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

[Green Beret]

I referenced Duet. 20 to make the point that God commanded people place parapets on their rooftops and tassels on their garments but I think that is obvious to those reading the contexts of these posts.

Why, of course you did! And if we were discussing the gender of the recipients of said commands, it actually would have been relevant as well. And I think that is obvious to those who not only read but understand the context of these posts.

Right over your head.

No, his desperate stretch did not go over my head. I just pointed out that it really only makes sense to those who can't think straight or those who understand logical fallacy. I'm in the latter group.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Well... the question was "what is the biblical worldview."

Biblically, I don't see anything that would disallow a woman from being in combat. We could argue about Deborah, Jael and the "certain woman." Some of you want to believe that they were isolated from combat situations. Jael was certainly engaged in the battle by ending the commander's life.

These women were engaged in war settings. Neither Deborah nor Jael would be allowed to do these things in our modern military.

CBMW, who carries the "complementarian-standard" makes a big deal about Deborah and Jael leading to "take the place of men." This is not a chastisement ever mentioned. In fact, these women are held in esteem.

CBMW sometimes makes the error of wanting to see more than there really is in the Bible. While I am sympathetic to not allowing women in combat, I am not about to construct a biblical worldview that has to rely on vague theological viewpoints. Aleshanee is right... should women no longer serve in the police force? How about on SWAT teams?

Oh yeah... nothing like a sweaty menstrating women pinned down in a fox hole for days surrounded by men that are not her husband. It really creates a lasting bond that's not soon forgotten.

Your comparison to a police force and SWAT team is disingenuous. There really isn't a comparison. A police women usually goes home every day to her family, her husband. So does a SWAT team member. There are so many things differences inbetween the two roles, its not even worth my time to point them all out. You know they are different. You're just arguing because you feel the need to be "inclusive". I agree that women are just as good, if not better, than men in many areas. This is not one of them.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Just though I would share a verse that might seem rather awkward if you replaced the word "men" with "women".

1Sa_18:27  David arose and went, along with his women, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

 

[FSSL]

Oh yeah... nothing like a sweaty menstrating women pinned down in a fox hole for days surrounded by men that are not her husband. It really creates a lasting bond that's not soon forgotten.

Your imagination is disturbing. Methinks you just opened yourself up to a beat down by women on this board.

Jael was certainly covered in the blood of the commander of the army. There is no need to focus on menstruation unless there is some kind of sickness you imagine.

Your comparison to a police force and SWAT team is disingenuous. There really isn't a comparison.

So you allow for women on a SWAT team, but not in combat? Inconsistency has never the strongsuit of many on this board. Add your name to that list.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=FSSL]So you allow for women on a SWAT team, but not in combat? Inconsistency has never the strongsuit of many on this board. Add your name to that list.[/quote]

He claims the ANE wasn't a male-dominated society.  As such,  his entire interpretative philosophy is called into question. 

 

[Recovering IFB]

I referenced Duet. 20 to make the point that God commanded people place parapets on their rooftops and tassels on their garments but I think that is obvious to those reading the contexts of these posts.

Why, of course you did! And if we were discussing the gender of the recipients of said commands, it actually would have been relevant as well. And I think that is obvious to those who not only read but understand the context of these posts.

Right over your head.

No, his desperate stretch did not go over my head. I just pointed out that it really only makes sense to those who can't think straight or those who understand logical fallacy. I'm in the latter group.

Actually there soldier, your wrong. If you are going to hang your hat on the law, you have to take all of the law. In which case you need tassels on your uniform, or you'll be guilty of breaking it.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Oh yeah... nothing like a sweaty menstrating women pinned down in a fox hole for days surrounded by men that are not her husband. It really creates a lasting bond that's not soon forgotten.

Your imagination is disturbing. Methinks you just opened yourself up to a beat down by women on this board.

Jael was certainly covered in the blood of the commander of the army. There is no need to focus on menstruation unless there is some kind of sickness you imagine.

Your lack of knowledge is distrubing. Its not very Christian of you to imply I have "disturbing imagination". Do you often make such acussations among those with whom you fellowship in Christ?

You know its an issue. I'm not mentioning anything that's not been rehashed time and time again by commanders in the field.

So you allow for women on a SWAT team, but not in combat? Inconsistency has never the strongsuit of many on this board. Add your name to that list.

You know its not a valid comparison.

I imagine you wouldn't have any problem allowing all female police and SWAT members to be part of the Army Elite Rangers by default? Do you see any need to vet them at all? If you do, then stop trying pretend they are one in the same.

 

[FSSL]

Your lack of knowledge is distrubing.

Oh, what fun!

