Bringin' home the bacon and fryin' it up in the pan.

[Castor Muscular]

One more thing: God didn't make a mistake in giving these rules to an Ancient Middle Eastern patriarchal society. But that's who they were given to. He gave them what they needed in their cultural context... but that's a whole lot different than where we are today.

Women today do NOT need to be under the headship of any male. It remains true that MOST women are not suited for ground combat duty. But we aren't talking about most, only those who volunteer and qualify; i.e., those who have the desire, and who then prove they have the will and the ability.

I think women should serve in ground combat for about 5 days each month. 

(ducks)

 

[ALAYMAN]

The foundation of our laws was influenced more by the writings of John Locke than John the Apostle.

The Ten Commandments graces multitudes of courthouses still to this day.  You get the point.

You have my agreement here. (Although you never have explained why you think IVF is a moral evil...a position I cannot understand at all.)

My wife had IVF <unsuccessfully> before the Lord blessed us with a child produced naturally.  I don't think IVF is inherently evil at all.  However, there are things associated with the process that the medical industry tries to soften, like "selective reduction" of potentially unused embryos.  I threw it in the discussion because it involves ethical implications, and such difficult discussions involve asking the hard questions, much like we must ask in conversations about roles of women and men.  The equality of women in the workplace sounds noble on its face, and I agree with equal work for equal pay, but the reality is the seduction of the feminist movement negates certain philosophical constructs inherent to the complementarian <Biblical> worldview.  The fact that women can do many jobs as well as men doesn't mean that they SHOULD abrogate their God-ordained roles.  Adrian Rogers said it like this...

Who is better, men or women? The answer to that question is

 

[ALAYMAN]

One more thing: God didn't make a mistake in giving these rules to an Ancient Middle Eastern patriarchal society. But that's who they were given to. He gave them what they needed in their cultural context... but that's a whole lot different than where we are today.

But those rules, as a pattern, aren't just given in one subset of the Biblical narrative, yet are found throughout the OT, and to a significant extent repeated in the New, for instance, in Paul's argument that women learn in silence (I Tim 2:11-15) is ontological, via the creation narrative regarding Adam and Eve.

 

[rsc2a]

The foundation of our laws was influenced more by the writings of John Locke than John the Apostle.

The Ten Commandments graces multitudes of courthouses still to this day.  You get the point.

Not really.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You have my agreement here. (Although you never have explained why you think IVF is a moral evil...a position I cannot understand at all.)

My wife had IVF <unsuccessfully> before the Lord blessed us with a child produced naturally.  I don't think IVF is inherently evil at all.  However, there are things associated with the process that the medical industry tries to soften, like "selective reduction" of potentially unused embryos.  I threw it in the discussion because it involves ethical implications...[/quote]

I was coupling it with something you said earlier:

You wanted him to write a book, and anticipate that all other questionable "pagan"/worldly activities (such as Hellywood Movies, Gambling, In Vitro Fertilization, and a host of other goblins in your arsenal of inane red herrings) - Alayman

 

[Izdaari]

The foundation of our laws was influenced more by the writings of John Locke than John the Apostle.

The Ten Commandments graces multitudes of courthouses still to this day.  You get the point.

You have my agreement here. (Although you never have explained why you think IVF is a moral evil...a position I cannot understand at all.)

My wife had IVF <unsuccessfully> before the Lord blessed us with a child produced naturally.  I don't think IVF is inherently evil at all.  However, there are things associated with the process that the medical industry tries to soften, like "selective reduction" of potentially unused embryos.  I threw it in the discussion because it involves ethical implications, and such difficult discussions involve asking the hard questions, much like we must ask in conversations about roles of women and men.  The equality of women in the workplace sounds noble on its face, and I agree with equal work for equal pay, but the reality is the seduction of the feminist movement negates certain philosophical constructs inherent to the complementarian <Biblical> worldview.  The fact that women can do many jobs as well as men doesn't mean that they SHOULD abrogate their God-ordained roles.  Adrian Rogers said it like this...

Who is better, men or women? The answer to that question is

 

[Izdaari]

One more thing: God didn't make a mistake in giving these rules to an Ancient Middle Eastern patriarchal society. But that's who they were given to. He gave them what they needed in their cultural context... but that's a whole lot different than where we are today.

But those rules, as a pattern, aren't just given in one subset of the Biblical narrative, yet are found throughout the OT, and to a significant extent repeated in the New, for instance, in Paul's argument that women learn in silence (I Tim 2:11-15) is ontological, via the creation narrative regarding Adam and Eve.

Yep, all through the OT, which is the story of the ancient Jews. who were, just as I said, an ancient Middle Eastern patriarchal society. Nor were the other cultures they interacted with much different in that regard. Mox nix.

