon.
But that’s just it. Pittard’s underlying problem is with scripture itself: there is no scent of it wafting in the cool zeitgeistian breezes (to use a fun Doug term) of today and therefore should be dismissed out of hand. Ditto for Shakespeare, apparently.
No. I never said Shakespeare should be dismissed out of hand. My point in using the reference is only to show that prevailing attitudes about women in the late 1500s in England are not much different than they were in the 6th century. Shakespeare is brilliant and his plays are filled with insight and depth and truth. He might also be a misogynist, or at least reflecting the misogynistic views of his contemporaries. Same with Scripture. It is not to be dismissed out of hand. It is brilliant and filled with insight and depth and truth. But the authors also… Read more »
Okay. So Yahweh is making fun of men that act in accordance with a stereotype of women. The point of the verse is the same: women are hysterical, fearful, lacking in valor, and weak, and warriors that act this way in battle deserve to lose. The point still remains that Doug is misapplying this verse. The verse is not dismissing the idea of women in battle. It is ridiculing men for acting in a manner consistent with a misogynistic stereotype about women. Whether these are the words of Yahweh or not, they are still saying the same thing and Doug… Read more »
It clearly is the Lord speaking, Jeremiah repeatedly says that this is a word from the Lord. I am not certain it is prudent to say that Yahweh is speaking misogynistically; or that he is using a bad stereotype.
That’s the problem, isn’t it? What if Yahweh clearly holds misogynistic views? What if he is prone to bad stereotypes? This opens up a can of worms, of course, but one that can not be ignored if we are going to study scripture. There are clearly times when the commands of the Lord are unsettling. The question is this: is there room for the attitudes of the human authors to filter in through the divinely inspired word? Remember that there are men writing these books. Isn’t it at least possible that the misogynistic views that are attributed to the “word… Read more »
I agree that the comparison is to women, but I think the comparison can imply something about the appropriateness of women as a group being involved in battle. If the comparison was that your teachers are children, or your surgeons are blind; even though childhood and blindness are not wrong in themselves, the comparison still speaks to the inappropriateness for children teaching and the blind operating. And that is how I took the passage. But I find the idea that you think God could be misogynistic more concerning than exegeting this passage. And while I understand that authors’ personalities come… Read more »
I don’t think God is misogynistic. But male authors of the Scripture certainly can be. That’s the point. And, for the record, Jesus never refers to Scripture as “the word of God”. I’ll grant you that he certainly saw Scripture as authoritative. However, his use of the Scripture in the NT is almost exclusively to reveal truths about himself and to condemn the religious leaders that were too blind to realize the truths that were hidden under their noses in the law and prophets. Jesus is not concerned with such petty issues as whether or not women should be allowed… Read more »
Here’s one: “I and the Father are One.”
And another: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”
And another: “Before Abraham was, I Am.”
How do these quotes answer my question?
Evidence from the Gospels that Jesus cares about all the same things the Old Testament does. Therefore, it’s worth discussing.
I see. But is there any evidence to suggest that the role of women in battle is something that Jesus is concerned with?
Yeeesss…..that’s what we’re discussing. Doug wrote a post about how the role of women in battle is something Jesus is concerned with, based on the Old Testament.
Obviously you don’t agree about the evidence, but why are you asking if there’s evidence of something the post already asserted the evidence for?
The post doesn’t assert evidence that the role of women in battle is an issue that Jesus is concerned with. It proof-texts OT verses. There is no evidence from the Gospels that the role of women in battle is at all an issue that followers of Christ need to worry about. You can make the “Jesus upholds all of the OT” argument, but his actual teaching does not bear this out. The Gospel needs the OT in order for it to make sense, but being a Christian does not mean following every single random verse. If it does, then Christians… Read more »
Spike Pittard, I would say that Jesus views Scripture extremely highly, and not just to reveal himself: he rebukes the Sadducees for having an inadequate knowledge of Scripture. I don’t think Jesus would have found women going to war petty, I think he would have rebuked those who suggested it had it come up. I think Jesus would have referred them back to Scripture and shown how God put males in the army not females, and said something like, You are wrong because you do not know the Scriptures. (By the way, I don’t think anyone is saying that a… Read more »
Of course, my examples were hypothetical, and so are yours. Maybe you’re right. So let’s accept that every verse in the OT is worth following. That Jesus would want us to understand each verse and follow it exactly as written. Let’s apply that same principle to all of the verses in chapter 22 of Deuteronomy. Let’ even accept that Deuteronomy 22.5 is actually a prohibition of women in combat, as Doug argues it is. Why does this verse get singled out as a matter of perversion by Doug for those that don’t follow it? I would ask you this: if… Read more »
I don’t necessarily agree that Deut 22:5 supports Doug’s position, though I think the argument against conscripting women doesn’t need it. Now I don’t think we are to obey the Mosaic Law (generally) we are to obey the Spirit. But the Spirit who controls us wrote the Law. So the principles behind the Law are what are important. That is not to say that some rules need extensive reinterpretation, “Do not steal” is pretty clear, but the appropriateness does depend on assessing the reason behind the law. So I don’t take Deut 22:5 to mean women cannot wear pants (as… Read more »
Great responses, and very thoughtful. I appreciate them. Thanks. The principle behind the writing is always what we are looking for. But that is a matter of interpretation, understanding the culture, and doing our best (with the aid of the Spirit) to draw conclusions. What we end up with is a “this verse appears to be saying” rather than a “this is a clear condemnation of”. Even with Deuteronomy 22.28-29, there are principles we can draw from the rule via careful study. And then, we find a way to apply the principles in a different society with very different cultural… Read more »
“The verse is deriding the warriors by comparing them to women. It is not saying that they have actually become women; it is that they are acting LIKE women.”
