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

[ALAYMAN]

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.

More non-answers.  For a fella who has taught people his whole adult life you sure do lack (or refuse) the ability to articulate and defend your position an awful lot.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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.

More non-answers.  For a fella who has taught people his whole adult life you sure do lack (or refuse) the ability to articulate and defend your position an awful lot.

FSSL -- just quote someone else's position (a commentary, for example).  Alayman will understand that. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

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.

More non-answers.  For a fella who has taught people his whole adult life you sure do lack (or refuse) the ability to articulate and defend your position an awful lot.

FSSL -- just quote someone else's position (a commentary, for example).  Alayman will understand that.

You are the biggest one trick pony on here, seriously.  You lack creativity and are abundantly transparent.  You live to needle and get a rise out of people.  Most folk grow out of that in junior high.

 

[FSSL]

More non-answers.  For a fella who has taught people his whole adult life you sure do lack (or refuse) the ability to articulate and defend your position an awful lot.

Am I supposed to teach you what "descriptive" and "prescriptive" truth looks like?

How can I provide "explicit verses" for a position I do not hold?

You came into this thread with a dogmatic position on women being restricted from combat because of "Deu 22:5  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."

When we beat that one down... you lost the dogmatism on that passage and now you ride on Biker's coattails.

It seems to me that you have lost the ability to defend your own position.

 

[FSSL]

You are the biggest one trick pony on here, seriously.  You lack creativity and are abundantly transparent.  You live to needle and get a rise out of people.  Most folk grow out of that in junior high.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You are the biggest one trick pony on here, seriously.  You lack creativity and are abundantly transparent.  You live to needle and get a rise out of people.  Most folk grow out of that in junior high.

Says the guy whose one trick is to quote Mohler or some commentary.  (And then later say he might not agree with it, anyway.)

 

[ALAYMAN]

More non-answers.  For a fella who has taught people his whole adult life you sure do lack (or refuse) the ability to articulate and defend your position an awful lot.

Am I supposed to teach you what "descriptive" and "prescriptive" truth looks like?

How can I provide "explicit verses" for a position I do not hold?

You came into this thread with a dogmatic position on women being restricted from combat because of "Deu 22:5  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."

When we beat that one down... you lost the dogmatism on that passage and now you ride on Biker's coattails.

It seems to me that you have lost the ability to defend your own position.

You couldn't be more full of dung.  I never dogmatically asserted anything.  I merely raised questions for consideration, as I often do, for folk to consider so that they look at more than one side of the issue.  My position is one that has been held for centuries, theologically, and socially in Western civilization until recent libertarian shifts have made gay "marriage" and marijuana legal, among other things.  8)

 

[FSSL]

You couldn't be more full of dung.  I never dogmatically asserted anything.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=4925.msg88871.msg#88871

 

[rsc2a]

More non-answers.  For a fella who has taught people his whole adult life you sure do lack (or refuse) the ability to articulate and defend your position an awful lot.

Am I supposed to teach you what "descriptive" and "prescriptive" truth looks like?

How can I provide "explicit verses" for a position I do not hold?

You came into this thread with a dogmatic position on women being restricted from combat because of "Deu 22:5  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."

When we beat that one down... you lost the dogmatism on that passage and now you ride on Biker's coattails.

It seems to me that you have lost the ability to defend your own position.

You couldn't be more full of dung.  I never dogmatically asserted anything.  I merely raised questions for consideration, as I often do, for folk to consider so that they look at more than one side of the issue.  My position is one that has been held for centuries, theologically, and socially in Western civilization until recent libertarian shifts have made gay "marriage" and marijuana legal, among other things.  8)

If only marijuana hadn't been criminalized in 1970. (Actually, taxed for the purposes of control in the 1930s, a law that was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS) But you know, 44 years is centuries according to some people.

In fact, centuries ago (as iin the 1600s), the growing of hemp was encouraged, sometimes legislatively required, and a form of legal currency in many of the colonies. As recently as the Civil War, hemp was a major cash crop for many of the states.