I think Paul's argument in 1 Tim is mistranslated and thus misunderstood.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The foundation of our laws was influenced more by the writings of John Locke than John the Apostle.

The Ten Commandments graces multitudes of courthouses still to this day.  You get the point.

You have my agreement here. (Although you never have explained why you think IVF is a moral evil...a position I cannot understand at all.)

My wife had IVF <unsuccessfully> before the Lord blessed us with a child produced naturally.  I don't think IVF is inherently evil at all.  However, there are things associated with the process that the medical industry tries to soften, like "selective reduction" of potentially unused embryos.  I threw it in the discussion because it involves ethical implications, and such difficult discussions involve asking the hard questions, much like we must ask in conversations about roles of women and men.  The equality of women in the workplace sounds noble on its face, and I agree with equal work for equal pay, but the reality is the seduction of the feminist movement negates certain philosophical constructs inherent to the complementarian <Biblical> worldview.  The fact that women can do many jobs as well as men doesn't mean that they SHOULD abrogate their God-ordained roles.  Adrian Rogers said it like this...

Who is better, men or women? The answer to that question is

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]True that feminism and complementarianism are incompatible. And so I reject the latter.[/quote]

I think various forms of each of these is incompatible. I think other forms are compatible.

[quote author=Izdaari]Nor do I concede that complementarianism is the biblical PoV; a biblical POV sure. but a case can also be made for equality as being just as biblical.[/quote]

In the same way, I think it could be said that the Bible teaches both complementarianism and egalitarianism, but not as either one of the camps define themselves (or each other).

[quote author=Izdaari]Rogers is right that men and women are very different... in matters related to reproductive organs. But most jobs -- including pastoring and soldiering -- don't involve them.[/quote]

The difference in men and women extends beyond the reproductive and endocrine systems, even if you stick to pure anatomy and physiology.

 

[Izdaari]

The foundation of our laws was influenced more by the writings of John Locke than John the Apostle.

The Ten Commandments graces multitudes of courthouses still to this day.  You get the point.

You have my agreement here. (Although you never have explained why you think IVF is a moral evil...a position I cannot understand at all.)

My wife had IVF <unsuccessfully> before the Lord blessed us with a child produced naturally.  I don't think IVF is inherently evil at all.  However, there are things associated with the process that the medical industry tries to soften, like "selective reduction" of potentially unused embryos.  I threw it in the discussion because it involves ethical implications, and such difficult discussions involve asking the hard questions, much like we must ask in conversations about roles of women and men.  The equality of women in the workplace sounds noble on its face, and I agree with equal work for equal pay, but the reality is the seduction of the feminist movement negates certain philosophical constructs inherent to the complementarian <Biblical> worldview.  The fact that women can do many jobs as well as men doesn't mean that they SHOULD abrogate their God-ordained roles.  Adrian Rogers said it like this...

Who is better, men or women? The answer to that question is

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]True that feminism and complementarianism are incompatible. And so I reject the latter.

I think various forms of each of these is incompatible. I think other forms are compatible.

[quote author=Izdaari]Nor do I concede that complementarianism is the biblical PoV; a biblical POV sure. but a case can also be made for equality as being just as biblical.[/quote]

In the same way, I think it could be said that the Bible teaches both complementarianism and egalitarianism, but not as either one of the camps define themselves (or each other).

[quote author=Izdaari]Rogers is right that men and women are very different... in matters related to reproductive organs. But most jobs -- including pastoring and soldiering -- don't involve them.[/quote]

The difference in men and women extends beyond the reproductive and endocrine systems, even if you stick to pure anatomy and physiology.
[/quote]

I'll agree with all three of your counterpoints.

1) "Feminism" and "complementarianism" aren't just one thing, and lots of nuanced positions are possible within either.

2) Right, those two are also short-hand labels. Again, nuanced positions are possible.

3) Right, there are other differences. But none that keep both genders from being able to do most jobs traditionally associated with the other. Individuals very widely, and I'm all about letting each individual do what they want to do and are able to do, without limiting anyone unnecessarily.

That's my perspective on women in ground combat too. Most women wouldn't want it and wouldn't be good at it. But some want to (though maybe only for the sake of their military careers, but that's the same reason a lot of the men want it) and could do it well.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I can relate. And I'll be happy to talk about that, or most any subject, with you, like friends over coffee. But not like debaters before an audience, scoring points from the judges. I mention that because I know you have a strong tendency to do the latter, and while I used to, I grew bored with it years ago.

Not to be overly defensive, but have I ever done that with you?  I don't remember doing such.  I generally give back what is dished.  If it is civil respectful dialogue, even when differing in position, I render in kind.  If somebody wants snark, I serve it up.  You don't play the attitude game, and I respect that, which I've told you multiple times over the course of your tenure here.  There's probably very few people on this forum that have Biblical opinions that are as diametrically opposed to mine than you, but I've don't remember ever personally holding you up to ridicule or scorn, so as it relates to our conversations I don't think limited engagement is the necessary course of discussion.