I think that is what Wilson is saying. Thats how I read it. Did Wilson say that they had acutally become women?
No, he didn’t say they actually became women. That was my emphasis. What he did say was this: “this is why Scripture speaks about the idea of women in combat dismissively”. Doug is claiming that Scripture dismisses the idea of women in combat. But this verse is not saying that women should not be in combat because men and women have different roles. It is saying that men that ACT like women can expect to lose in battle. It is the comparison that is key. The implication here is that the warriors in question were acting in a manner consistent… Read more »
OK. I got you now. And I think we agree. They shouldnt be in combat because they are acting like women. And women shouldnt be in combat. I dont understand your disagreement with Wilson though. But thats OK, no worries.
No, you don’t quite understand. The verse doesn’t say that these warriors shouldn’t be in combat. It is saying they are losing because they are acting like women. There is no logical progression that would result in a “therefore women shouldn’t be in battle” unless you accept the underlying stereotype: that women are weak, cowardly, and prone to hysterics. The “like women” comparison in the verse is not part of a discourse on the proper role of women in society. It is part of an attack on the courage and valor of the warriors. They are being “womanish”, with “womanish”… Read more »
Oh, well I wouldnt be quick to call God a misogynist. I dont think we have enough common ground to have a fruitful discussion of the issue.
And my brothers would never call me a little girl.
More to the point, Pittard has no standing to critique Doug’s use of scripture since he denies the essential premises necessary to interpret it. Doug could be wrong, but Pittard cannot possibly be right.
The katecho is strong with this one.
I consider that a compliment to the point of flattery! :-)
I agree completely.
Glad to hear that about your brothers. As to calling God a misogynist, I understand that you and I might not have much common ground, but the issue is worth addressing. It’s important to at least consider what a text is actually saying, and what that means. If a text reveals an attitude on the part of the author that we would not normally ascribe to God, then we have to ask whether or not God is the one that actually said it. I know that is something people on this site will have a problem with, but it’s better… Read more »
Tossing out scripture because it shows something we would not normally ascribe to God, calling that scripture merely an author’s attitude rather than divine revelation – THAT is bending scripture to fit ones own worldview.
Only I don’t have to bend it. I can be honest and say that there are times when the authors get in the way of the truth. Bending it is when you take a verse, misapply it, and call it truth. Or when you casually overlook some verses and emphasize others in order to make your own positions sound more true. Look at chapter 22 of Deuteronomy. Look at the verses that follow verse 5. Do we demand Christian farmers only sow one kind of seed in their vinyards? Do we say that a man that does not build his… Read more »
Verse 5 speaks to the truth that women should be feminine, not masculine, a timeless truth that may have been expressed differently in a different culture than in ours, but the underlying truth is the same. Fighting in wars is not feminine. Forcing your daughter to go fight for you is not masculine. Verse 8 speaks to the truth that you should take care in your work to avoid unintended consequences especially when those consequences may endanger someone’s life (ever seen Ben Hur?), also a truth that is timeless and would be expressed differently in our culture. If you are… Read more »
To Hell with Progressives! Anyone think that is an overboard statement? Well, think about this: Progressives believe in “social justice”. Progressives are Marxists. Social justice requires that those individually and/or collectively “responsible” for crimes against “non-white” peoples. As Marxists are responsible for the SLAUGHTER of hundreds of millions of “non-white” People, and Progressives have willingly taken on the mantle of their (dead) Marxist idols, then Progressives are individually and collectively responsible for each and every one of those murders, even those predating their birth. AND since they are responsible for those mass murders, they deserve the punishment meted out for… Read more »
So long as it’s understood that American conservatism is a variety of progressivism, then yes.
“We can say that women are weaker only if we place men and women in the same realm at the same time.” If the argument in this sentence is that men and women cannot compete with each other because women are weaker then this outmoded thinking should have long fallen into history’s dustbin. The majority of modern life does not favor either gender. I have worked under male and female CEOs and find them equally capable. Likewise I suspect that a female fighter pilot can be just as good as her male counterparts.
Outmoded thinking? Outmoded by… what? Mere passage of time does not alter the law of God nor the nature of men and women.
Did you read my post? Merely saying something about God’s law is irrelevant against what I said. In most modern pursuits women can compete with men on equal footing (business, intellectual pursuits like science or medicine, etc…). Thinking that they can’t is outmoded, and has nothing to do with God’s law because God never said that men were always superior to women in whatever they were doing together.
Why do you believe this? Furthermore, why is it relevant? (Your initial example is particularly bad since fighter pilots themselves are largely “outmoded”.)
