jasoncran
Member
the army doesn't, by this I mean that we have two standards for fitness. one for men and one for women. a woman who gets a 300 on her pt scale isn't able to do what the same aged male who gets a 300. that is equal?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Women In combat
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
the army doesn't, by this I mean that we have two standards for fitness. one for men and one for women. a woman who gets a 300 on her pt scale isn't able to do what the same aged male who gets a 300. that is equal?
Mountain Man
Member
Words like "equal" have become meaningless...all definitions of all things have become subjective...they mean whatever the individual wants them to mean....no absolutes for laquage,culture,religion and life in general...ain't it grand...just what mankind has always wanted.
I support "freewill". Thats the way I would want to be treated. So that follows the Lords command.
People get killed in war so its not path anyone should choose lightly. Also there is the fact you may also be killing an known enemy. Thats not easy for a people of faith who are considered: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." 1 Peter 2:9
Randy
People get killed in war so its not path anyone should choose lightly. Also there is the fact you may also be killing an known enemy. Thats not easy for a people of faith who are considered: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." 1 Peter 2:9
Randy
Lewis
Member
Women Should Not Serve in Military Combat
By Phyllis Schlafly
The push to repeal the laws that exempt women from military combat duty must be the strangest of all aberrations indulged in by the women’s liberation or feminist movement. The very idea of women serving in military combat is so unnatural that it almost sounds like a death wish for our species.
Has our nation sunk so low that we are willing to send our daughters and young mothers into battle? Is chivalry completely dead? Breathes there a man with soul so dead that he will not rise up and defend his wife, his sweetheart, his mother and his daughter, against those who want to wound or capture them, whoever they may be?
Most Americans were shocked to learn that at least one American woman is a Prisoner of War in the clutches of Saddam Hussein (and a couple of other servicewomen are missing), but the feminists see this as proof that women are advancing toward equality with men on the battlefield. In point of fact, women under Saddam Hussein are not equal, whether they are Iraqi women or U.S. POWs.
Shoshana Johnson, age 30, of El Paso, Texas, the single mother of a two-year-old daughter, was part of a U.S. Army maintenance unit ambushed and captured after the convoy made a wrong turn. She had signed up to be an Army cook and never dreamed she would be sent into a situation where she could be captured by an evil regime.
This is not only a tragedy for Shoshana, it's a humiliation for America and a step backward for civilization. No crisis or threat requires our government to send mothers of two-year-old babies across the seas to fight the most brutal terrorists in the world.
The feminists, however, view Shoshana as a pioneer for women’s rights. A New York Times editorial brags that Shoshana’s capture shows how the American military has “evolved” and “the case for equal footing is gaining ground.” But, the Times bemoans, the military is “a laggard on the topic of women in combat” and still retains “glass ceilings” that bar women from direct combat. That is the kind of equality the feminist movement has always sought.
Army regulations have always exempted women from direct ground combat, but the Clinton feminists opened up more “career opportunities” for women in 1994 by getting the Pentagon to eliminate the then-existing “Risk Rule,” a regulation that had exempted women in non-combat positions from assignment where they faced the “inherent risk of capture.”
There is no evidence in all history for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to advance women’s rights, promote national security, improve combat readiness, or win wars. Indeed, the entire experience of recorded history teaches us that battles are not won by coed armies or coed navies. Of the thousands of books written about World War II, no one ever wrote that Hitler or the
Japanese should have solved their manpower shortage problem by using women in combat.
Every country that has experimented with women in combat has abandoned the idea. The notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. Women are treated very differently from men in the Israeli armed forces. They serve only about half as long; they are housed in separate barracks; they have an automatic exemption if they marry or have a baby. Commenting on the sex-integration practices of the U.S. Armed Services, one Israeli general said, “We do not do what you do in the United States because, unfortunately, we have to take war seriously.”
Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men. This truism, so self-evident to those with eyes to see, has been confirmed by many studies, but under pressure from militant feminists, the brave men with medals decorating their chests are defensive about the obvious. The U.S. Comptroller General reported, “If as the Air Force Surgeon General has concluded, females are only 60 percent as strong as males, it seems there are some jobs that males, on the average, can do better than females.” (emphasis added)
When General Douglas MacArthur delivered his great “Duty, Honor, Country” speech at West Point on May 12, 1962, he gave it to them straight. “Your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars.” MacArthur explained that defending America requires real men who, whether they are “slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads, . . . blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain,” or in “the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts,” in “the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails,” can be relied on to muster the strength and courage to kill the enemy.
