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

[ALAYMAN]

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):

Hemp is not the same as modern marijuana.  If you don't know that then do some simple homework. 

And as far as your statement that they (colonial Americans) used it for recreational purposes of getting high, please provide proof of that claim.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

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):

Hemp is not the same as modern marijuana.  If you don't know that then do some simple homework. 

And as far as your statement that they (colonial Americans) used it for recreational purposes of getting high, please provide proof of that claim.

Way to move the bar!  Marijuana 20 years ago is not the same as modern marijuana, either!  But you can't seem to read the license in plain English.  It is for growing hemp, but it doesn't say hemp.  It says marihuana. 

I didn't say anything about colonial Americans.  I simply quoted from Wikipedia (and you can find the same information elsewhere) that as early as 1853, it was used as a recreational drug. 

If that doesn't satisfy you that people used all kinds of drugs for recreational use, look up the popularity of Laudanum as a recreational drug.  And it (along with other opiates) was an over-the-counter drug until the early 20th century. 

Of course, people who used Laudanum and cannabis often said it was for medicinal purposes (wink wink). 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Way to move the bar!  Marijuana 20 years ago is not the same as modern marijuana, either!  But you can't seem to read the license in plain English.  It is for growing hemp, but it doesn't say hemp.  It says marihuana. 

I didn't say anything about colonial Americans.  I simply quoted from Wikipedia (and you can find the same information elsewhere) that as early as 1853, it was used as a recreational drug. 

If that doesn't satisfy you that people used all kinds of drugs for recreational use, look up the popularity of Laudanum as a recreational drug.  And it (along with other opiates) was an over-the-counter drug until the early 20th century. 

Of course, people who used Laudanum and cannabis often said it was for medicinal purposes (wink wink).

This ain't rocket science.  squirrel boy claimed that hemp usage in colonial America was the same as recreational drug use today.  Colonial America didn't exist in 1853, unless Wikipedia says so. 8)  If you want to go on defending that statement then you need help.  There is no credible evidence that any significant recreational pot use in colonial America existed.  Such a beast is of modern advent (19 century), and the government never sanctioned it until the very recent modern libertarian shift.  Facts are indeed pesky things, so quit trying to equivocate on terms, like hemp and marihuana.

 

[ALAYMAN]

... but according to that broad definition of deuteronomy 22-5 on page one here...... i;m wondering how many fundamentalists would view my handling of hemp to make bowstrings and longbows an abomination.... ???.......not because it;s related to marijuana..... but because i use it to make what was traditionally a mans weapon of war...  ??? ........ and if that;s true..... then according to that broad definition of deuteronomy my use and handling of the implement required to make bowstrings is also an abomination..... ... (the string making jig)[/font][/size][/color]

If the Deut 22 passage is talking about not wearing things that pertain to war, it is analogously to be understood that the intent of the one doing the wearing would be for warfare, or usurping and blurring the lines of gender distinction that underscore God's natural order.  It would be akin to the unisex movement that wants to make all bathrooms to be without gender distinction.  So unless a woman's intent is to engage in active combat, or overthrow the natural creation order, then the verse would not apply (in principle) to that which you refer (hunting).

 

[ALAYMAN]

... but according to that broad definition of deuteronomy 22-5 on page one here...... i;m wondering how many fundamentalists would view my handling of hemp to make bowstrings and longbows an abomination.... ???.......not because it;s related to marijuana..... but because i use it to make what was traditionally a mans weapon of war...  ??? ........ and if that;s true..... then according to that broad definition of deuteronomy my use and handling of the implement required to make bowstrings is also an abomination..... ... (the string making jig)[/font][/size][/color]

If the Deut 22 passage is talking about not wearing things that pertain to war, it is analogously to be understood that the intent of the one doing the wearing would be for warfare, or usurping and blurring the lines of gender distinction that underscore God's natural order.  It would be akin to the unisex movement that wants to make all bathrooms to be without gender distinction.  So unless a woman's intent is to engage in active combat, or overthrow the natural creation order, then the verse would not apply (in principle) to that which you refer (hunting).

what was the purpose of david teaching "the use of the bow" to children in 2nd samuel 1-18?........ and were female children included in that?........ i know some archery history buffs who say they believe it should be interpreted "women and children".... and that david was preparing them to be a backup force to assist in warfare in the same way england trained all commoners in archery a few centuries ago........ david was very distraught over the death of saul and jonathan and it would make sense he would be taking steps to see the army could no be over run like that again in the future.........

i know spurgeon preached a sermon on this topic once and used this verse in his sermon but i couldn;t find it....... i haven;t done an exhaustive search online for it yet....... but does anyone know what his stand on this issue was?........