It is not progressive for women to serve in combat. The courts decided decades ago that the only reason women would not be forced to sign up for selective service is that they are not allowed to serve in combat. The legal reasoning was that since women could not serve in combat they would not be able to advance like men. However, if women can in fact serve in combat when and if they are qualified…then there is no legal reason for them not to be signing up. It has nothing to do with anyone rolling over. Cruz is just… Read more »
Rubio is Catholic. The US Supreme Ct is all Catholic but two. Scariest thing that is escaping everyone. The Jesus of Catholicsm is not the Jesus of Scripture. Rubio spouts memorized rhetoric to get votes of all the sheeples who here someone name Jesus and follow them regardless of what “Jesus” they follow. The Catholic Catechism and Vatican II call Muslims their brothers in Christ. Catholics and Muslims have been arm in arm for eons (read about our lady of Fatima). There was a reason our founding fathers forbid Catholics in public office. What is being done to Christians in… Read more »
You are slightly in error about the founding fathers. Article VI, clause 3 of the United States Constitution states that no one seeking federal office or employment may be required to hold a particular religious doctrine. This is called the No Religious Test clause. There were states, however, which did forbid Catholics from holding office. The historian Arthur Schlesinger has described irrational anti-Catholicism as the most persistent bias in American life. Nonetheless, two Catholics were delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Some Catholics believe that the mother of Jesus, now in heaven, appeared in a vision to three simple Portuguese peasant… Read more »
The chaotic mess that is Rubio’s brain thinks he can be (at one pole) an evangelical (at the infinitely-removed opposing pole) Roman Catholic — and it surprises you that he doesn’t have a Biblical worldview? Well… yeah.
Now, just because he couldn’t receive us to take Communion with him doesn’t mean that he couldn’t receive us to cast a ballot for him!
That surely doesn’t mean that evangelicals and Catholics cannot work together for the common good. Catholics have been evangelicals’ true allies regarding sanctity of life and marriage. On almost every social issue I can think of, Catholics like Scalia have shown they hold what you would consider a Biblical world view.
Conscientious objection for women: women should not fight in wars (except e.g. Jael), tho not for men, anyone? (Unless God tells you to: Joan of Arc?)?
Thanks for reminding me:
The church should be issuing position statements and memorials in defense of selective conscientious objection. (The right of non-pacifists to refuse to fight in wars they consider to be unjust.)
A Vietnam-era Supreme Court ruling effectively outlawed it, thus declaring Caesar, not God, to be the Lord of a man’s conscience.
Offtopic (but not really, and don’t look now, but Ted Nugent has gone off the reservation.
Well, there goes my Ted Nugent-based worldview.
Ah, once again Lady Dunsworth demonstrates that “brevity is the soul of wit.”. 2.
At the risk of being overlong, this does make me wonder:
What would happen if the Ted Nugent worldview and the Rachel Held Evans worldview were stranded on Gilligan’s Island for a while? ; – )
Well, with all things being equal….
Easy peasy. They get together and have a baby with bad hair, a fake tan, and a big mouth.
HA! I think he needs to start doing rap music – he’d fit in perfect with them, what with the nonsensical tirades and all.
Women have demanded entrance to the body politic, which was defined as you pointed out, by all the men 20 and above able to go to war. Military service and voting were the two duties of the body politic. You can’t have one without the other. So really, female conscription is the ultimate logical conclusion of the 19th amendment. Feminism, however, is mostly inconsistent. Most feminists, excepting the most consistent radicals, want only the perceived benefits of equality without the costs. Thus they want to vote, and be able to join the military, but don’t want to be conscripted. They… Read more »
Anyone else on here rooting for Trump today?
Excellent news from New Hampshire. Trump not only won a resounding victory, but Kasich, Cruz, Bush, Rubio and Christie all got enough votes to convince them to keep going, and enough to get a new look from anti-Trump voters, meaning they’re still viable candidates. So at least through South Carolina, Trump will be facing a large and fractured field, and should dominate easily. This was just about the best outcome Trump and his supporters could’ve hoped for.
This story of brave men seems to fit the theme of this post.
Doug, maybe it’s time to brush up on your Hebrew. The construction “keli-geber” most emphatically does NOT “literally” refer to the “gear of a warrior”. “Keli” has two functional definitions: one is “article, utensil, or vessel”. This first definition is used many times in the OT, but none of them is specifically in reference to “gear of a warrior”. The second definition is “utensil, implement, apparatus”. Now, this second definition IS used to reference weapons, armor, and so on. But when it is used to refer to weaponry or armor, it is always quite clear in the context that this… Read more »
Pittard is a good example of why I am not a “principled conservative” — since one of those principles is that people like him should be allowed voice or influence in government and culture.
Interesting critique of my argument. Can you point out anything about my post that is incorrect? Doug is misusing Scripture in his post, and he is plainly offering up an unsupported reading Deuteronomy 22.5. Instead of attacking me because we don’t agree socially, politically, etc., how about dealing with the content of my actual post? Can you refute what I’m saying?
Sheesh. A 20-second consult with Uncle Google about keli gerber shows that it is neither an exegetical stretch nor even exegetically unusual for Doug to reference it in the post above re the biblical case against women in combat.