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Your lack of knowledge is distrubing.

Oh, what fun!

I imagine you've never made such a mistake? Its nothing more than a simple typing issue. You'd rather deal with petty things you find to condemn others than to deal with your own misstatements. 

 

[FSSL]

Lol! Why so serious?!

When you question the intellect of others, it is of great importance to make sure you do so, intelligently!

 

[Prin.Ciples]

Lol! Why so serious?!

When you question the intellect of others, it is of great importance to make sure you do so, intelligently!

If you're just joking around, then I apologize. If you're just want to be petty, that's another issue. I generally take people laughing at my petty mistakes seriously. I might be a little uptight at times. 

 

[FSSL]

As mentioned above and reiterated by rsc2a, I remain unconvinced that you understand the fundamental elements of the OT situation. The society was male-dominant. The fact that we have 3 recorded examples of women in war, does strengthen my argument. I am neither going to foist my preferences on those examples. Nor am I going to "hand wave them off" as if they do not apply.

CBMW (the standard complementarian think tank) takes the position that these women WERE actually involved IN COMBAT.* They just presuppose (wrongly), that the women were out-of-bounds. They do not argue from the absurdity that they were not involved in combat.

Since you reject the fact that this was a male-dominated society... then what more can we discuss?






* From CBMW's 1997 resolution on women in the military... " WHEREAS, Biblical examples that record women serving in combat (Jud. 4:4-23) are presented as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between male and female roles and responsibilities, and as caused by a failure of male leadership that is worthy of shame (Jud. 4:9-10)."

 

[Prin.Ciples]

As mentioned above and reiterated by rsc2a, I remain unconvinced that you understand the fundamental elements of the OT situation. The society was male-dominant. The fact that we have 3 recorded examples of women in war, does strengthen my argument. I am neither going to foist my preferences on those examples. Nor am I going to "hand wave them off" as if they do not apply.

CBMW (the standard complementarian think tank) takes the position that these women WERE actually involved IN COMBAT.* They just presuppose (wrongly), that the women were out-of-bounds. They do not argue from the absurdity that they were not involved in combat.

Since you reject the fact that this was a male-dominated society... then what more can we discuss?

I have no reason to believe they were involved in combat. I see absolutely nothing to convince me they were. I can show you specfically where men were unmistakably involved in battles. Unmistakeably. No ifs ands or "buts". You can't do the same with your examples.

Even so, one example throughout thousands of years of combat covered in the OT does not make me believe this is an acceptable STANDARD that should be PURPOSELY repeated.

* From CBMW's 1997 resolution on women in the military... " WHEREAS, Biblical examples that record women serving in combat (Jud. 4:4-23) are presented as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between male and female roles and responsibilities, and as caused by a failure of male leadership that is worthy of shame (Jud. 4:9-10)."

Do you even read what you post? Did you notice the last part of your quote. They said it was due to the failure of male leadership.

Then, why would you then want to take something that happened due the failure of men, and make it a STANDARD? Is that smart leadership on anyone's part?

 

[Green Beret]

They do not argue from the absurdity that they were not involved in combat.

Well, I suppose that depends on how "absurd" your definition of combat is.

 

[FSSL]

... because it is a wrong, unsupported conclusion to say that Barak was not properly leading. Deborah was the recognized prophetess.

CBMW judges the motives of Barak WITHOUT addressing the recognized God-given standing Deborah carried.

Have you even read the commentaries on these passages? They do not argue from the viewpoint that women were not involved in combat. They ALL recognize Deborah's necessary, God-ordained leadership.

I know the complementarian view. I am one. Because of my familiarity with complementarianism, I know its achilles heels!

(... enter a new thread on women in politics... when I have something other than my phone)

 

[FSSL]

They do not argue from the absurdity that they were not involved in combat.

Well, I suppose that depends on how "absurd" your definition of combat is.

Mustering 10,000 men... impaling the enemy's commander with a peg... fulfilling God's promise that a woman would end the war by killing the commander Jdg 4.9.

It takes quite a bit of jostling to avoid these facts. Even the prima donna of the complementarian viewpoint says they were "IN COMBAT."

I have NEVER read a commentary or paper that disavows the idea that they were not.

 

[T-Bone]

and by the way..... don;t forget jael.... she not only picked up weapons.. (or implements) ...pertaining to a man but she also nailed an enemy generals head to the floor with them......... was she wrong for doing that?....... the army she came to the aid of at the time didn;t seem to think so..........

Exactly... thank you... I don't know why she didn't come to mind.

Killing a man while he sleep isn't the same thing as standing face to face and toe to toe with someone in hand to hand combat.