Weapons have changed, but the mission of the U.S. Armed Services is the same. It is a mission for tough, tenacious and courageous men who can endure the most primitive and uncivilized circumstances and pain in order to survive in combat against enemies who are just as tough, tenacious and courageous, and often vicious and sadistic, too. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male and no women diminish their combat readiness.
Another reason for the unanimous verdict of history that the armed forces demand different roles for men and women is that women get pregnant. When young men and women in the age group of 18 to 25 are required to live in close proximity, often doing unpleasant tasks and suffering from loneliness away from home, the inevitable happens. The pregnancy rate is at least 10 percent among servicewomen. Another five percent have had their babies and brought them back to the post. Why is anyone surprised?
How did we get into our present situation, in which our military officers are issuing maternity uniforms, opening nurseries on army posts, and pretending that women can do anything that men can do? For the answer to that, we must look at two feminist fantasies.
The first is that there really is no difference between the sexes (except those obvious ones we need not discuss) and that all those other differences you think you see are not inherent, but are due merely to cultural stereotyping which can and must be erased by sex-neutral education, laws, and changed attitudes.
The feminists’ chief legal authority prior to Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Yale Law School Professor Thomas I. Emerson. He explained the feminist view in a 100-page, widely quoted article about the Equal Rights Amendment in the Yale Law Journal (April 1971). “As between brutalizing our young men and brutalizing our young women,” he wrote, “there is little to choose. . . Women will serve in all kinds of units, and they will be eligible for combat duty.”
The second false dogma of the women’s liberation movement is that we must be neutral as between morality and immorality, and as between the institution of the family and alternate lifestyles. As the national conference on International Women’s Year at Houston in 1977 proved, the feminists demand that government policy accord the same dignity to lesbians and prostitutes as to wives, to illegitimate births as to legitimate, to abortions as to live births, and that we support immoral and anti-family practices with public funds.
The great and powerful U.S. military has been pretending there is no difference between men and women, even if they are mothers, and that giving birth to a baby is only a temporary disability like breaking a leg. To carry on this pretense, official U.S. military policy has been ignoring common sense, family integrity, and the American culture. The deception appeared to some to be satisfactory in the peacetime military when women were pursuing their career opportunities for upward social mobility, as the feminists like to say. Then came a real war.
The politicians have brought this embarrassment on our nation because they allowed themselves to be henpecked by the militant feminists. The whole idea of men sending women, including mothers, out to fight the enemy is uncivilized, degrading, barbaric, and embarrassing. It’s contrary to our culture, to our respect for men and women, and to our belief in the importance of the family and motherhood. No one respects a man who would let a woman do his fighting for him.
We hear the constant refrain that “times have changed,” but there is no change whatsoever in obvious facts of human nature such as that men and women differ in so many important ways, that healthy young women are apt to get pregnant, and that there is a profound difference between male-to-male bonding and male-to-female bonding — a factor that can make the difference between life and death on the battlefield. No matter what social changes are alleged to have taken place, the policies of our U.S. Armed Forces should respect the dignity and value of marriage and motherhood.
Women serve our country admirably, both on the home front and in many positions in the U.S. Armed Forces. But they should not be assigned to military combat or to “combat support” areas where they have the “inherent risk of capture.”
<hr class="note"> Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was recently named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal. Her latest book is Feminist Fantasies (Spence Publishing Co).
http://www.bible-researcher.com/women/schlafly3.html
<hr> Bible Research > Womanhood > Women in Combat > Phyllis Schlafly
By Phyllis Schlafly
The push to repeal the laws that exempt women from military combat duty must be the strangest of all aberrations indulged in by the women’s liberation or feminist movement. The very idea of women serving in military combat is so unnatural that it almost sounds like a death wish for our species.
Has our nation sunk so low that we are willing to send our daughters and young mothers into battle? Is chivalry completely dead? Breathes there a man with soul so dead that he will not rise up and defend his wife, his sweetheart, his mother and his daughter, against those who want to wound or capture them, whoever they may be?