Yes, you can find a lot of Google. Unfortunately, most of the pages that come up when you search the term “keli geber” are either literalists that are stumbling over themselves trying to justify why it’s okay for women to wear pants, or they are people trying to restrict women from combat, like Doug is doing. Your google search, however, is not solid scholarship. As I said, there is not a single translation of the Bible, anywhere, that translates “keli geber” as “gear for a warrior”. Not a single one. Consult the lexicons, look at the way the work “keli”… Read more »
I don’t believe you are capable of solid scholarship; therefore I reject your interpretation of “keli geber” on the basis of my unbelief. Until you are able to prove to me through my own exegetical methodologies that you are infallible, I reserve the right to choose my toddler’s interpretation of “keli geber,” which is pretty much spot on when it comes to girl clothes vs. boy clothes. She gets it; I don’t think you do.
There is no doubt that the verse is talking about clothes. Your toddler is right. I never said it wasn’t talking about clothes. I’m saying it’s not talking about armor. Doug is using the verse to support his claim that women in battle is unbiblical. The verse is not about that. And maybe I’m not capable of solid scholarship. But if your only defense is simply to reject what I’m saying just “because”, then that is a poor defense. Why bother responding at all? If you have no argument, what is the point of trying to argue? I’m open to… Read more »
You don’t believe Scripture is the word of God, the standard we judge everything by. Therefore your opinions about its meaning or contents are uninteresting.
Hmm. A person doesn’t need to believe that Scripture is the word of God in order to understand Hebrew. My views on the authority of Scripture have little to do with my analysis of Doug’s mishandling of this verse. My claim stands: Doug is pulling a fast one on his readers by offering up an incorrect reading of Deuteronomy 22.5. Your attack on my beliefs indicates that, whether my claim is interesting or not, you can not refute it.
So what?
So you can’t refute my argument. That’s all. It’s okay.
A person needs to believe that scripture is the word of God and that God speaks only truth to be credible in speaking on the scripture. Your reading of Hebrew language may be accurate but you can’t possibly correctly interpret it when you deny the fundamental premise of all of its meaning.
But the problem is that if my reading of Hebrew is correct, then it means that Doug’s interpretation is wrong. You see how it works? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t incorrectly understand a word or a phrase and then use that misunderstanding to drive interpretation. A non-believer might not be able to correctly interpret scripture, but a non-believer can certainly tell you whether or not a word has been translated correctly. As far as my beliefs, I DO believe that God does speak only truth. I do not believe that God lies. However, the issue is whether… Read more »
If you reject the authority of Scripture, why do you demand us to accept the authority of your interpretation of the laws of language or logic?
Okay. I see where you’re going with this. So an atheist can’t do math or understand gravity? Interesting take on the world, and actually quite funny as well.
Of course he can — because atheists are not consistent with their principles. One can say one thing and act as if one believes another thing. (In other words, logical arguments necessarily entail alief in God, though not belief.)
Whether or not atheists are consistent or not is beside the point. Your argument is that since I don’t hold to the authority of Scripture the same way you do, that I can’t possibly say anything authoritative about the meaning of words. Your philosophical position here is exceedingly foolish. Consistency with principles has no effect on one’s ability to understand a given subject.
The question is why Christians should care about the opinion of someone who has set himself up as God’s judge rather than submit to His word. How can your conclusions possibly be relevant?
If the conclusions are from an atheist doctor giving you sound medical advice, an atheist mechanic telling you a new muffler is needed or an atheist rejecting religion because churches have emboldened pedophiles….they they may be relevant…..
One of those things is not like the others. The last one would be like rejecting having your car repaired because some mechanics beat their wives.
The context was his conclusions about scripture, not his conclusions about other things. Since he denies scripture’s very fundamental nature, his conclusions are about as useful as those of someone who says that scripture is a pink unicorn.
You appear to have a pretty limited idea of what it means to submit to God’s Word, and an even more limited concept of what the Word of God actually is. Sola Scriptura is both a blessing and a curse. It brought tremendous freedom while also presenting us with the shackles that could allow us to bind ourselves to a narrow understanding of what it really means to follow Christ. If you are going to hold to a definition of God’s Word that limits it to the books bound in your Bible, and if you are going to define submission… Read more »
“Truth” is a pretty limiting concept, since it excludes a whole lot of falsehood. Again, why should I care about being so “limited”?
You do realize that the doctrine of inerrancy, of the supreme authority of Scripture as God’s Word, is a man-made doctrine? It was established to fill the void that was left by the Reformation’s rejection of Papal authority. Because there had to be some authority, otherwise people could just believe whatever they wanted! How else could those in positions of religious authority maintain control? However, Scripture itself does not claim to be the authoritative Word of God. Paul says that Scripture (and he’s referring to the OT, not the NT) is God-spirited, or God-inspired. That’s it. But there is a… Read more »
“You do realize that the doctrine of inerrancy, of the supreme authority of Scripture as God’s Word, is a man-made doctrine? It was established to fill the void that was left by the Reformation’s rejection of Papal authority.”
So what authority do you recognize?
Your questions are the equivalent of “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” and “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Also, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?” And, “Why is there air?” Look, if you were even remotely interested in discovering truth, folks here would be happy to enlighten you. But your line of illogic is telling in that you clearly don’t care about Christian truth beyond picking it to pieces under the fractured lens of your darkened microscope of… Read more »
Okay. Again, there is no argument here. Why attack if you have nothing to say? Respond to the actual questions. Here is another one for you, and it shouldn’t be that hard to answer based on your faith. Aside from a doctrine that was established by men after the fact, what reason do you have for believing that every word Paul wrote down is “the Word of God”? This should be a simple answer.
