In this episode of Ask Doug, Pastor Doug Wilson answers the question, "What is your view of women joining the military in combat roles?" Ask Doug is presented by Canon Press.
The PCA church I left ordained a female 'Elder' about a year after I joined. One of the other ladies I befriended was going to be 'ordained' as one, as well. That particular congregation only continued to rebel so I left (their nonsense was why I never wanted to go to church, even after God saved me). Their rebellion didn't stop me; I'm at a smaller and truly Biblical church now.
The Nazarene church ordaines women and is not in rebellion. They have missionaries in more countries than any other denomination and preach the whole Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
@@jeanniestaller797 But apparently your Nazarene church doesn't preach from 1 Timothy 2 or 3. You know, where the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul lays down the requirements for Elders.
@@user-wy3rr3yr4j the Bible is full of examples of women Leaders. We don't focus on one or two pet scriptures. Besides, we major in the majors and let God lead people in the rest.
@@jeanniestaller797 Woman leaders, sure. But no Elders. You'll notice in the chapters mentioned that only men are eligible for Eldership. First time I'm hearing the Epistles of Paul called "pet scripture" but not surprising coming from someone with a low view of the Word of God. If you believed it was the Word of God you'd treat it as such and obey it. You certainly wouldn't be possessed by the spirit of this age calling it "pet scripture".
@@user-wy3rr3yr4j elders was a new testament invention. God called them to do all things decently and in order. The culture of the day demanded male leaders. Call it what you will, an elder is still a leader.
If the military instituted the draft and tried to draft my daughter, or any someday granddaughter I might be blessed with, that would more than likely be the end of me because the government would quite literally only be able to take her (them) over my dead body. No way. No how. Never. Not on my watch.
יהוה Bless You and Keep You. May i recommend all caps with The HOLIEST Name Ever!?) Hallel-Doxa-YaHWeH Grace, Peace, n LOVE in * 👑 * KING * 👑 * יהוה * 👑 * YESHUA *
I've seen many roles in the military that women can serve honorably in. Serving as a grunt is asking women to do more than capable physically I agree, but Doctor, Lawyer, Support Officer, IT Officer, Spy, or even Pilot!? The issue of Deuteronomy will get me praying and looking at the scripture more closely (thank you for that).
A woman as police man, soldier and customs uniforms and I am out - let alone a pastor - I had this reaction even as a young boy - it feels wrong and is wrong 🤠
Absolutely. If it's wrong to put women in combat, then it's wrong to let women be police officers. Law enforcement is a kind of combat. It's also wrong to put women in positions of authority where they will have power to put men into combat.
Does this mean that the Old Testament laws used to defend this position (and I agree) carry over to the New Testament? Are they Ceremonial, Civil or moral? Creation law or Redemptive law? Just trying to stay consistent in my apologetic.
I can’t see what would limit the principle to the theocracy or people of Israel, especially since the male/female distinction is biological and universal, and its symbolic/prophetic fulfillment (the bride of Christ) also includes the church (New Testament) and has yet to be concluded. Even the ‘roles’ insofar as they are expressed, mesh neatly with the biology and with the distinctions made in the descriptions and prescriptions of both Old and New Testaments. Just my non-expert ‘two-cents-worth’.
IMO, this is a good illustration of why those categories of the law are not Biblical, but instead, they are a fabricated construct. That is, the idea that there are 3 types of OT law: moral, civil and ceremonial law. And, the idea that the moral law continues in the new covenant. That categorization has a huge effect on Christian life, if true, but it's not given in the Bible. It's existence is speculative. So, in practice, there is a lot of speculation about what OT commands are in the moral law. That can be seen in the replies here. Those who claim to be good at the categorization become oracles in the church, eg, pastors and seminary professors. If that categorization is not Biblical, those oracles are presenting their speculation as fact.
I guess CZcams pulled my comment on this... What about the Maternity Flight Suit recently incorporated so Woman and Child can go into the danger zone ? Can Goldie Hawn Ranger Roll a 200+ lb man on her back?