Most Americans were shocked to learn that at least one American woman is a Prisoner of War in the clutches of Saddam Hussein (and a couple of other servicewomen are missing), but the feminists see this as proof that women are advancing toward equality with men on the battlefield. In point of fact, women under Saddam Hussein are not equal, whether they are Iraqi women or U.S. POWs.
Shoshana Johnson, age 30, of El Paso, Texas, the single mother of a two-year-old daughter, was part of a U.S. Army maintenance unit ambushed and captured after the convoy made a wrong turn. She had signed up to be an Army cook and never dreamed she would be sent into a situation where she could be captured by an evil regime.
This is not only a tragedy for Shoshana, it's a humiliation for America and a step backward for civilization. No crisis or threat requires our government to send mothers of two-year-old babies across the seas to fight the most brutal terrorists in the world.
The feminists, however, view Shoshana as a pioneer for women’s rights. A New York Times editorial brags that Shoshana’s capture shows how the American military has “evolved” and “the case for equal footing is gaining ground.” But, the Times bemoans, the military is “a laggard on the topic of women in combat” and still retains “glass ceilings” that bar women from direct combat. That is the kind of equality the feminist movement has always sought.
Army regulations have always exempted women from direct ground combat, but the Clinton feminists opened up more “career opportunities” for women in 1994 by getting the Pentagon to eliminate the then-existing “Risk Rule,” a regulation that had exempted women in non-combat positions from assignment where they faced the “inherent risk of capture.”
There is no evidence in all history for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to advance women’s rights, promote national security, improve combat readiness, or win wars. Indeed, the entire experience of recorded history teaches us that battles are not won by coed armies or coed navies. Of the thousands of books written about World War II, no one ever wrote that Hitler or the
Japanese should have solved their manpower shortage problem by using women in combat.
Every country that has experimented with women in combat has abandoned the idea. The notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. Women are treated very differently from men in the Israeli armed forces. They serve only about half as long; they are housed in separate barracks; they have an automatic exemption if they marry or have a baby. Commenting on the sex-integration practices of the U.S. Armed Services, one Israeli general said, “We do not do what you do in the United States because, unfortunately, we have to take war seriously.”
Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men. This truism, so self-evident to those with eyes to see, has been confirmed by many studies, but under pressure from militant feminists, the brave men with medals decorating their chests are defensive about the obvious. The U.S. Comptroller General reported, “If as the Air Force Surgeon General has concluded, females are only 60 percent as strong as males, it seems there are some jobs that males, on the average, can do better than females.” (emphasis added)
When General Douglas MacArthur delivered his great “Duty, Honor, Country” speech at West Point on May 12, 1962, he gave it to them straight. “Your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars.” MacArthur explained that defending America requires real men who, whether they are “slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads, . . . blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain,” or in “the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts,” in “the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails,” can be relied on to muster the strength and courage to kill the enemy.
Weapons have changed, but the mission of the U.S. Armed Services is the same. It is a mission for tough, tenacious and courageous men who can endure the most primitive and uncivilized circumstances and pain in order to survive in combat against enemies who are just as tough, tenacious and courageous, and often vicious and sadistic, too. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male and no women diminish their combat readiness.
Another reason for the unanimous verdict of history that the armed forces demand different roles for men and women is that women get pregnant. When young men and women in the age group of 18 to 25 are required to live in close proximity, often doing unpleasant tasks and suffering from loneliness away from home, the inevitable happens. The pregnancy rate is at least 10 percent among servicewomen. Another five percent have had their babies and brought them back to the post. Why is anyone surprised?
How did we get into our present situation, in which our military officers are issuing maternity uniforms, opening nurseries on army posts, and pretending that women can do anything that men can do? For the answer to that, we must look at two feminist fantasies.
The first is that there really is no difference between the sexes (except those obvious ones we need not discuss) and that all those other differences you think you see are not inherent, but are due merely to cultural stereotyping which can and must be erased by sex-neutral education, laws, and changed attitudes.