I'd give a rifle to any women that was a good shot.... but don't pretend they can "fill in" equally in every combat role.

nobody said all women were more physically capable than most men..... just that a few of them are.... and those few should be allowed to pursue careers that would use their abilities accordingly........  don;t pretend that you...just because you are a man ... could stand face to face...and toe to toe in hand to hand combat with females that posses that kind of ability.....

Boom there it is....doubt he can shot a bow like you!  Set the qualifications...if they are met then gender doesn't matter, except by those who fear that a "girl" might show them up!

Do you believe that a gay man that meets the qualifications should be allowed????

Same thing "buddy". You don't want a gay man introducing conflict but you have no problem with women doing the same. Don't be hypocritcal with your belief system.

My belief system is intact...but thanks for your concern.  I personally have never asked another soldier about their sexual preference.  I don't even want to know...what I want to know if they are qualified to do their job.  Seems a little curious that the two groups that seem overly concerned about people's sexuality in the real world are the extreme fundamentalist and the extreme homosexuals.  I don't ask...nor do I want to know when it comes to combat.  If anyone wants to deal with the theological issue of homosexuality I will be glad to give them my stance.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

and by the way..... don;t forget jael.... she not only picked up weapons.. (or implements) ...pertaining to a man but she also nailed an enemy generals head to the floor with them......... was she wrong for doing that?....... the army she came to the aid of at the time didn;t seem to think so..........

Exactly... thank you... I don't know why she didn't come to mind.

Killing a man while he sleep isn't the same thing as standing face to face and toe to toe with someone in hand to hand combat.

I'd give a rifle to any women that was a good shot.... but don't pretend they can "fill in" equally in every combat role.

nobody said all women were more physically capable than most men..... just that a few of them are.... and those few should be allowed to pursue careers that would use their abilities accordingly........  don;t pretend that you...just because you are a man ... could stand face to face...and toe to toe in hand to hand combat with females that posses that kind of ability.....

Boom there it is....doubt he can shot a bow like you!  Set the qualifications...if they are met then gender doesn't matter, except by those who fear that a "girl" might show them up!

Do you believe that a gay man that meets the qualifications should be allowed????

Same thing "buddy". You don't want a gay man introducing conflict but you have no problem with women doing the same. Don't be hypocritcal with your belief system.

My belief system is intact...but thanks for your concern.  I personally have never asked another soldier about their sexual preference.  I don't even want to know...what I want to know if they are qualified to do their job.  Seems a little curious that the two groups that seem overly concerned about people's sexuality in the real world are the extreme fundamentalist and the extreme homosexuals.  I don't ask...nor do I want to know when it comes to combat.  If anyone wants to deal with the theological issue of homosexuality I will be glad to give them my stance.

Don't ask, don't tell. I can remember when most people hated the idea. I imagine they now wished it would have stayed the overall policy. Its certianly better than what we have now.

I do want to know. Military personnel lives are an open book. There is nothing wrong with wanting to know if Tom is thinking about getting his last kiss from Harry while bullets are flying all around. Intense situation tend to bring out the worst in people.

 

[Green Beret]

Mustering 10,000 men... impaling the enemy's commander with a peg... fulfilling God's promise that a woman would end the war by killing the commander Jdg 4.9.

Deborah didn't muster 10,000 men, Barak did:

Judges 4:10  And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.

Jael lured Sisera into her tent and assassinated him while he slept:

Judges 4:18-22  And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.
And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.
Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.
And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples.

The facts are the facts. These two ladies were not in combat by any reputable definition of the term. They did not fight with direct or indirect weapons against the enemy as a member of an organized fighting unit or group. One was a spiritual leader and the other killed an unarmed man in his sleep after luring him into her tent.

Webster says, "Combat - A fight or contest between individuals or groups".

It is not difficult to understand. Perhaps you are holding on to a preconceived notion that you can't admit is wrong because of pride? Is that possible? I have certainly been guilty of that before. In fact, on this very topic.

It takes quite a bit of jostling to avoid these facts. Even the prima donna of the complementarian viewpoint says they were "IN COMBAT."

Again, how about reading the scripture and taking what is said at face value instead of what some group says? Whose jostling what "facts"?

I have NEVER read a commentary or paper that disavows the idea that they were not.

Maybe expanding your reading into the Christian military culture would offer some insight but that is secondary. What about the Bible?

Seriously. Show me from scripture were I am wrong. I have shown you from scripture why I believe the way I do and all you have offered is "so and so says this" and "such and such never says that".

What does the Bible say?

 

[FSSL]

Intense situation tend to bring out the worst in people.

So do certain topics. Your recent posts have been unsettling.