Good Point with Deut 22:5 and the forther meaning of Not only dressing but also working our acting. But i would also say That it was not ussual for woman to wear jens our pents a houndred years ago in our Culture, and the idea of woman wearing pents was the idea of femenism „we woman NOW wear the pents“. Like saying we are now the head of the men. What we also saw was the medium of pents to lesser and lesser modesty and so called hot pents. Now saying its just for the men „not wearing dresses“ and for the woman its not doing the mens work is in my hearing that not consistent. Deut 22:5 says what it says in both ways and Culture shows us that woman now are leading men in marriage and the outward sign was jens and Short hair… Maybe think about That
It's mandatory service there for men and women. However, there is a reason for that; Israel is small and literally surrounded by its enemies and always under threat of invasion.
Part of me wonders if that’s (at least part of) the point - we are naturally more sympathetic to women (men are more ‘disposable’), so that call would be much more effective if they can feature women in the plea.
Various Translations [Deu 22:5 KJV] 5 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. [Deu 22:5 RSV] 5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. [Deu 22:5 ASV] 5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God. [Deu 22:5 YLT] 5 'The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [is] any one doing these.
There is a case to be made from the Bible that women should not be allowed to vote just as children are not allowed. But I don’t think he takes that position.
Interesting idea. Looking at the fruit of female sufferage, a lot of emotionally driven damage has occured (prohibition caused crime syndicates caused gun control, FBI, ATF, mass imprisonment for drug crimes, war on drugs, fatherlessness, poverty, welfare, abortion, sentiment based divorce culture, war on masculinity). Men contributed to these issues and are not excused for their wrongs, but the female stepping out from the headship and protection of fathers and husbands has been instrumental in our cultural nosedive since the 1920's. In 100 years, Western Culture was destroyed. Quite a feat. Just a thought. Was it a good idea?
A non emotional approach to men drinking and acting abusive would be to discover WHY men were imbibing. More than likely, it would point back to overly harsh, terse, stressed fathers and the unmet expectations of young manhood, and a lack of morality, virtue, and character as should have been inculcated in youth by their mothers. In short, men were without good moral upbringing and took up drinking as a socially accepted means of medicating their inadequacies. Root Cause: Lack of virtue in the family government. Banning liquor was an emotional attack on the fruit, not a critically logical axe laid to the roots. The varying wind of emotion cannot be the helmsman of the ship of state. It will invariably run society aground upon the shoals of perdition in short order. Although this is but one example of the effects of female suffrage, my thought is that female suffrage, as a whole, brought more harm than good and greatly accelerated western decline.
Good question -- Deborah wasn't in combat, she was in leadership (so that's a difference). Same thing with support roles (nurses, or something). Of course it's interesting that Deborah had to be the leader because the men around her (Barach) weren't doing their jobs.
My understanding is that, while Deborah was obedient in her time and calling, it was still part of Israel's judgement to be led by a woman. See Isaiah 3:12 + context.
Gender does matter. Galatians 3:28 pertains to spiritual standing 'in Christ' in that God does not exclude a Greek (gentile), a woman or one who is bound (a slave) from being spiritually saved. Salvation in Christ is for all; but once 'in Christ', the gender roles after salvation still exist, which is why Ephesians 5:21-27 defines gender roles for husbands and wives 'in Christ' within the biblical marriage covenant that is supposed to reflect Christ's 'Marriage Covenant' with His bride, the Church.
Let women do what they want, it's not an abomination. Deborah was a military leader in combat. We should oppose conscription which is slavery. We should support just war theory, we haven't had a just war since WWII. We shouldn't be in most combat that's going on in general.
Sounds like you need more Bible study. Deborah was indeed a hero, but she had to be the hero because Israel's men were failing in their duty to serve as God called them. It's a sad day when a woman has to step up because they won't. But thank God she did
@@SuperExodus13 where does it say in God's word that the Babylonians had to uphold the law of Moses or any law for that matter the heathen is a law unto themselves.