It wasn’t a doctrine established by men…you’re right, that was a simple answer.
Really? So where does the doctrine come from? Because we don’t read it in the Bible. So where does the authority to establish the doctrine come from?
Spike, are you really looking to debate the inerrancy of Scripture in this comments section? Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there numerous works on this issue already? What’s the point of rehashing it here? Honest question.
I’m not looking to rehash the entire debate. My point is that the doctrine–and there has been much written to defend it, you are correct–is a man made doctrine. I’m simply raising that point. People can believe it if they want, and if they want to believe that the doctrine is correct, then that’s fine. But folks should at least admit that the doctrine itself was developed, like all theology, from men that were trying to make sense of things. Maybe these men were inspired to come up with the doctrine, but that is a matter of faith. The Bible… Read more »
“The Bible itself does not claim to be the authoritative, inerrant Word of God.”
I really find it hard to believe that there has never been a case made that the Bible does indeed claim to be the authoritative, inerrant Word of God. Of all the works written on the subject, no one has ever made that case?
I’m not sure I follow you. It is not a new concept. There are plenty of people that argue against the inerrancy doctrine. There are plenty of people that argue for it.
Right, I just wondered what the point was in hashing it out here.
“So where does the authority to establish the doctrine come from?”
If the bible can’t be used to establish doctrine could anything else? Or are you arguing against all doctrine?
I am not arguing against doctrine. I am arguing against the idea that doctrines are somehow NOT made by men but rather established by God himself. The inerrancy of Scripture and its authority as the Word of God is a theory, just like Papal authority was before it. I am not against such theories, as they can be useful, especially in establishing communities of like-minded people. You can use adherence to a specific theory as criteria for including or excluding. But they are still, no matter how well supported, theories. That’s all I’m saying.
“I am not arguing against doctrine. I am arguing against the idea that doctrines are somehow NOT made by men but rather established by God himself.”
Does that include ‘the sermon on the mount’?
Can you elaborate?
Are the teachings of Jesus recorded in the bible man made doctrine or the word of God?
If we believe that his words were recorded accurately, and if we believe Jesus when he says that he and the Father are one, then it follows that what Jesus says must also be what God says.
Which would make the gosples if nothing else doctrine estsblished by God.
No. There is a difference between what Jesus says and the way we interpret it to form doctrine. For example, Jesus says that he and the father are one, but he never says there is a Triune God.
Yes the bible does not explicitly state the doctrine of the trinity, but Jesus saying ‘I and the father are one’ is a doctrinal statement.
And it also follows that whatever God has said elsewhere, is what Jesus “cares about.”
Yes. He clearly cares about the OT. I’m not saying he doesn’t care about it. I’m saying he doesn’t care about it the way you are claiming he does. He cares about it because the Scriptures are fulfilled in him. He cares about it because he is proclaiming a new age: the age of the Spirit and the law being written on men’s hearts, and none of that makes sense without an understanding of the OT. But there is no evidence that Jesus demands that followers of him have to hold to every last letter of the Mosaic law. Look… Read more »
Yes, I agree that it does not follow that the OT law is applied in the same way for the Christian.
However, the question was whether He cared about it. Obviously, any issue that appears at any place in the OT, He cares about, since the OT is His word, and He is the Word.
I don’t believe that anything in the Bible is free from cultural influence. I do believe that in God’s providence, that cultural influence is not inimical to the will of God.
“Your questions are the equivalent of “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” ”
I have realized that question can accuratly be phrased as ‘Can God make a color so loud that he can’t smell it?’
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Exactly. “Living and active”. Thank you.
No, atheists can do math and stuff. But when they don’t believe the God who invented math and makes it work, they invariably end up explaining all manner of things that Christians necessarily must have a problem with, such as the origins of the universe. We believe, because God has revealed this to us, that God created the universe out of nothing. Non-believers, or those who believe only the parts of Scripture that they find believable, will disagree, replacing their own authority atop God’s authority and proclaim that the Bible is errant because, you know, science and math and Greek.… Read more »
I already said that Doug might be wrong.
It’s just that you can’t be right, because what you say about scripture will of necessity be false if it assumes anything other than that God spoke it, and spoke truth.
This is a supremely illogical argument. It is foolish to claim that simply because a person does not believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God that everything that person says about the text must be incorrect. An expert in Koine Greek can offer significant insight into the meaning of Greek words and phrases, regardless of his or her religious beliefs. Do you understand what you’re saying? And while we’re at it, there is no reason to believe that God “spoke” scripture. The only verse we have that says anything of the kind is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Literally,… Read more »
The one thing you’ve gotten right thus far is that “you can’t have it both ways.” As you said, if Doug’s reading of Hebrew is correct, then it means your interpretation is wrong. You see how this works? A believer might not be able to correctly translate a word, but he can certainly tell you whether you have interpreted Scripture correctly. So you don’t think I’m being entirely snarky, your approach reminds me of the thousands of hilarious instances where the Chinese quite properly translate English but don’t have a clue how to interpret English, so their signs are a… Read more »
Okay. Sure. If Doug is right then I’m wrong. But if I’m right, Doug is wrong. So tell me what I’ve gotten wrong in my analysis of Deuteronomy 22.5. I’m claiming that Doug is mishandling the “keli-geber” phrase and using it to support an interpretation that does not fly. A thorough study of the meaning of the words in the phrase and how those words are used throughout the OT bears this out, the context of the verse in chapter 22 bears this out, and ALL of the translations of Deuteronomy 22.5 in ALL available versions of the Bible bear… Read more »
So, to what is Scripture referring when it says “keli geber”?