I don't know about Spurgeon's take, but "the bow" is apparently a poetic Hebrew term for a dirge or song of lamentation.

 

[Holy Mole]

... but according to that broad definition of deuteronomy 22-5 on page one here...... i;m wondering how many fundamentalists would view my handling of hemp to make bowstrings and longbows an abomination.... ???.......not because it;s related to marijuana..... but because i use it to make what was traditionally a mans weapon of war...  ??? ........ and if that;s true..... then according to that broad definition of deuteronomy my use and handling of the implement required to make bowstrings is also an abomination..... ... (the string making jig)[/font][/size][/color]

If the Deut 22 passage is talking about not wearing things that pertain to war, it is analogously to be understood that the intent of the one doing the wearing would be for warfare, or usurping and blurring the lines of gender distinction that underscore God's natural order.  It would be akin to the unisex movement that wants to make all bathrooms to be without gender distinction.  So unless a woman's intent is to engage in active combat, or overthrow the natural creation order, then the verse would not apply (in principle) to that which you refer (hunting).

what was the purpose of david teaching "the use of the bow" to children in 2nd samuel 1-18?........ and were female children included in that?........ i know some archery history buffs who say they believe it should be interpreted "women and children".... and that david was preparing them to be a backup force to assist in warfare in the same way england trained all commoners in archery a few centuries ago........ david was very distraught over the death of saul and jonathan and it would make sense he would be taking steps to see the army could no be over run like that again in the future.........

i know spurgeon preached a sermon on this topic once and used this verse in his sermon but i couldn;t find it....... i haven;t done an exhaustive search online for it yet....... but does anyone know what his stand on this issue was?........

I don't know about Spurgeon's take, but "the bow" is apparently a poetic Hebrew term for a dirge or song of lamentation.

i don;t see that as apparent at all...... is there any proof of it in scripture?....... is there a passage in the bible where the word "bow" is used to described a poetic dirge or song of lamentation?........ ???

No...a bow is a tie..
.... or a gesture of respect
.....or even possibly an altering of a shape under a force
but by NO means could it be a weapon that thrusts sharpened aerodynamic objects using tension.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No...a bow is a tie..
.... or a gesture of respect
.....or even possibly an altering of a shape under a force
but by NO means could it be a weapon that thrusts sharpened aerodynamic objects using tension.

Your condescension noted, the fact of the matter is that the word translated as "bow" has a variety of interpretations (based on context), one of which might be relating to a musical dirge, hence the alternative translations....

(ASV)  (and he bade them teach the children of Judah the song of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jashar):

(CEV)  and he ordered his men to teach the song to everyone in Judah. He called it "The Song of the Bow," and it can be found in The Book of Jashar. This is the song:


(ERV)  David told his men to teach the song to the people of Judah. This song is called The Bow, and it is written in the Book of Jashar.


(LITV)  and he said to teach the sons of Judah The Song of the Bow. Behold, it is written in the Book of Jashar:


(RV)  And he bade them teach the children of Judah the song of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

Barnes
2 Samuel 1:18 
The use of the bow - Omit “the use of.” “The bow” is the name by which this dirge was known, being so called from the mention of Jonathan’s bow in 2Sa_1:22. The sense would then be: And he commanded them to teach the children of Israel the song called Kasheth (the bow), i. e. he gave directions that the song should be learned by heart (compare Deu_31:19). It has been further suggested that in the Book of Jasher there was, among other things, a collection of poems, in which special mention was made of the bow. This was one of them. 1Sa_2:1-10 was another; Num_21:27-30 was another; Lam. 2 was another; Lam. 3 was another; Jacob’s blessing Gen. 49; Moses’ song Deut. 32; perhaps his Blessing (Deut. 33. See 2 Sam. 1:29); and such Psalms as Ps. 44; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_76:1-12, etc.; Hab. 3; and Zec_9:9-17, also belonged to it. The title by which all the poems in this collection were distinguished was קשׁת  qesheth, “the bow.” When therefore the writer of 2 Samuel transferred this dirge from the Book of Jasher to his own pages, he transferred it, as we might do any of the Psalms, with its title.