The heathen woman will enter into eternal damnation regardless what she chooses to wear, since they worship self or worship a false god or gods. So yes they can wear what they want, the end result is the gnashing of teeth for idolatry. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12
@@thereisnopandemic The Heathen will perish, yes. That does not answer the question asked of whether the law of dress for Israel applies to the heathen. Have you an answer? (I don't.)
40% of the Soviet Army during WW2 had women deployed into combat. A soldier is a soldier regardless of gender. Whoever is able bodied, let them advance.
If we're going to bar women from combat roles on creation mandate grounds, then why don't we view women being involved in government with equal disgust? This lack of consistency is the weak point of men like Wilson. You can either draft women, or we can repeal all of women's rights. You can't be excused from obligation and enjoy complete equality with those that assume your share of that obligation.
I’m not sure where Doug stands on that, or even where I stand, but combat isn’t the same as being a political representative. A senator isn’t a leader, a senator is a representative civil servant. She would neither be tasked with physical challenges equal to a man, nor would she be tasked with overt leadership. Most political positions are like this - they represent their constituency…they don’t command and guide their constituency.
@@winstonsol8713 I think you're splitting hairs here. It's only unclear to you, because you've been taught by your culture differently. If you lived in 1,000 AD, would you think this way? The argument is based on propriety, not on physical qualifications. Every female pastor says that she's capable. That's not the question. At the very least, we should bar women from law enforcement on that premise.
She did not go into combat herself. Her position was equivalent to the politician telling the commander to 'go up'. Judges 4:8-10 and 4:14. In verse 14 she specifically says to Barak (go figure) that 'God has delivered them into your hand.
Yes and even she spoke of the shame of it, given Bataks unwillingness to lead. As to Deborah being a judge in Israel, there is no problem with that, or are you trying to make an argument for women in leadership roles in the Church?
She went despite her warning that the act of manly rebellion and cowardice would mean the praise for the victory would go to a woman. THAT woman never wore armor, she killed the enemy with hospitality and faithfulness and a tent stake. Deborah went to battle against her will, and her godly counsel. Then she only went after the general's pleading and with a dire warning which God proved true to the utmost.
If women are not willing to put their lives at risk by joining the military, then they should not have the rights to vote. Voting requires a responsibility, who you vote for might be the leader that will send us to war or not, hence requiring us that are military listed to sacrifice our lives. Only those who are enlisted in the Military should be allowed to vote.
That doesn't make sense. For one, there are different types of sacrifice. In a war, not just the soldier sacrifices, but also those who are holding the fort down at home, sending supplies, and giving up their own comfort to do so. But, I don't see where you get that requirement to vote anyway. The requirement to vote has to do with who has a stake in society. Adults in general get to vote because they are the ones active in society, who are having to work, possibly own land, and in general are responsible for their own well-being and possibly a family's. Not just men do these things. Not just soldiers do this. Why would only soldiers vote over economical decisions? Moral law? Land laws? Adults have a stake in this and thus a right to vote, I believe.
Stupid nonsense. Voting is NOT gender-based, it is human-based. A qualified citizen of any race, either gender, must have the right to vote. What about men who never had an opportunity to serve? Disability? Age? Religious beliefs (Mennonites, Quakers).
Voting should be based on net contribution, not surviving to age 18 within the country's borders without committing a felony. "Net contribution" wouldn't be limited to taxes paid or military service. But you're right. If we're to argue women should be excused from the responsibility to maintain the country, then they should also be excused from the benefits of taking that responsibility.