Facts. Pesky things.

 

[FSSL]

A denial of dogmatism...

I never dogmatically asserted anything.

... followed by dogmatism AND demagoguery! Classic FFF

My position is one that has been held for centuries, theologically, and socially in Western civilization until recent libertarian shifts have made gay "marriage" and marijuana legal, among other things.  8)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

recent libertarian shifts have made gay "marriage" and marijuana legal, among other things.  8)

I blame rock and/or roll. 

"This sounds like rock and/or roll" - THE SIMPSONS

 

[ALAYMAN]

You couldn't be more full of dung.  I never dogmatically asserted anything.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=4925.msg88871.msg#88871

lol, see that little grammar thingie at the end of my sentence?  That's called a question mark.  Now go look up the definition for dogmatism.  You're way too easy.

If only marijuana hadn't been criminalized in 1970. (Actually, taxed for the purposes of control in the 1930s, a law that was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS) But you know, 44 years is centuries according to some people.

In fact, centuries ago (as iin the 1600s), the growing of hemp was encouraged, sometimes legislatively required, and a form of legal currency in many of the colonies. As recently as the Civil War, hemp was a major cash crop for many of the states.

Facts. Pesky things.

That is text case perfect evidence for why I will never take your equivocating sophistry serious.  Hemp production in colonial times equals marijuana smoking and libertarian drug use in the 21st???





bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


Thanks for the laugh my little squirrely friend.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

From wikipedia (but you can find this information everywhere):

As early as 1853, recreational cannabis was listed as a "fashionable narcotic". By the 1880s, oriental-style hashish parlors were flourishing alongside opium dens, to the point that one could be found in every major city on the east coast. It was estimated there were around 500 such establishments in New York City alone.

1906  (Which, in case you can't do math, is later than 1853): 

"Pure Food and Drug Act required labeling of any cannabis contained in over-the-counter remedies."  Labeling.  Over the counter.   

 

[ALAYMAN]

From wikipedia (but you can find this information everywhere):...

We could quibble about the where and when of recreational pot use in America, and when exactly that moment occurred, but in doing so you'd still be missing the point that the squirrel invoked the production of hemp as a point of disagreement with my contention about the recent libertarian governmental attitude towards pot usage.  If you want to confuse hemp and marijuana go ahead and be my guest, but it shows your ignorance of the topic to the point of making it futile to discuss.

 

[rsc2a]

Or you could admit you are wrong.

 

[FSSL]

Or you could admit you are wrong.

Hey! Are you on drugs?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Or you could admit you are wrong.

Your equivocation on hemp and recreational pot use is truly embarrassing, though not an all-time low for you, but rather to be expected.  What is scarier than your ignorance is that you actually claim to teach people.

 

[rsc2a]

Or you could admit you are wrong.

Your equivocation on hemp and recreational pot use is truly embarrassing, though not an all-time low for you, but rather to be expected.  What is scarier than your ignorance is that you actually claim to teach people.

You refuse.  Surprise!

 

[ALAYMAN]

You refuse.  Surprise!

Your words are in black and white for all to see.  Hemp production in colonial America = modern day advocacy for getting stoned!


truly pathetic, and no surprise.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

From wikipedia (but you can find this information everywhere):...

We could quibble about the where and when of recreational pot use in America, and when exactly that moment occurred, but in doing so you'd still be missing the point that the squirrel invoked the production of hemp as a point of disagreement with my contention about the recent libertarian governmental attitude towards pot usage.  If you want to confuse hemp and marijuana go ahead and be my guest, but it shows your ignorance of the topic to the point of making it futile to discuss.

They grew hemp for textile use, etc., in addition to growing it for medicinal and recreational use.  Confuse hemp and marijuana?  If hemp and marijuana were mutually exclusive, then it would still be legal to grow hemp in the USA. 

A license to produce "hemp" (from when you could get one):