Presumably, neither of us think it means that women can’t wear pants, and you don’t think it refers to armor or weaponry, so, what DOES it mean?
Is the meaning merely fluid and subject to cultures, which is to say that it has no meaning at all since menswear varies widely across cultures? Or does it have some fixed connotation or denotation tied to it in your mind?
A great question! Now we’re getting somewhere. The verse is quite plainly saying that men should not dress like women and that the opposite is also forbidden. So what are we to make of this? The meaning is not fluid. The meaning is fixed: men and women should not dress alike. So where do we go from there? Some literalists take this at face value. Other people might look at the context, the surrounding verses and ask: do we really still need to do this? For example, verses 8 and 9 read as follows: “When you build a new house,… Read more »
“It actually says that men should not wear the “things” of a woman and that women should not wear the “things” of a man.”
Well, in the directions given to a man, it says that he shouldn’t wear a woman’s garment, but the woman is directed not to wear that which pertains to the man. I think it’s fair to infer that something beyond the scope of “clothing” may be in play in that instruction, no?
You could infer that, but what you would infer would not at all be conclusive. It is just as likely that the writer is simply using a different word that means generally the same thing for effect. It is more poetic, certainly, to vary one’s word choice. Whatever the case, it would be a considerable jump to infer that the author is talking about items of war, when the text does not demand it. Again, look at the context of the passage. Is there anything in chapter 22 about war or battle?
Well, without further investigation on my part, I think that it’s fair to for you to say that I couldn’t speak conclusively what exactly was meant; however, it still remains that the instruction for men is directly related to clothing, whereas the instruction given to women is more broad and general in its wording, and perhaps application. I may not be able to conclusively say that the author intended “gear of a warrior,” but neither can one say conclusively that regular clothing is ALL that is intended, especially since it’s directed against that conclusion, at least on the face. And,… Read more »
I agree with all of that. So look back at Doug’s application of this verse. He says: “It is easy for modern secularists to lump this in with the prohibition of clam chowder, but for those who read the Scriptures with understanding, it should be lumped in with the abominations of sodomy and witchcraft.” Based on your response, it would appear that Doug is jumping to conclusions. Is there anything in the verse (and its surroundings) that would support the claim that this vague injunction against cross-dressing is somehow the equivalent of “sodomy and witchcraft”? Doug is playing games with… Read more »
If you don’t accept the authority of Scripture, what authority do you accept?
Spike’s Bible Commentary is not the only one available. From http://www.presbyteriannews.org/articles/10/cmbt10.htm God warns against women appearing as combatants. Consider the following stipulation concerning the wearing of clothes: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deut 22:5). “Note that the description of the female dressing up uses language of a decidedly military flavor. ‘No woman shall put on the gear of a warrior [keli-geber]’ is an accurate translation.” Two words provide color for the particular… Read more »
Reminds me of Vizzini. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUg2cp23rGE
Of course my commentary is not the only one. And yes, Google has lots of stuff on it, including this Presbyterian news website you’ve linked to, which includes references to a couple of commentaries that indeed translate the verse just the way Doug wants to translate it. It doesn’t mean they are correct. The post you’ve copied and pasted here actually makes one very noticeable mistake, in connecting Josephus’s statement in his Antiquities, Book 4, chapter 8, section 43 with Deuteronomy 22.5. Josephus writes the following: “Take care, especially in your battles, that no woman use the habit of a… Read more »
“In fact, Josephus is actually implying that men and women might both be ‘in your battles’–the only issue is that they should wear different garments.” Given that particular translation of Josephus, I think you made a fair observation, though [edit] I’d have to ask if you have historical evidence that the Romans or Josephus were wont to use women in battle so much as to justify your particular interpretation of what was being said? And, if Deut 22:5 is nowhere in play with that passage from Josephus, for what particular practical reason would you speculate Josephus has in giving this… Read more »
There is little evidence that the Hebrews used women in battle. I’m not saying the Josephus reference is evidence that women did indeed fight in battles, only that his use of the phrase “in battle” implies that it was at least something that might have happened. Josephus is certainly borrowing the language from Deuteronomy, but he is applying it to his larger discourse of the the Mosaic law, and in the context of the discourse, is heavily focused on rules for governance and war. But the chapter in Deuteronomy has nothing to do with this. I can’t speculate on why… Read more »
If you had done a quick Google search then maybe you would not have made your statement that:
“no one, and I mean NO ONE, translates this phrase in Deut. 22:5 as “the gear of a warrior”. There is not a single translation of this verse that uses your supposed “literal” translation.”
Are you able to admit that there are in fact scholars who do translate it this way?