The feminists’ chief legal authority prior to Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Yale Law School Professor Thomas I. Emerson. He explained the feminist view in a 100-page, widely quoted article about the Equal Rights Amendment in the Yale Law Journal (April 1971). “As between brutalizing our young men and brutalizing our young women,” he wrote, “there is little to choose. . . Women will serve in all kinds of units, and they will be eligible for combat duty.”
The second false dogma of the women’s liberation movement is that we must be neutral as between morality and immorality, and as between the institution of the family and alternate lifestyles. As the national conference on International Women’s Year at Houston in 1977 proved, the feminists demand that government policy accord the same dignity to lesbians and prostitutes as to wives, to illegitimate births as to legitimate, to abortions as to live births, and that we support immoral and anti-family practices with public funds.
The great and powerful U.S. military has been pretending there is no difference between men and women, even if they are mothers, and that giving birth to a baby is only a temporary disability like breaking a leg. To carry on this pretense, official U.S. military policy has been ignoring common sense, family integrity, and the American culture. The deception appeared to some to be satisfactory in the peacetime military when women were pursuing their career opportunities for upward social mobility, as the feminists like to say. Then came a real war.
The politicians have brought this embarrassment on our nation because they allowed themselves to be henpecked by the militant feminists. The whole idea of men sending women, including mothers, out to fight the enemy is uncivilized, degrading, barbaric, and embarrassing. It’s contrary to our culture, to our respect for men and women, and to our belief in the importance of the family and motherhood. No one respects a man who would let a woman do his fighting for him.
We hear the constant refrain that “times have changed,” but there is no change whatsoever in obvious facts of human nature such as that men and women differ in so many important ways, that healthy young women are apt to get pregnant, and that there is a profound difference between male-to-male bonding and male-to-female bonding — a factor that can make the difference between life and death on the battlefield. No matter what social changes are alleged to have taken place, the policies of our U.S. Armed Forces should respect the dignity and value of marriage and motherhood.
Women serve our country admirably, both on the home front and in many positions in the U.S. Armed Forces. But they should not be assigned to military combat or to “combat support” areas where they have the “inherent risk of capture.”
<hr class="note"> Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was recently named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal. Her latest book is Feminist Fantasies (Spence Publishing Co).
http://www.bible-researcher.com/women/schlafly3.html
<hr> Bible Research > Womanhood > Women in Combat > Phyllis Schlafly
Lewis
Member
I agree
and also how are you going to be able to concentrate with a very good looking' to die for' delicious' absolutely stunning' women next to you in a fox hole or sleeping next to you in a tent. and also when men go to the bathroom out in the field it is ok, now what about the women, they won't always be able to walk off somwhere and hide themselves, they are going to have to do it in front of men, out on the battlefield. God built men to be stronger than women, he did not create women for a lot of heavy stuff men are for that. This Helen Reddy type of thinking is against what God created the woman for.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick
Member
Obviously not.
Lewis
Member
Jason you know what time it is in the service' things seem to happen.
Lewis
Member
Well said' my good brother.
Jack Hectorman
Member
The Biblical text in Judges chapter 4 does not say that God sent Deborah to war.
The only time this Deborah is mentioned in the Bible is in Judges chapters 4 and 5 and in Judges 4:4 the Biblical text says nothing more than, "Now Deborah,<sup class="crossreference" value='(I)'></sup> a prophet,<sup class="crossreference" value='(J)'></sup> the wife of Lappidoth, was leading <sup></sup>Israel at that time." The Biblical text does not even say that it was God's will that Deborah was leading Israel at this time, the Biblical text merely records the fact that she was doing that.
Deborah was a woman, and Isaiah 3: 11-12 makes it clear that when women rule over men it is because their guides have led them astray and turned them from the path. The Isaiah 3:11-12 text says exactly that.
11 Woe to the wicked!<sup class="crossreference" value='(Z)'></sup>
Disaster<sup class="crossreference" value='(AA)'></sup> is upon them!
They will be paid back<sup class="crossreference" value='(AB)'></sup>
for what their hands have done.<sup class="crossreference" value='(AC)'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">12 </sup>Youths<sup class="crossreference" value='(AD)'></sup> oppress my people,
women rule over them.
My people, your guides lead you astray;<sup class="crossreference" value='(AE)'></sup>
they turn you from the path.