Jesus said those who live by the sword die by the sword and wasn't prepared to join the Zealots and fight the Romans so shouldn't have been allowed to vote (had ancient Israel been a democracy)
Unfortunately Doug Wilson sees the world through very narrow lenses. I agree with his argument of unjust weights and measures, but he extrapolates scripture here further than it lends itself. Having a narrow view of the world can be a good, seeing as the way is narrow, however this attitude of declaring things as abominable without clear and direct guidance from scripture is ignorant and foolish. We must not make ourselves greater judges than God Himself.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Look its not like i want to be drafted, but I also think you're really stretching it in your Biblical "explanations" there. The Bible really doesn't address women in the military so it's dangerous to be making things up just to support your views. If anything, the Bible goes out of its way to show strong women in a culture that generally was pretty patriarchal. Esther, Deborah, etc.
I agree with you about Christian women being strong! I know a bunch of them myself. But the whole Old Testament is descriptive about the combat process: the men fought; the women didn't. To consider one specific prohibition, Deut 22:5, the Hebrew word for what women aren't supposed to "wear" usually means something like "weapons and equipment." There's also a difference between combat and support roles or leadership roles like Esther or Deborah (although of course that was because the guys around Deborah, like Barach, weren't stepping up).
Canon Press while I don't agree with women serving in combat since men are to be the primary protectors of women, however with the argument from the Hebrew word from Deuteronomy also having a meaning for weapons and gear, then what about if a women wants to carry a concealed carry weapon for self defense? Or shooting guns for a hobby?
@@UrbsDei21 Women aren't supposed to "wear" usually means something like "weapons and equipment ( a handgun for defense would be considered a weapon). Where does this passage imply self defense is acceptable? if were going to go by letter of the passage then no it's not acceptable.
My Pastor often says that if you are frustrated with something lacking in the church it may well be your calling. I'm encouraged by your heart!
The PCA church I left ordained a female 'Elder' about a year after I joined. One of the other ladies I befriended was going to be 'ordained' as one, as well. That particular congregation only continued to rebel so I left (their nonsense was why I never wanted to go to church, even after God saved me). Their rebellion didn't stop me; I'm at a smaller and truly Biblical church now.
The Nazarene church ordaines women and is not in rebellion. They have missionaries in more countries than any other denomination and preach the whole Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
@@jeanniestaller797 But apparently your Nazarene church doesn't preach from 1 Timothy 2 or 3.
You know, where the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul lays down the requirements for Elders.
@@user-wy3rr3yr4j the Bible is full of examples of women Leaders. We don't focus on one or two pet scriptures. Besides, we major in the majors and let God lead people in the rest.
@@jeanniestaller797 Woman leaders, sure. But no Elders. You'll notice in the chapters mentioned that only men are eligible for Eldership.
First time I'm hearing the Epistles of Paul called "pet scripture" but not surprising coming from someone with a low view of the Word of God.
If you believed it was the Word of God you'd treat it as such and obey it. You certainly wouldn't be possessed by the spirit of this age calling it "pet scripture".
@@user-wy3rr3yr4j elders was a new testament invention. God called them to do all things decently and in order. The culture of the day demanded male leaders. Call it what you will, an elder is still a leader.
If the military instituted the draft and tried to draft my daughter, or any someday granddaughter I might be blessed with, that would more than likely be the end of me because the government would quite literally only be able to take her (them) over my dead body. No way. No how. Never. Not on my watch.
More men should think like this
Amen.
This man truly seeks to know the word of God and live it ... may God Bless him! Amen.
I am so blessed by those Ask Doug series. Praise the Lord. Thank you so much and I am pray for you!
יהוה
Bless You and Keep You. May i recommend all caps with The HOLIEST Name Ever!?) Hallel-Doxa-YaHWeH
Grace, Peace, n LOVE in
* 👑 * KING * 👑 * יהוה * 👑 * YESHUA *
Good stuff. Sure do wish there were more pastor like this in the world.
Excellent - well-said Pastor! Thanks
As a woman who served in combat, Doug is absolutely correct in his assessment and aligning it with God’s word, which makes sense.
Well said.
I've seen many roles in the military that women can serve honorably in. Serving as a grunt is asking women to do more than capable physically I agree, but Doctor, Lawyer, Support Officer, IT Officer, Spy, or even Pilot!? The issue of Deuteronomy will get me praying and looking at the scripture more closely (thank you for that).
yup
He gets it.
