|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 31, 2004 23:48:39 GMT -5
The words of Doug Phillips of visionforum.com:
On this Memorial Day, we must thank the Lord with joy in our hearts for more than two centuries of freedom. We must thank Him for the ranks of millions of “ordinary” Americans who have fought and died for our freedom. And we must pray — pray with all of our hearts — that America will reverse direction, turn to the Lord, and be spared the reality of new D-Days with beaches full of dead girls and single mothers, because Christian men in the church, in politics, and in the voting booth lack the manly fortitude to call the practice of sending our daughters to war what the Bible calls it — an abomination.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 31, 2004 23:51:47 GMT -5
Here is some more form Doug:
Scripture makes it clear that the real issue is not women soldiers in combat roles vs. women soldiers in non-combat roles. The real issue is women playing the role of soldier, period. Remarkably, the Bible spells out several wrongs so outrageous, so wicked, that they earn the title of “an abomination.” Homosexuality is one. Killing innocent children is another. Having women serve as soldiers is a third. This act of a woman putting on “the gear of a warrior” (keli gabar) is described in Deuteronomy 22:5 as “an abomination.” “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” (emphasis mine).
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 31, 2004 23:57:09 GMT -5
What Christians have yet to assimilate is the fact that the compromises of the present administration regarding military discipline, moral perversion, homosexuality, and women in combat, along with the collective searing of our national conscience concerning these matters, is setting the stage for the next big wave: the conscription and drafting of your daughters. At this moment, there are several bills before Congress that, in one way or another, by inches or by miles, advance us toward the logical conclusion of our current policies — namely, the registering of our daughters for national selective service and their eligibility for a draft should the next President deem that necessary to sustain America’s new role in spreading twenty-first century democracy to Islamic peoples still culturally rooted in the eleventh century. (S.B. 89[xx] and H.R. 163[xxi] are parallel bills currently receiving some national attention as they work themselves through Congress as the Universal National Service Act of 2004. If passed, they will require all eighteen- to twenty-six-year-olds, male and female, to perform a period of military duty. Those daughters who refuse to comply will face criminal prosecution.)
After all, having jettisoned the long-defended and hard-fought fundamental Christian ideals of motherhood and home and the biblical mandate that men should be the defenders of women, what is there left to debate? We have conceded the premise. The current policies and those yet to come are clear, logical extensions of the fundamental compromise.
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on Jun 1, 2004 15:26:37 GMT -5
If a woman wishes to fight for her country - she should be allowed to do so.
It is not unhonorable to wish to defend your freedoms. The womans "uniform" is made differently than that of a male soldier. Our bodys are not shaped the same way thus the clothing is different. So she is, in reality, not wearing a mans garment.
|
|
|
Post by Reality on Jun 1, 2004 19:29:45 GMT -5
Here is some more form Doug: Scripture makes it clear that the real issue is not women soldiers in combat roles vs. women soldiers in non-combat roles. The real issue is women playing the role of soldier, period. Remarkably, the Bible spells out several wrongs so outrageous, so wicked, that they earn the title of “an abomination.” Homosexuality is one. Killing innocent children is another. Having women serve as soldiers is a third. This act of a woman putting on “the gear of a warrior” (keli gabar) is described in Deuteronomy 22:5 as “an abomination.” “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” (emphasis mine). Do Christians believe in obeying all of the laws in the O.T.? No they do not.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 1, 2004 21:16:03 GMT -5
Do Christians believe in obeying all of the laws in the O.T.? No they do not. Oh come on, I am sure no one wears clothes made of divers fibers and they all put their wives away for 7 days when "her issue in her flesh be blood". Sounds good if "away" is a seaside resort!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 21:54:21 GMT -5
Cindi,
No, women ought not fight and die for thieir country. It is men who ought to fight and die for their women and country.
Please forgive my old fashioned, elevated view of women. I know that it is not PC, but I believe it to be biblical.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 21:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by botany on Jun 1, 2004 22:50:39 GMT -5
Robb, What you are saying is this: (Perhaps an extreme and unlikely scenario, but it seems to fit Robb's beliefs) If there were a band of "bad guys" going through your neighborhood raping, pillaging, and killing people, and the only people that had the means (firepower, numbers, etc) to stop the "bad guys" were some women soldiers, the raping, pillaging, and killing would be preferable than to actually have the women soldiers. Correct me if I'm wrong. Then, Robb, my question to you is this... would you be grateful for the women soldiers who might protect you, your family, and your neighbors in the event of a war that carried into your neighborhood, if it were to occur? Or would you scorn the women soldiers and prefer that you were not protected by people, humans beings, that love their country and its citizens enough to want to protect them? Is this not what Jesus did? He loved the people of the world enough to be sacrificed for them, whether or not the people appreciated the sacrifice, or whether or not the people wanted his sacrifice. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 1, 2004 23:25:55 GMT -5
Andy, you are way wrong here.
Your brand of logic is baffeling.
I give up.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Jun 1, 2004 23:29:22 GMT -5
Andy, you are way wrong here. Your brand of logic is baffeling. I give up. Robb J/c, what am I wrong about? I admit that I might have misinterpreted your posts, which is why I said "it seems". andy
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on Jun 2, 2004 9:42:18 GMT -5
Robb,
I didn't say woman should "have to" fight. I said they should be allowed to fight for freedom if they want to fight, the same as men.
There is a difference. There is choice.
There are instances of woman "fighting" in the Bible for God also. Consider one example in Deborah.
She was "leading Israel" (JDG 4:4).
JDG 4:9 "'Very well,' Deborah said, 'I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.'"
Deborah And Barak Led The Forces To Victory
Deborah and Barak went to Kedesh where Barak summoned 10,000 men of Zebulun and Naphtali (JDG 4:9,10).
Deborah and Barak and the army went to Mt. Tabor and camped there (JDG 4:10,12).
Word was brought to Sisera that Israel's army had gone up to Mt. Tabor (JDG 4:12).
Sisera, his 900 chariots and his army, assembled in the Valley of Jezreel (JDG 4:13).
The powers of heaven, i.e. rain and floods, fought for Israel in the Valley of Jezreel (JDG 5:20,21).
the Kishon River swept away some of Sisera's army (JDG 5:21).
Barak routed Sisera's army
Deborah urged Barak and his army to advance upon the Canaanites whose superior numbers and equipment were nullified by their inability to maneuver in the flooded condition of the valley floor (JDG 4:14).
she was acting in accordance with God's will that a woman would kill Sisera (JDG 4:9).
God is not a respecter of persons- women are as useful to Him as men are (GAL 3:28).
Although it is wonderful that a man defend and protect his woman and children, woman can also be used by God for the same purpose if it suits His will.
Peace
|
|
|
Post by Judith and Esther on Jun 2, 2004 9:57:24 GMT -5
In the period after the Exile, while Israel was struggling for national identity and survival Judith and Esther emerged. Judith risked her life to save her nation when it was besieged and almost exterminated by the enemy. She went right into the enemy’s camp and cut off the head of Holofernes, the captain of their army; then took it back in victory to her people and led them in triumphal procession to Jerusalem. The story of Judith and that of Esther might inspire women on the need to take actions full of risk to liberate their nations .
|
|