With Isaiah 3:11-12 firmly in mind, we can ask about the spiritual condition of the nation of Israel at the time the woman Deborah was leading them. It was absolute evil. See their general condition described in Judges 2:10-14
Then the evil spiritual condition of the nation of Israel is described again in Judges 4:1 when the Deborah account begins. "Again the Israelites did evil<sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> in the eyes of the Lord,<sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup> now that Ehud<sup class="crossreference" value='(C)'></sup> was dead. So the Lord sold them<sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup> into the hands of Jabin king of Canaan."
The point is: If the nation of Israel had been in the proper spiritual condition and in right relationship to the Lord, the woman Deborah would never have been leading them in the first place. Isaiah 3:12 is clear on that point.
Note: Even if you reject this ↑ argument against women leading men in the Old Testament, and hold that the Isaiah 3:11-12 text is not enough to support my conclusions, even so, the rest of the arguments below are quite clear, namely that it was Barak, not Deborah, that did the leading of the army and did the fighting and won the battle and the victory.
In other words, God did not send Deborah to war. She was a wife and a mother, not a female amazon warrior ... lol ...
__________________
The next point is that the text never says or even suggests that Deborah did any fighting whatsoever. In fact, she specifically tells Barak that God commands him to do the fighting, while she is to be merely a decoy leading Sisera to be given into Barak's hands to destroy. ↓
<sup class="versenum">6 </sup>She sent for Barak son of Abinoam<sup class="crossreference" value='(N)'></sup> from Kedesh<sup class="crossreference" value='(O)'></sup> in Naphtali and said to him, “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali<sup class="crossreference" value='(P)'></sup> and Zebulun<sup class="crossreference" value='(Q)'></sup> and lead them up to Mount Tabor.<sup class="crossreference" value='(R)'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>I will lead Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s<sup class="crossreference" value='(S)'></sup> army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River<sup class="crossreference" value='(T)'></sup> and give him into your hands.<sup class="crossreference" value='(U)'></sup>’” Judges 4:6-7
____________________
The next point is that Baruk, not Deborah, commanded the army. Deborah merely went along with Barak and not in command of anything.
<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>There Barak summoned<sup class="crossreference" value='(W)'></sup> Zebulun and Naphtali, and ten thousand men went up under his command. Deborah also went up with him. Judges 4:10
______________________
The next point is that, not Deborah, but rather Barak was the one that did the leading, did the fighting, and won the actual battle and the victory.
<sup class="versenum">16 </sup>Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim, and all Sisera’s troops fell by the sword; not a man was left. Judges 4:16
_______________________
It is also interesting to note in Judges chapter 5, when Deborah is rejoicing over the victory, she does NOT identify herself as either a leader or a warrior, but rather she identifies herself as a mother.
<sup>7 </sup>Villagers in Israel would not fight;
they held back until I, Deborah, arose,
until I arose, a mother in Israel.
Judges 5:7
Cheers.
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
Jack Hectorman
Member
/grin .. Actually Lewis, there have been even more strange and more weirdo aberrations "indulged in by the women's liberation or feminist movement."
Here are a few of the aberrations desired by notable feminists:
+ “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women. . . . We must work to destroy it. . . . The end of the institution or marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men. . . . All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.” __ the feminists Nancy Lehmann & Helen Sullinger, in the Declaration Of Feminism.
+ "Marriage", said the feminist Andrea Dworkin, "is an institution that developed from rape."
+ "The nuclear family must be destroyed."__ the feminist Linda Gordon
+ Marriage is "a slavery like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." __ the feminist Robin Morgan ( Robin Morgan was, at one time, the top dog at Ms. magazine.)
+ Robin Morgan, in the same year, edited Sisterhood Is Powerful, which contained an article by Valerie Solanis, president of the Society For Cutting Up Men. Said Ms. Solanis, "It is now techinically possible to reproduce without the aid of males...and to produce only females...we must begin immediately to do so. The male is a biological accident...the male has made the world a sh!t pile."__ the feminist Valerie Solanis
+ "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession."__the feminist Vivian Gornick (once a professor at Penn State)
+ "Feminism stresses the indistingishability of prostitution, marriage and sexual harassment."__the feminist Catherine MacKinnon
+ "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."__ the feminist Sheila Cronin
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack Hectorman
Member
The answer to Phyllis Schlafly's questions is yes the nation has sunk that low in Liberal Blue America. Yes chivalry is dead in Liberal Blue America. Yes, in Liberal Blue America many of the "males" are proud to send their wives, sweethearts, mothers, and daughters out to be shot to pieces in war zones, while they the "males" stay home and get more "in touch with their feminine side." .. lol ..