Clarke
2 Samuel 1:18 
The use of the bow - The use of is not in the Hebrew; it is simply the bow, that is, a song thus entitled. See the observations at the end, 2Sa_1:21 (note).


In other words, there is great possibility that the difficult passage has more than a reasonable chance of being associated with teaching a song of lamentations.

 

[rsc2a]

And based on Alice Cooper's Feed My Frankenstein, we all know that a Frankenstein is a type of rock song.

 

[ALAYMAN]

And we all know on the basis of certain squirrel's average response that squirrels incognito are generally obtuse.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[size=12pt]ok.... i understand the phrase "use of" was not in the original hebrew text ....but was rather added in for clarity by the translators of 1611 who put the king james bible together.... ....... but whereas "use of" doesn;t actually occur in that passage neither does the phrase "song of".... ... "song of" is entirely an invention of people like barnes and clarke ........ so what makes their opinions... which no doubt were influenced by 19th and 20th century ideals and paradigms ..... any more authoritative than the translators of 1611?......  a theological doctrine shouldn;t be based on "difficult passages"... where the strongest supporting evidence for your position is described as "great possibility" or having a "reasonable chance of association".... ...... those are the things preferences are made of.....

Invention?  What makes you say that it is their invention?  The basis for it is in the fact that there are dirges in the history of the Hebrew people, and those dirges were occasionally called "bows".  How is that an "invention"?  And likewise, why is it that you are willing to trust your friend's opinion about the meaning of the passage as they claim it relates to women?  That is certainly an "invention" that is nowhere in the context, neither explicit nor implied.  Could it be that you have a "preference" that your bias causes you to introduce into the interpretation of the text?

 

[ALAYMAN]

ok.... i understand the phrase "use of" was not in the original hebrew text ....but was rather added in for clarity by the translators of 1611 who put the king james bible together.... ....... but whereas "use of" doesn;t actually occur in that passage neither does the phrase "song of".... ... "song of" is entirely an invention of people like barnes and clarke ........ so what makes their opinions... which no doubt were influenced by 19th and 20th century ideals and paradigms ..... any more authoritative than the translators of 1611?......  a theological doctrine shouldn;t be based on "difficult passages"... where the strongest supporting evidence for your position is described as "great possibility" or having a "reasonable chance of association".... ...... those are the things preferences are made of.....

Invention?  What makes you say that it is their invention?  The basis for it is in the fact that there are dirges in the history of the Hebrew people, and those dirges were occasionally called "bows".  How is that an "invention"?  And likewise, why is it that you are willing to trust your friend's opinion about the meaning of the passage as they claim it relates to women?  That is certainly an "invention" that is nowhere in the context, neither explicit nor implied. Could it be that you have a "preference" that your bias causes you to introduce into the interpretation of the text?

[size=12pt]if it is such a well known fact that hebrew dirges were occasionally called bows.... how is it that the word "bow" is never used anywhere in scripture to describe such a song other than the one passage which even you admit is difficult at best to claim?.......... up until 1611 biblical scholars seemed to agree the word "bow" in that passage described a weapon of warfare.........so yes.... it would seem to me that the re-writing of that passage by omitting the phrase "the use of"..... and replacing it with "the song of".... which i never saw done before until you quoted barnes and clarke... is indeed a modern invention...... can you show textual proof from some other source closer to the actual time of david that proves otherwise?.......

and sorry my friend........ but when it comes to introducing preferences into scripture i haven;t even come close to doing it on a level you have...... and yet what preferences i have introduced on this matter are still backed by biblical example where God placed a woman in command of an army.... and 2 others where they proved they could get the job done after the men whose job it was supposed to have been in the first place had failed......

and...... when i see something as being a preference i recognize that it could pertain only to me and mine... yet give others freedom to do what i cannot do.... or that which i am simply not comfortable doing........... but you are using preference not even based on clear biblical example.... but rather what you call a theme ... to create theological doctrine and impose biblical mandate....... ..... sorry .... but it all comes across as not only very misogynistic but even as a shame based attempt to protect the image of some men... who fail at what they think is not only their duty but their privilege.....from being tarnished by a few capable women who believe they they can do it better and have merely asked for the chance to prove it.....

