[Vision2020] Women in Authority and Leadership!

[J Ford]

Another fine, fine example of a kirker not thinking for his-self and letting 
Wilson do his thinking (or brainwashing,) for him.

Great example, Doug...thanks!


J  :]





>From: heirdoug at netscape.net
>To: godshatter at yahoo.com
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Women in Authority and Leadership!
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:33:58 -0400
>
>Paul,
>
>
>
>I didn't think that your comment was too snarky. You have every right
>to call my Christian walk into question. I would just ask you to do so
>with what the Bible says being a Christian is all about and not what
>others say a Christian is.
>
>I am not slamming the capabilities of women in the military. I am just
>questioning the moral, Biblical and societal reason for having women in
>harms way so that the enemy can take advantage of situation. Pastor
>Wilson made some comments about this topic just this last month. I will
>copy it in its intirity so you don't have to go looking for it.
>
>lemeno what you think. Doug!
>
>
>
>
>
>Let Us Feed Cheesecake to our Horses
>
>Topic: Old Table Talk Articles
>
>The famous story tells of the minister who wrote in the margin of his
>notes, "Argument weak. Shout here." Whenever anyone is unalterably
>attached to a position, and that position is wrong, there is always a
>strong temptation to shout. Moreover, the sillier a position gets, the
>more shouting is required to keep people from asking those pesky
>questions.
>
>Egalitarianism is an unbelieving mother with many foolish sons and
>daughters, with one of the loudest and most foolish being feminism. In
>many cases, the impact of this folly is tolerable, involving (or so we
>think) just a few pronoun questions, and the use of Ms. in addressing
>letters -- which actually seems like a good idea when the marital state
>of the recipient is unknown. But by the time we get out to those
>applications which are fundamentally outrageous, we find that we have
>completely lost our ability even to recognize what is occurring. In our
>public discussions of all such matters, the center of gravity has
>dramatically shifted. This can be seen most clearly in those areas
>where feminism is most evidently and unarguably wrongheaded, but even
>and especially in such clear areas, saying something about it can still
>be extraordinarily difficult. Probably the most outstanding example of
>such issues is the vexed question of women in combat.
>
>The thing is actually debated seriously, and we can even find
>well-meaning Christians scratching their heads over it. But of course,
>this is not "a debatable matter." Women going to war alongside the men
>is flatly excluded in a biblical worldview, and a nation defended by
>her women is not worthy of defense. Sadly, this issue also demonstrates
>plainly the disconnect in the minds of many Christians between their
>"religious beliefs" and what they will go along with "culturally."
>
>When the Bible discusses the matter of going to war, it assumes
>throughout that those involved will be the men. For example, when the
>census for war was taken, those counted were males twenty-years-old and
>up (Num. 1:20). When Nehemiah exhorts the men of Jerusalem to good
>courage, he says just what we might expect, urging them to fight for
>their sons, daughters and wives (Neh. 4:14). Fighting for their
>husbands is not mentioned.
>
>The Bible also tells us in numerous places that women are not gifted at
>the kind of violence that occurs in war. A common prophetic judgment is
>that the warriors will begin to fight like women (Is. 19:16; Jer.
>50:36-37; 51:29-30; Nah. 3:13). Now surely if it is a bad thing to have
>your men fight like women, we should also be able to say, mutatis
>mutandis, that it is a bad thing to have your women fight like women.
>The fact that we have all been peecee-sensitized (and are frankly all a
>little jumpy about me writing like this) can be seen in the fact that I
>must now hasten to add that these biblical comparisons are not an
>insult to women. Of course they are not. How is it an insult to a
>hammer to say it cannot tighten bolts the way a crescent wrench can? Or
>versa vice grips?
>
>In Deuteronomy, we find a much overlooked prohibition of women in
>combat. But unlike most neglected portions of Scripture, this one never
>needed to be applied because it was so widely practiced in the light of
>nature -- until quite recently. Now we apparently need to have the
>content of the verse spelled out. Most think of it as simply
>prohibiting transvestitism. "A woman shall not wear anything that
>pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all
>who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God" (Dt. 22:5).
>Transvestite men certainly are condemned here, and are prohibited from
>dressing like a woman. But the language with regard to the women is
>quite different. The operative phrase in this passage is keli gabar,
>the gear of a warrior. A woman is not to wear the gear of a fighter.
>The prohibition is not of slacks, but rather of helmets and heavy
>rifles.
>
>The really disturbing thing about this passage is that the practice is
>not rejected as out of keeping with culturally-established standards of
>decorum. It is rejected as an abomination -- a strong word for most
>public policy discussions.
>
>A friend of mine used to jog through the grounds of one of our service
>academies, and used to run by groups of the entering class -- running
>whatever grueling distance was required of them. At the front were the
>men, with upper-classmen running alongside them, informing them in a
>loud voice that they were nothing but maggots, that sort of thing. It
>is not surprising that they did such a bad job running; maggots don’t
>have legs. In another group, far, far behind, were the women. They too
>had their upperclassmen accompanying them -- but the message here was
>entirely different, and most affirming: "You can do it! Come on, come
>on!" What is wrong with this picture? The egalitarian theory we have
>adopted is falsifiable in principle, but we are not about to let it be
>falsified.
>
>Obviously, our cultural discourse has been greatly debased. We, in the
>grip of a very bad idea, have thought to repeal some fundamental laws
>of the natural order of things. Good luck to us all, says I. Let us
>repeal the law of gravity to cut down on that frictional wear and tear.
>Let us herd cats. Let us sweep water uphill. Let us feed cheesecake to
>our horses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>=0
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507