Those still following this thread can draw their own conclusions about Spike’s criticism via easily-accessible study tools for the Hebrew words כְּלִי keli (derived from kalah) and גָּ֫בֶר geber (derived from gabar)
Thanks, Ochre. Yes, Bible Hub is great site. It is important to note that the list of words that the NASB has used to translate Keli includes words like armor, armory, weapons, etc. along with other words not related to armor. The word Keli is indeed translated at times, based on context, as “armor” or “implements” of war. But a quick glance at this list might give one the wrong impression. Keli CAN refer to armor, but it certainly does not ALWAYS. It depends on context, and the list of other possible translations is a sign of this. It should… Read more »
Rafael Cruz couldn’t do anything to stop women from being drafted even if he were elected, but can he be elected? Many respected legal scholars say that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible to run. And on top of that, there’s Trump. Fred Barnes, no slouch when it comes to political analysis, and certainly no right wing Tea Party type, says it looks like Trump will be the nominee: The message to Republican leaders from New Hampshire is this: you’d better start figuring out how to help Donald Trump win the general election because he’s… Read more »
make that: “fellow con artist David Barton”
Yes, that’s right, presidents can’t sign or veto bills. You’re a legal scholar indeed.
As for the rest of your analysis, I have no opinion.
I don’t pretend to be a legal scholar. But many who are recognized legal scholars say that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President. Yes, that’s right, presidents can’t sign or veto bills. Never said Cruz couldn’t sign or veto a bill. I said he couldn’t do anything to stop women from being drafted (assuming the draft is ever reinstated, which is highly unlikely.) Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the equality juggernaut that’s been steamrolling over America for the last 50 years. Apparently you haven’t noticed that the 5th and 14th amendments are being applied in all sorts… Read more »
I’ve been waiting for several days to see if anyone brought this up, but no one has, so I will.
A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense.
Israel conscripts its daughters for defense. Israel has been drafting women for decades.
How many people on here agree with Doug Wilson that Israel no longer deserves a defense?
Israel also allows for free tax-funded abortions for its female soldiers, too. Still defensible?
Amen.
I’ll just leave this here:
“The Bible and the Draft” by John W. Robbins
The Trinity Review, May/June 1980
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=13
France abolished conscription in 2001. Couldn’t we do the same thing? While we should fight the expansion of the existing Selective Service system, I think that ultimately removing the whole cancer is a better long term solution.
Two points should be made in regards to this article- First, in regards to women serving in the Selective Service, not only do the verses Doug present actually condemn women serving in the military (classic case of proof-texting), in a society were women have the right to perform any job she chooses, if she can meet the requirements. Also, i am not so sure if Douggie is aware, but women box and fight in something called MMA. I’ll put it another way if a wife needed protection and the choices were Ronda Rousey (who could seriously hurt the majority of… Read more »
If you want to put it that way, nothing’s ever “worked”.
The important question is, what’s concordant with Scripture, and what’s most likely to result in justice, peace, and prosperity? Anything that meets those requirements will probably be called “theonomy” by someone.
Though democracy is not perfect, it has worked. Any attempt of a government that went down the road of a theonomy that I know of has failed and did not bring peace, justice or prosperity.
The simple fact is, the Bible, (especially the NT) though it calls us to be active in our culture, never calls us to do so though political means or through legislating specific morality. That is where Doug differs from God’s Word. He does believe in creating a government that is a theonomy.
Democracy has a particularly poor track record; its failure rate is just as high or higher than anything else. Divine-right monarchy, for example, has had better longevity and quality.
The Bible has lots to say about government, and specifically what obedience and disobedience looks like for kings and rulers. Romans 13 says that the king is God’s servant. Psalm 2 directs kings to submit to Jesus as their ruler. How is “theonomy” different from that?
If Divine-right had such quality, why have many countries abandoned them or relegated them to ceremonial status? Democracy does have a solid track record, depending on if you agree with the majority. Psalm 2 has nothing to do with theonomy, but a warning to kings and how ungodly kings rage against God. Romans 13, where it says that the King is “God’s servant” does not imply a ruler who is enforcing God’s Law. The ruler of that Day was Cesar, who nobody would call a God fearing ruler. It’s clear that Paul refers to governments as moral agents used by… Read more »
Democracy has a solid track record of murder and destruction, as 1790s France, 1860s Gettysburg, 1910s Moscow, and 2000s Detroit all demonstrate.
Sounds like you agree with the “theonomists” as far as I can tell. When a God-fearing ruler asks his pastor how God wants him to do his job, what should the response be?
“Democracy has a solid track record of murder and destruction, as 1790s France, 1860s Gettysburg, and 2000s Detroit all demonstrate.” -First off, theonomies have just as bad a track record along with the stripping choice away from citizens, etc. As for the examples you have given, 1790’s France was a revolt against the monarchy and not the democratic process, 1860’s Gettysburg was the civil war, which the south sought to become their own nation because they wanted to continue the practice of slavery, and not the democratic process. I am not sure you added 2000’s Detroit. Whether its because the… Read more »
Ah, so your objection to “theonomy” is that you accept the Enlightenment idea of man as the source of law and justice rather than God. And already you’ve shifted the goalposts by now talking about “the democratic process” rather than “democracy” in general. You want to ignore the downstream effects of belief in the divine right of mob.
To refine my hypothetical scenario: the God-fearing king is asking how to know what just laws are. Where do you find the idea of “rights” in the Bible?