As far as what the article/website says, I'd prefer to hear your rationale of why Paul appealed to the creation order in making whatever admonition/rebuke we see in I Timothy.

 

[Izdaari]

I can relate. And I'll be happy to talk about that, or most any subject, with you, like friends over coffee. But not like debaters before an audience, scoring points from the judges. I mention that because I know you have a strong tendency to do the latter, and while I used to, I grew bored with it years ago.

Not to be overly defensive, but have I ever done that with you?  I don't remember doing such.  I generally give back what is dished.  If it is civil respectful dialogue, even when differing in position, I render in kind.  If somebody wants snark, I serve it up.  You don't play the attitude game, and I respect that, which I've told you multiple times over the course of your tenure here.  There's probably very few people on this forum that have Biblical opinions that are as diametrically opposed to mine than you, but I've don't remember ever personally holding you up to ridicule or scorn, so as it relates to our conversations I don't think limited engagement is the necessary course of discussion.

True, and I very much appreciate it.  :-*

As far as what the article/website says, I'd prefer to hear your rationale of why Paul appealed to the creation order in making whatever admonition/rebuke we see in I Timothy.

I don't really know why Paul made that particular argument (assuming that the author of the Pastorals was in fact Paul; many scholars have doubts about that), other than the inherited prejudices of both his patriarchal, sexist cultures (Jewish and Roman), and what he had for breakfast that morning. I could probably benefit from further study on it.

 

[Castor Muscular]

what he had for breakfast that morning.

I think is goes without saying that his wife, being a woman who knows her place, made him eggs and bacon for breakfast, a sammich for lunch, and brought him pizza and beer naked for dinner. 

 

[Recovering IFB]

and brought him pizza and beer naked for dinner.

I knew my wife wasn't living right, she hasnt done that for me yet

 

[Biker]

I think women should serve in ground combat for about 5 days each month. 

(ducks)

Some already do >>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military

And many of the broads croak cause they can't build a fire!! 

 

[prophet]

Women are able to use modern weapons, qualify as marksman, drive vehicles, and etc.  However, they can be overcome in hand to hand, by the weakest of males.  They also get a different treatment when captured, as most cultures consider women's bodies to be the 'spoils' of war.  Then there is physiology.  Men can sustain aerobic activity for well over 24 hours, because of their adrenal glands.  Women can sustain long periods of anaerobic activity, but not aerobic.  Bottom line, men are built for battle, and battle was built by men.  Women are best used beguiling their men into ceasing the fight, and 'coming home to mama'.  God bless those ladies in support battalions, nurses, and all other areas of service, and send strong men to fight in their place!

 

[4everfsu]

Short answer is NO! Long answer is HE double hockey sticks

 

[Izdaari]

Women are able to use modern weapons, qualify as marksman, drive vehicles, and etc.  However, they can be overcome in hand to hand, by the weakest of males.  They also get a different treatment when captured, as most cultures consider women's bodies to be the 'spoils' of war.  Then there is physiology.  Men can sustain aerobic activity for well over 24 hours, because of their adrenal glands.  Women can sustain long periods of anaerobic activity, but not aerobic.  Bottom line, men are built for battle, and battle was built by men.  Women are best used beguiling their men into ceasing the fight, and 'coming home to mama'.  God bless those ladies in support battalions, nurses, and all other areas of service, and send strong men to fight in their place!

I have overcome some pretty strong males in hand to hand. The ones I can't beat are usually not just strong, but also very high ranked in their martial style. I have never beaten a 6th dan and probably never will. Shihans in any style (legitimate style with strict standards) are badass.

So far as endurance, women's marathon records are not as good as men's, but they're still pretty good.

 

[prophet]

You are talking about sparring, with rules.  Take away the structure, and you have 1 chance to react properly to the stimuli, before being overcome.  The ground is uneven, and many other factors, all of which take away any security in your style,which you practice.  In the USMC, we were taught to overcome our victim in a few seconds.  We were trained to roar as we run strait at them, use a slight feint step, and butt stroke/baton them at a run.  Death comes in seconds that way.  I have seen plenty of male/female CQB, and rarely, even staged, when there are no rules, does the female survive the initial attack.

Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Izdaari]

No, not just sparring. That's one reason I moved from Karate to JKD-based MMA: more realistic training and greater variety of techniques. I train for street self-defense, not just for the dojo, and have used it for that. Maybe the female fighters you've seen lose just weren't very good?

Of course, I can lose too. There's always somebody better. But I also carry (and train with) weapons, and am a good runner.