Women Invited To Apply To U.S. Army's Elite, All-Male Ranger School

[Izdaari]

My argument is that the role of protector (specifically in combat roles) has been Biblically shown to pertain to the male.  That shouldn't change in the name of equality.

That's true. But I don't think that role is ordained by God or anything. I just think it comes from the patriarchal ancient Middle Eastern culture of the OT's human authors.

But I concur with Aleshanee that "gender norming" the tests for Rangers is a very bad idea. They're elite troops and they all need to be able to do what a Ranger does. If a woman can pass that test, cool. If not, next!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

My argument is that the role of protector (specifically in combat roles) has been Biblically shown to pertain to the male.  That shouldn't change in the name of equality.

That's true. But I don't think that role is ordained by God or anything. I just think it comes from the patriarchal ancient Middle Eastern culture of the OT's human authors.

But I concur with Aleshanee that "gender norming" the tests for Rangers is a very bad idea. They're elite troops and they all need to be able to do what a Ranger does. If a woman can pass that test, cool. If not, next!

Women will probably be the only people who are allowed to be border patrol agents, soon.  Right now, they're pretty much limited to using pellet guns.  Soon they'll be limited to harsh language.  After that, all they'll be able to do is nag, which is the point at which women would be perfect for the job. 

ducks

 

[Izdaari]

My argument is that the role of protector (specifically in combat roles) has been Biblically shown to pertain to the male.  That shouldn't change in the name of equality.

That's true. But I don't think that role is ordained by God or anything. I just think it comes from the patriarchal ancient Middle Eastern culture of the OT's human authors.

But I concur with Aleshanee that "gender norming" the tests for Rangers is a very bad idea. They're elite troops and they all need to be able to do what a Ranger does. If a woman can pass that test, cool. If not, next!

Women will probably be the only people who are allowed to be border patrol agents, soon.  Right now, they're pretty much limited to using pellet guns.  Soon they'll be limited to harsh language.  After that, all they'll be able to do is nag, which is the point at which women would be perfect for the job. 

ducks

 

[ALAYMAN]

sorry.... but to me it sounds like you are basing your argument against women in combat on the same thing biker is......... the idea that there is a biblical "theme" against it..... as i said before biblical themes not based on specific scripture could be nothing more than reflections of respective cultures....... not necessarily indicative of anything decreed or ordered by God.........so ....biblical "themes" aside..... where does it specifically say in scripture that women are to be forbidden from combat?.......

Much truth is said in jest.  I don't agree with biker on very many things, but his general argument in this matter is similar to mine.  And while I agree that "themes" are not the same as explicit command, I believe that they may be discerned and applied to our benefit.  Given a preponderance of evidence in regards to the creation order and such, yes, I believe that the weaker vessel ought to not stand on our front lines of combat, nor encouraged to do so.  Not everything in Scripture that is to be gleaned comes from explicit commands.  Principles are valid, even when not spelled out in absolute terms.  For instance, there's no prohibition against cannibalism, or beastiality in the NT, but from well-developed and cogent theological precepts we can rightly surmise that the Scriptures teach against such.

and where does it specifically address ....on way or the other.....what qualifications one must have in order to go to war and defend their country at all?..........we know what criteria gideon used to select his special group of soldiers to fight against the midianites....... desire to actually be there in the battle and the wisdom to be cautious were the only criteria..... nothing was mentioned at all about upper body strength or number or pushups / sit ups etc they could do......

someone else initially brought the issue of homosexuals in the military to the thread....... but open homosexuality is specifically addressed in scripture.... so there is no question about whether or not activities you mentioned related to it are wrong in the eyes of God or not.....

We have arguments on this very forum that state that homosexual behavior is not wrong, and that the Scriptures which demonstrate that the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality.  You and I would disagree with this interpretation, and at the same time point to other Scriptures (in the NT) which show the sin of homosexuality.  Even given those evidences there are people who would say that those words aren't the words of Jesus Himself, but merely the words of misogynists and faulty men.  There are a number of ways in which Scriptures can be caused to die the death of a thousand qualifications.  I believe that the egalitarian/complementarian issue is one of those discussions that fall under that umbrella.  I don't mind discussing the issue in light of our differing opinions, but I think the chasm is wide and our potential for common ground is very unlikely given the fact that we are operating under fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of man and woman.

 

[FSSL]

And while I agree that "themes" are not the same as explicit command, I believe that they may be discerned and applied to our benefit.

Which is why I started the other thread. Again and again, I hear people fighting to establish their opinion. When the Scriptures are not explicit, the next route is to establish dogma by stating, "the theme of scripture."

It is what we call eisegesis. It is a ruse used by many.

Given a preponderance of evidence in regards to the creation order and such, yes, I believe that the weaker vessel ought to not stand on our front lines of combat, nor encouraged to do so.  Not everything in Scripture that is to be gleaned comes from explicit commands.  Principles are valid, even when not spelled out in absolute terms.  For instance, there's no prohibition against cannibalism, or beastiality in the NT, but from well-developed and cogent theological precepts we can rightly surmise that the Scriptures teach against such.