... 'course they don't actually "send them" ... that would be to "sexist" ... lol .. instead the "males" just shuffle on down to the departure place and hold the baby and wave goodby while mother goes off to war ... lol ... ( I have an actual pic of an instance of that in my Images Collection.)
Liberal Blue America has several favorite gods, one is named the god Mankind and another one of their gods is named Equalitarianism, and in the name of Equalitarianism they will proudly agree to go down to the dock and wave good-by to their wives, sweethearts, mothers, and daughters as they go off to war to possibly be killed or severly maimed, while they the "males" stay home and keep the kids.
♫ ♪
PS
Phyllis Schlafly, a good Christian woman, and often called the "Sweetheart of the Conservative Movement", is fighting a losing battle on this issue. A nation that will tolerate the killing of some 60,000,000 human babies in the wombs of their mothers in order to sustain the doctrines of Feminism, will most certainly NOT dare insult their god Equalitarianism by passing laws against keeping women out of combat.
`
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack Hectorman
Member
/grin ... The dear Christian woman Phyllis Schlafly is describing a time long gone in Liberal Blue America. Can anyone even imagine the MTV or Hollywood crowd being "embarrassed" at anything!! And many "males" in Liberal Blue America would consider it an honor to be "henpecked" by their wives or girlfriends, and they'd brag to their friends about how their wives or girlfriends bossed them around .. lol ..
.. and they'd be proud to let a woman do their fighting for them. Another badge of honor for them, after all Androgyny is the big "in thing" these days .. lol ..
This is a losing battle. ↑
The Christian Church will be better off concentrating upon and preaching John 3:3 with John 3:16 and those 2 verses followed up by Gal. 5:22-23 as being the goal to struggle for after one becomes a born again Christian and is trusting the Lord Jesus as their Savior.
Cheers.
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
Last edited by a moderator:
handy
Member
Jack, you and I are in such agreement with this. It is a losing battle, because it's in the wrong war. Our battle is not with flesh and blood... and when we concentrate on these kinds of issues, mainly in the guise of telling unbelievers and non-Christians what they can and can't do, we are making it such. We need to concentrate on the Gospel and the Cross.... that is the war we are in, one that is already won even... but we leave it to battle over things which, in the end, won't matter.
Jack Hectorman
Member
Handy,
/grin .. They told me years ago that if I'd "just vote Republican" everything would be okay .. lol .. well, it didn't quite work out that way on the family social issues.
I personally cannot think of even one social issue dear to the minds and hearts of Christian family people, that is being "rolled back." Can you think of one?
Abortion is not being rolled back, the porn "industry" is not being rolled back, "No Fault Divorce" is not being rolled back, adultry is not being rolled back, fornication is not being rolled back, sexual perversion is not being rolled back, activist atheism in the public square is not being rolled back, gender role reversal is not being rolled back ... you can keep going with the list and nothing is ever rolled back. In fact, the list seems to be getting longer.
All we Christians agree that our Lord Jesus clearly taught that the world was divided up into two categories: One category is we "the people of God", called His sheep, and also called the wheat, and the other category are the goats, also called the tares and the sons of Satan. My point is I do not see how we can get the goats and the tares to accept the Christian social moral code unless they first accept Christ as their Savior and become Christians. And even if we could do that and did do that, all we'd have then is a huge herd of Pharisees.
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
PS
I stand in principle though with guys like Lewis on these Conservative social moral issues. Nonetheless a goat is a goat .. lol .. I mean you can put a $5000.00 Dolce & Gabbana dress on a goat if you want to, but its still a goat. I'm responding to your point where you said, "We need to concentrate on the Gospel and the Cross." I understand that to mean we get the goat to be a sheep first, (the Great Commission) and then after that we can maybe put the $5000.00 Dolce & Gabbana dress on him .. lol ..
`