“Ah, so your objection to “theonomy” is that you accept the Enlightenment idea of man as the source of law and justice rather than God. ” -No, my objection to a theonomy is that it’s never worked when humans are the ones deciding divine law. My affinity to democracy is that (though not perfect) protects the rights of religion, free speech, etc., and gives through the vote, exchanges of ideas, that a theonomy, by its very definition can not and will not give. Certianly democracies are not perfect-but they are much better at protecting the rights of people than theonomies… Read more »
No, you ignored it. How are rulers to know what just laws are?
Thanks for debunking this guy. I don’t have the patience.
Common grace, human conscious. Most people don’t need a religious text to know murder is wrong, that theft is wrong, etc.
Most politicians do.
Most politicians murder people? Wow, either the US is much worse shape than I thought it was, or you are very anti-death penalty and military……
There is a distinction between knowing what is right and doing it. C.S. Lewis makes that argument in Mere Christianity.
Did I say that most politicians murder people? Not necessarily, though willingness to conscript men, and now women, or to just send the men and women who have already volunteered off to fight wars that have nothing–other than platitudes thrown out by Dems or Repubs about spreading democracy or the US having to be a “leader” when it comes to global affairs–to do with actual national defense would lead one to think that yes, they need an education as to what defines murder from just war. And if you define the death penalty as murder–even as “justified” murder–then you don’t… Read more »
“Did I say that most politicians murder people? Not necessarily, though willingness to conscript men, and now women, or to just send the men and women who have already volunteered off to fight wars that have nothing–other than platitudes thrown out by Dems or Repubs about spreading democracy or the US having to be a “leader” when it comes to global affairs–to do with actual national defense would lead one to think that yes, they need an education as to what defines murder from just war.” -that is true, but that doesn’t mean (and if you were not implying this… Read more »
This is, in fact, the Enlightenment view of law. To borrow from Steve Brown — “It smells like smoke and it’s from the pit of hell”.
And it has biblical basis as well.
Do you believe the American revolutionaries behaved in an ungodly manner in withdrawing their allegiance from George III? Similarly, do you believe Cromwell was wrong to defy Charles I?
I think there are legitimate circumstances for opposing an unjust ruler, in some cases even violently. But our models for this should look like David and Saul or Jehu and Ahab — and neither case you cite rose to that level, so far as I can tell. The American revolutionaries exhibited profound ingratitude, and only won because they had political support in Parliament. Charles I was in many ways a bad king, but the chaos brought about by his murder was much worse than any injustice he enacted or threatened.
Hi, Tony. When you say you can understand why someone would be uncomfortable about women in the military, what do you think is causing them to feel this way? Understanding their feeling, do you share it at all? When you saw the pictures of Lynndie England mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib, did it make you feel any queasier that it was a woman doing this? Can you watch MMA events without feeling a little bit sick that these women are sending each other to the hospital? Can you watch these fighters without feeling they have lost some connection to the… Read more »
Hi fellow canadian! I believe part of the reason have the idea that some are uncomfortable with women in the military is because until just recently (the last roughly 50-60 years) the woman place was essentially in the home, or women jobs (like nursing, teaching, etc). The Pictures of Lynndie England bothered me because it showed people being treated without dignity. If it were a man pointing at a Muslims genitals I would have the exact same reaction. I actually don’t make it a practice to watch MMA (male or female). As for your last point, two women fighting doesn’t… Read more »
Tony, what possible definition of feminine encompasses women engaging in punching and kicking one another for any other purpose than self-defense in a crisis? If many of us have considered the idea of men hurting one another just for sport as an unfortunate outgrowth of excessive testosterone, how can we now say that women bloodying one another for pay does not negate their feminine side? We can argue that in a free society women ought to be at liberty to do such things, but we can’t say it is feminine behavior without annihilating what we mean by feminine. Margaret Thatcher… Read more »
First off, let me just say that I do appreciate your comments and your responses to mine. They are civil, thoughtful and do make me pause to think through my own opinions-which is the reason bother to go on comment sections in the first place. In a summery response to your comments, I would first say that violent combat sports shows a problem with society whether it’s male or female. Sure, saying that women beating on each other for sport seems barbaric, but we can say the same with men doing the same thing. I would also say that even… Read more »
I agree with you that much lies in the definition. But a definition stretched too wide becomes meaningless. You suggest that while a woman boxer might not be feminine in the ring, she may be feminine in other respects. Of course, that is true. But apply that statement to other situations: “Attila was not benevolent when he razed entire villages, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t benevolent in other respects.” “Bernie Madoff was not honest when he swindled thousands of people, but that doesn’t mean he was not honest in other respects.” Obviously I am not equating female boxing with… Read more »
I am not so much talking about stretching a definition but rightly defining. Today, much of what we define as masculine/feminine doesn’t really fit that dichotomy.
“When is the dollar coming back up? The exchange rate is killing me!”
-Thats one reason why I am glad I am not a missionary in the states anymore
What missions were you doing? Did you mention once you had spent time in New York?
What is your view on intelligent and capable women who not only think that scripture requires them to submit to their husbands, but who also are perfectly happy in this arrangement? Should a position of co-leadership be thrust upon them against their will?
in a society were women have the right to perform any job she chooses
This is a dying society. This society is sick, it isn’t eternal and I will not bow to its mores. It is amusing to watch you toleristas genuflect before its god and taunt the men of God.