We DO have prohibitions against beastiality in the Bible. Cannibalism.. well that would be an interesting thread! Polygamy is another. I even heard a theologian give a diatribe against cremation using this "theme of scripture" magic wand.

Can we just let scripture inform us instead of taking our culture and informing scripture?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Which is why I started the other thread. Again and again, I hear people fighting to establish their opinion. When the Scriptures are not explicit, the next route is to establish dogma by stating, "the theme of scripture."

It is what we call eisegesis. It is a ruse used by many.

Ooh, one of my favorites, which include but are not limited to:

1. "It's a theme of scripture."
2. "That may not be what scripture says, but it's an application of the principle."
3. "God [is something, e.g. 'a gentleman'] and would never... [insert what you personally don't like here]"

 

[FSSL]

4. The Bible consistently presents...
5. The first example in Scripture is negative...
6. This was customary in Jewish culture..

Rogue... you have started great fodder for the other thread!

 

[ALAYMAN]

And while I agree that "themes" are not the same as explicit command, I believe that they may be discerned and applied to our benefit.

Which is why I started the other thread. Again and again, I hear people fighting to establish their opinion. When the Scriptures are not explicit, the next route is to establish dogma by stating, "the theme of scripture."

It is what we call eisegesis. It is a ruse used by many.

Given a preponderance of evidence in regards to the creation order and such, yes, I believe that the weaker vessel ought to not stand on our front lines of combat, nor encouraged to do so.  Not everything in Scripture that is to be gleaned comes from explicit commands.  Principles are valid, even when not spelled out in absolute terms.  For instance, there's no prohibition against cannibalism, or beastiality in the NT, but from well-developed and cogent theological precepts we can rightly surmise that the Scriptures teach against such.

We DO have prohibitions against beastiality in the Bible. Cannibalism.. well that would be an interesting thread! Polygamy is another. I even heard a theologian give a diatribe against cremation using this "theme of scripture" magic wand.

Can we just let scripture inform us instead of taking our culture and informing scripture?

Are you suggesting that the Scriptures don't use narrative to teach us?  Or that principles cannot be adduced from the word of God?  Are you saying that discerning God's word is all about explicit commands and nothing else?

 

[FSSL]

A proper method of using Scripture is called... the grammatical/historical method.

Too many are skipping this critical starting point and going straight for so-called themes to give "strength" to theit own opinions.

So, "yes" themes are subservient to the actual text and original context.

 

[ALAYMAN]

A proper method of using Scripture is called... the grammatical/historical method.

Too many are skipping this critical starting point and going straight for so-called themes to give "strength" to theit own opinions.

So, "yes" themes are subservient to the actual text and original context.

I never argued that "themes" aren't subservien to texts and contexts, so quit pulling stuff out of your netherworld and answer the question.  Are principles gleaned from Scripture?  Do narratives inform and instruct us?

 

[FSSL]

I never argued that "themes" aren't subservien to texts and contexts, so quit pulling stuff out of your netherworld and answer the question.  Are principles gleaned from Scripture?  Do narratives inform and instruct us?

Principles are gleaned from Scriptures that are explicit. One should be able to start with the words/phrases/clauses of Scripture and deduct ideas that are clearly derived from them.

Narratives are a type of genre. They are not a part of this discussion.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I never argued that "themes" aren't subservien to texts and contexts, so quit pulling stuff out of your netherworld and answer the question.  Are principles gleaned from Scripture?  Do narratives inform and instruct us?

Principles are gleaned from Scriptures that are explicit. One should be able to start with the words/phrases/clauses of Scripture and deduct ideas that are clearly derived from them.

Narratives are a type of genre. They are not a part of this discussion.

To illustrate, "do not murder" is a principle that teaches us that murder is a sin. 

"Do not join your body to a harlot" is a principle that teaches that smoking is a sin. 

Or at least that's what fundies tell me. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Principles are gleaned from Scriptures that are explicit.

And I'm sure that your version/definition of "explicit" is the correct one.  Could you give me the explicit verse that you draw your egalitarian ethic from?

One should be able to start with the words/phrases/clauses of Scripture and deduct ideas that are clearly derived from them.

Like all those phrases that speaks of men being drafted into war, as opposed to men AND women being drafted into war?

Narratives are a type of genre. They are not a part of this discussion.

Congratulations, you just excluded nearly half the Old Testament from consideration for moral value.  That's sorta the opposite of the countless times in the NT that the authors cited the OT <narratives> as authoritative, but hey, you're making it up as you go along, so why stop now?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I never argued that "themes" aren't subservien to texts and contexts, so quit pulling stuff out of your netherworld and answer the question.  Are principles gleaned from Scripture?  Do narratives inform and instruct us?

Principles are gleaned from Scriptures that are explicit. One should be able to start with the words/phrases/clauses of Scripture and deduct ideas that are clearly derived from them.

Narratives are a type of genre. They are not a part of this discussion.

To illustrate, "do not murder" is a principle that teaches us that murder is a sin. 