A woman as police man, soldier and customs uniforms and I am out - let alone a pastor - I had this reaction even as a young boy - it feels wrong and is wrong 🤠
Absolutely. If it's wrong to put women in combat, then it's wrong to let women be police officers. Law enforcement is a kind of combat.
It's also wrong to put women in positions of authority where they will have power to put men into combat.
@@adamwalker2377 How about policing parking? Meter maids?
@@zapazap That gets into a whole new territory of thought... should there be parking police? Should there be meters, let alone the maids?
God has given women rights.
My Answer: If you can take it sure!
Does this mean that the Old Testament laws used to defend this position (and I agree) carry over to the New Testament? Are they Ceremonial, Civil or moral? Creation law or Redemptive law? Just trying to stay consistent in my apologetic.
I’d say this is moral, as well as falling under a general equity of the Mosaic Law, that women should be protected in general.
I can’t see what would limit the principle to the theocracy or people of Israel, especially since the male/female distinction is biological and universal, and its symbolic/prophetic fulfillment (the bride of Christ) also includes the church (New Testament) and has yet to be concluded.
Even the ‘roles’ insofar as they are expressed, mesh neatly with the biology and with the distinctions made in the descriptions and prescriptions of both Old and New Testaments.
Just my non-expert ‘two-cents-worth’.
IMO, this is a good illustration of why those categories of the law are not Biblical, but instead, they are a fabricated construct.
That is, the idea that there are 3 types of OT law: moral, civil and ceremonial law. And, the idea that the moral law continues in the new covenant.
That categorization has a huge effect on Christian life, if true, but it's not given in the Bible.
It's existence is speculative.
So, in practice, there is a lot of speculation about what OT commands are in the moral law.
That can be seen in the replies here.
Those who claim to be good at the categorization become oracles in the church, eg, pastors and seminary professors.
If that categorization is not Biblical, those oracles are presenting their speculation as fact.
I’d saw creation and moral law. This issue in the Bible definitely reveals the mind of God further about men and women that He created
When one agrees with tarsus saul...ie all the old testament laws are now null and void......till you don't agree with tarsus saul
Just fyi y'all seen the articles about a senate panel voting to make women register for the draft?
Yes. It was inevitable
I guess CZcams pulled my comment on this... What about the Maternity Flight Suit recently incorporated so Woman and Child can go into the danger zone ? Can Goldie Hawn Ranger Roll a 200+ lb man on her back?
Good Point with Deut 22:5 and the forther meaning of Not only dressing but also working our acting. But i would also say That it was not ussual for woman to wear jens our pents a houndred years ago in our Culture, and the idea of woman wearing pents was the idea of femenism „we woman NOW wear the pents“. Like saying we are now the head of the men. What we also saw was the medium of pents to lesser and lesser modesty and so called hot pents. Now saying its just for the men „not wearing dresses“ and for the woman its not doing the mens work is in my hearing that not consistent.
Deut 22:5 says what it says in both ways and Culture shows us that woman now are leading men in marriage and the outward sign was jens and Short hair…
Maybe think about That
What are pents?
It is not a sin
I believe that the Israeli defence force is 50/50 women and men. Although fewer than 5% of the women are in combat roles.
It's mandatory service there for men and women. However, there is a reason for that; Israel is small and literally surrounded by its enemies and always under threat of invasion.
Women in resistance France (not Hollywood spy thrillers) don't make me think of kink.
the next time there is a good opportunity to surrender, we will be hearing "don't send our sons and daughters" etc, etc, etc,
Part of me wonders if that’s (at least part of) the point - we are naturally more sympathetic to women (men are more ‘disposable’), so that call would be much more effective if they can feature women in the plea.
Former member of the 1/75 RGR BN.
NO NO NO NO
2021. They are currently considering adding women to selective service.
Until we repeal women's rights, consistency requires that women be subject to the draft.