My point was that you are more than willing to give your friends a hearing on the interpretation that favors your preference, but choose to use loaded language like "invention" when it comes from other opposing opinions of studied commentators.  I knew we would disagree on the basis for our "preferences", but I am willing to concede that I might be wrong about my position.  You seem to be digging in.  If a woman wants to put her life on the line for her country, there's certainly something to be said for her bravery, but I don't believe the preponderance of evidence in Scriptures leads to the conclusion that God wants women protecting men as a normal thing.  But I'm a Baptist, and as such, believe in liberty of conscience, and as such think that each person should do what they are fully persuaded of.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This bear's repeating.

Burping bear

 

[ALAYMAN]

i ask for proof from scripture to show the bow in 2nd sam 1-18 was referring to a song.... but you keep referring to people you call studied commentators...... but you give no indication of where they got their ideas from............... .....

I never suggested that there was corroboration from other Scriptural texts of the claim.  I merely suggested that some historical usage of the term allows for questioning the possible meaning.  But all that aside, whether it is referring to a song or directly to a war instrument, that Scripture doesn't mention anything about women being trained for war.

 

[ALAYMAN]

just a few more things to think about.....<snip>

..... no doubt if our own country was invaded those against training women for combat would be all
for arming whoever they could... including women whether trained or not.... and sending them into the battle to fight the invaders.......perhaps hoping
they would pick up some skills and training along the way....... so why not give them the training they need now?...... especially those who want
it and are eager to serve..... it makes no sense to me why some men would appear to be more comfortable with the idea of dead and
dismembered women... made martyrs by an enemy.. than they are with a well trained fighting force of women capable of leaving the
enemy dead and dismembered instead.......... but apparently some men are....  and i am having a hard time understanding it........

Could you cite a source that is more comfortable with women being raped and beheaded than being prepared for combat?

That seems to be a false dichotomy.  I don't want to see either.  And I also ain't in favor of arming women and sending them into combat if we were invaded.  If they chose to defend their home and children that would be their choice, but I am not in favor of sending them off to combat, foreign or domestic.  And lastly, you say that those of my persuasion would be in favor of violating their conscience if it came down to actual combat on our own soil, but your claim is fraught with pragmatism.  It's like saying that a conscientious objector would shoot and kill somebody if they were forced into an actual situation where their principles were tested that their sense of self preservation would kick in and they'd kill their aggressors.  I'm sure some would, but I'm equally sure some pacifists would not.  Likewise, just because you strongly believe in your (and other) female right to join in combat doesn't mean that men who were having their own blood spilled in their own soil would resort to utilitarian logic (over and against their convictions).

 

[ALAYMAN]

and it doesn;t exclude the possibility of it either........ to say female children were not included in that is no less presumptuous as saying male children were excluded and only females were taught the use of the bow........  the passage simply says the use of the bow was taught to "children"......... no specific gender implied......

I'm uncomfortable with arguments from silence, and consequently ain't for paedobaptism either.

 

[ALAYMAN]

just a few more things to think about.....<snip>

..... no doubt if our own country was invaded those against training women for combat would be all
for arming whoever they could... including women whether trained or not.... and sending them into the battle to fight the invaders.......perhaps hoping
they would pick up some skills and training along the way....... so why not give them the training they need now?...... especially those who want
it and are eager to serve..... it makes no sense to me why some men would appear to be more comfortable with the idea of dead and
dismembered women... made martyrs by an enemy.. than they are with a well trained fighting force of women capable of leaving the
enemy dead and dismembered instead.......... but apparently some men are....  and i am having a hard time understanding it........

Could you cite a source that is more comfortable with women being raped and beheaded than being prepared for combat?

That seems to be a false dichotomy.  I don't want to see either.

would to God than an enemy gives you a choice.......

And I also ain't in favor of arming women and sending them into combat if we were invaded.

then you might have to see some of them die.... needlessly....and when it could have been avoided.... should u.s. soil actually be invaded someday in the future and the pentagon decides to heed your advice and not train them...... or they might watch you die standing by frail ..helpless... an unable to do anything as is the condition i;m learning too many fundamentalist men like to have all women be in......