"Do not join your body to a harlot" is a principle that teaches that smoking is a sin. 

Or at least that's what fundies tell me.

Well, clearly Paul was anti-sex, and the passage you cite was dispelling the notion prostitution for Christians is wron....erm, not to be preferred, not optimal, but he was probably stating that a Christian should limit the use and service of their bodies to only a few hookers.  Now using their body for any other type of sin, well, who knows?  We don't want to draw any overly strict interpretations of what Paul was prohibiting, besides too many call girls of course.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Much truth is said in jest.  I don't agree with biker on very many things, but his general argument in this matter is similar to mine.  And while I agree that "themes" are not the same as explicit command, I believe that they may be discerned and applied to our benefit.  Given a preponderance of evidence in regards to the creation order and such, yes, I believe that the weaker vessel ought to not stand on our front lines of combat, nor encouraged to do so.  Not everything in Scripture that is to be gleaned comes from explicit commands.  Principles are valid, even when not spelled out in absolute terms.  For instance, there's no prohibition against cannibalism, or beastiality in the NT, but from well-developed and cogent theological precepts we can rightly surmise that the Scriptures teach against such.

sorry.... but that;s not a valid argmument....... there are many very explicit commands against cannibalism and beastiality in the bible.... in the old testament...... so many in fact that it was probably not even necessary to say it again in the new testament....... and there is also no example in the bible anywhere of God violating those commands by offering the meat of human beings to other people for food... or of Him telling someone to take a beast as a spouse......... ...yet there are actually examples in the bible of God putting women into combat situations and one example of God even putting a woman in command of an army......and there are no explicit commands in either testament telling us women should never be in combat

if a theme is valid for declaring a belief a doctrine then why would God go against that theme..... and indicate the belief was not really valid?....... short answer?....... it;s not a valid belief....

We have arguments on this very forum that state that homosexual behavior is not wrong, and that the Scriptures which demonstrate that the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality.  You and I would disagree with this interpretation, and at the same time point to other Scriptures (in the NT) which show the sin of homosexuality.  Even given those evidences there are people who would say that those words aren't the words of Jesus Himself, but merely the words of misogynists and faulty men.  There are a number of ways in which Scriptures can be caused to die the death of a thousand qualifications.  I believe that the egalitarian/complementarian issue is one of those discussions that fall under that umbrella.  I don't mind discussing the issue in light of our differing opinions, but I think the chasm is wide and our potential for common ground is very unlikely given the fact that we are operating under fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of man and woman.

but again..... are those different assumptions based on scripture or simply a difference in cultures?.......and when you advocate keeping the "weaker vessels" out of combat... does that include the weaker men who might be out matched in the physical requirements by stronger women?...... why should a stronger woman be consider the considered the "weaker vessel" in comparison to a weaker man she is obviously stronger and more capable than?........

and along the same line as the argument in the previous paragraph above....... for those who claim the bible is not against open homosexuality...in spite of all the scriptures condemning it...... where is the example in the bible where God put two men together and called it a marriage?....... where can you find an example of a homosexual relationship in the bible that God was ok with?........ anywhere?................

FSSL rules out the OT narratives as valid for today, so you need to show me EXPLICIT New Testament references for proofs.

 

[FSSL]

Alayman cannot support his point so he makes up nonsense.

About your examples of men in war in the OT... learn the difference between descriptive and prescriptive truth.

I don't make it a practice to dogmatize issues when Scripture does not.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Alayman cannot support his point so he makes up nonsense.

It's nonsense that the OT is nearly half written in narrative form?  Are you serious?  Who's talkin' jibberish?  <ummmm, that'd be you>.

About your examples of men in war in the OT... learn the difference between descriptive and prescriptive truth.

Why is that descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive?

I don't make it a practice to dogmatize issues when Scripture does not.

You sure sound sufficiently dogamtic in your egalitarian hermeneutic.  Any explicit verses for that?  Or are you only good at asking questions, not so much at answering them?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Alayman cannot support his point so he makes up nonsense.

Yup.  Standard MO.  Either that or he quotes Mohler or some commentary. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Alayman cannot support his point so he makes up nonsense.

Yup.  Standard MO.  Either that or he quotes Mohler or some commentary.

lol, my standards are a bit higher than yours.  I prefer Mohler, you prefer to let prophet, rsc2a, and FSSL do your thinking for you (as evidenced not long ago when you ducked Citadel dude when he asked you to simply back up your bluster with minimal argumentation).  Stick to the one-liners, but don't quit your day job.

 

[FSSL]

Why is that descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive?

If you cannot understand things that are obvious, then my work is done here.

You sure sound sufficiently dogamtic in your egalitarian hermeneutic.  Any explicit verses for that?  Or are you only good at asking questions, not so much at answering them?

I am a complementarian that doesn't fall for everything I hear. When a complementarian viewpoint falls short of biblical support, I am willing to let go of that particular argument. Otherwise, you become a Doug Phillips/Wilson, teaching kids patriarchy.