If they chose to defend their home and children that would be their choice, but I am not in favor of sending them off to combat, foreign or domestic.  And lastly, you say that those of my persuasion would be in favor of violating their conscience if it came down to actual combat on our own soil, but your claim is fraught with pragmatism.  It's like saying that a conscientious objector would shoot and kill somebody if they were forced into an actual situation where their principles were tested that their sense of self preservation would kick in and they'd kill their aggressors.  I'm sure some would, but I'm equally sure some pacifists would not. Likewise, just because you strongly believe in your (and other) female right to join in combat doesn't mean that men who were having their own blood spilled in their own soil would resort to utilitarian logic (over and against their convictions).

what;s happening in northern iraq and syria is very real......... and the islamic extremists have already vowed that if they are victorious there they will bring their war to our country..... and to our citizens....... if that happens what do you think the convictions of men who don;t want to see women fight will even matter?...... and even if a few... like yourself... maintained that conviction and were somehow able to prevent women under their control from taking up the fight ..... do you think that is going to stop other women from doing what they can?.. or from doing what they believe they must?.......... and if it happens that way will you still be able to separate it in your mind and convince yourself they were fighting to defend their own homes and children only?.... and not in the process defending yours as well?......

i have no doubt there are some conscientious objectors to any type of warfare who would stand still and allow themselves to be slaughtered rather than lift their hand and kill an aggressor....... that is their right if it;s what they want to do........ but they have no more right to tell someone else... such as a female wanting to train for combat.... that she must join them in their peaceful huddle and submit to enemy aggression than she has the right tell them to pick up weapons and fight........

and the men whose own blood is being spilled on home soil would have not have the right to tell her to do that and submit to the enemy either........ .. and i hope that any such man... having such a protective mentality that he can;t abide the idea of having women fight for him.... would at least understand that if things came to that point.. and the country was over run.. he would have at that time ceased to be the protector of such women if he prevented them from fighting and was now enabling their demise........

i;m sorry...... but i have been reading up on complimentarian logic lately and quite frankly the whole thing makes me sick........ it smacks of the attitude presented in early american western movies that it was better to put a bullet in the woman;s head rather than let her be taken hostage by the heathen savages....... and whatever you do don;t let her help fight the battle...... better to go down dead together as one family with the pride and honor of the male head of household firmly intact rather than have him suffer the indignity of others knowing his women folk helped defend him.....

sorry...... that;s how i see it...... and there hasn;t been much in the way of arguments against it so far that convinces me otherwise....... it;s pretty disturbing....... and it;s also not how things actually were in the old wild west....... regardless of how much the american western movie portrayed it.....

You have a vast cultural concurrence to lean on in this matter, so no need to fear misogynist complementarians like me will force their chauvinistic worldview on you anytime soon.

 

[ALAYMAN]

when was that ever the issue?...... what upsets me is finding out someone i considered a friend and even an ally on most issues here considers the things i do and the very lifestyle i live to be an abomination.........

I don't consider it an abomination to serve the country honorably, but I do consider the inversion of female roles in society to be an indicator of wrong priorities and potentially an aversion to the most honorable and appropriate place/function for the female gender.

 

[Holy Mole]

when was that ever the issue?...... what upsets me is finding out someone i considered a friend and even an ally on most issues here considers the things i do and the very lifestyle i live to be an abomination.........

I don't consider it an abomination to serve the country honorably, but I do consider the inversion of female roles in society to be an indicator of wrong priorities and potentially an aversion to the most honorable and appropriate place/function for the female gender.

And just what is the "most appropriate place/function for the female gender"?

Home barefoot and pregnant and calling her husband "Lord"?

and that's for every woman?

 

[ALAYMAN]

And just what is the "most appropriate place/function for the female gender"?

Home barefoot and pregnant and calling her husband "Lord"?

and that's for every woman?

Tit 2:4  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5  To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


Black print on white paper/screen.  I didn't write it, just cite it....  That'll preach!

 

[ALAYMAN]

And just what is the "most appropriate place/function for the female gender"?

Home barefoot and pregnant and calling her husband "Lord"?

and that's for every woman?

Tit 2:4  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5  To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

and since i;m not physically or mentally-emotionally capable of either having a husband or bearing children....... what does any of that have to with me?....... or with other women like me?.........  does the fact that circumstances beyond our control left us in that condition cause God to be blasphemed?......... or could it be paul was not talking about all women in general?........

Black print on white paper/screen.  I didn't write it, just cite it....  That'll preach!

isn;t there a word for people who take a couple of bible verses out of context and make the misapplication of those verses a corner stone in their religious doctrine?.......  :

Was Paul talking about ANY women with this admonition?  Your argument is akin to those who want to argue for abortion (no offense intended) on the basis that a few pregnancies would cause the death of the mother.

And as far as out of context verses, if application was made for only those Christian mothers and wives who read that verse in the proper context we'd have far less women inverting their God-given roles.