Various Translations
[Deu 22:5 KJV] 5 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.
[Deu 22:5 RSV] 5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
[Deu 22:5 ASV] 5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.
[Deu 22:5 YLT] 5 'The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [is] any one doing these.
Does Doug think women should be allowed to vote ?
There is a case to be made from the Bible that women should not be allowed to vote just as children are not allowed. But I don’t think he takes that position.
Interesting idea. Looking at the fruit of female sufferage, a lot of emotionally driven damage has occured (prohibition caused crime syndicates caused gun control, FBI, ATF, mass imprisonment for drug crimes, war on drugs, fatherlessness, poverty, welfare, abortion, sentiment based divorce culture, war on masculinity). Men contributed to these issues and are not excused for their wrongs, but the female stepping out from the headship and protection of fathers and husbands has been instrumental in our cultural nosedive since the 1920's. In 100 years, Western Culture was destroyed. Quite a feat. Just a thought. Was it a good idea?
A non emotional approach to men drinking and acting abusive would be to discover WHY men were imbibing. More than likely, it would point back to overly harsh, terse, stressed fathers and the unmet expectations of young manhood, and a lack of morality, virtue, and character as should have been inculcated in youth by their mothers. In short, men were without good moral upbringing and took up drinking as a socially accepted means of medicating their inadequacies. Root Cause: Lack of virtue in the family government. Banning liquor was an emotional attack on the fruit, not a critically logical axe laid to the roots. The varying wind of emotion cannot be the helmsman of the ship of state. It will invariably run society aground upon the shoals of perdition in short order. Although this is but one example of the effects of female suffrage, my thought is that female suffrage, as a whole, brought more harm than good and greatly accelerated western decline.
Has the United States improved with woman being able to vote? Have marriages strong families been a product of woman voting?
I was reading about how they used to wonder whether or not women had souls a few days ago. It was fascinating.
I've heard that Israeli women have to be trained in combat because they are such a small country and need all the soldiers they can get.
Guess they ain't the chosen of GOD after all.....according to dougie
I would wonder though how Doug would say Deborah fits into everything?
Good question -- Deborah wasn't in combat, she was in leadership (so that's a difference). Same thing with support roles (nurses, or something). Of course it's interesting that Deborah had to be the leader because the men around her (Barach) weren't doing their jobs.
Answer starts at 3:04
czcams.com/video/EcvwA1FzYRI/video.html
My understanding is that, while Deborah was obedient in her time and calling, it was still part of Israel's judgement to be led by a woman. See Isaiah 3:12 + context.
Deborah is no problem.
But Galatians 3:28 - gender doesn't matter anymore... lol they always revert to that verse.
Gender does matter. Galatians 3:28 pertains to spiritual standing 'in Christ' in that God does not exclude a Greek (gentile), a woman or one who is bound (a slave) from being spiritually saved. Salvation in Christ is for all; but once 'in Christ', the gender roles after salvation still exist, which is why Ephesians 5:21-27 defines gender roles for husbands and wives 'in Christ' within the biblical marriage covenant that is supposed to reflect Christ's 'Marriage Covenant' with His bride, the Church.
@@michaeldavis2039 that’s my point
@@michaelclark2458 Ah!! You were being sarcastic!! I stand corrected brother!! And yes, you're right...that is what they always say!! 😂
Kileegiber!!!
Let women do what they want, it's not an abomination. Deborah was a military leader in combat. We should oppose conscription which is slavery. We should support just war theory, we haven't had a just war since WWII. We shouldn't be in most combat that's going on in general.
Christ said those who live by the sword die by the sword so women might be more wise not to join the army.
Sounds like you need more Bible study. Deborah was indeed a hero, but she had to be the hero because Israel's men were failing in their duty to serve as God called them. It's a sad day when a woman has to step up because they won't. But thank God she did
All wars are just wars.
🤔??
Elaborate, please.
@@PanhandleFrank Can you name a war that was not a just war.
@@1badplayer I'll take a stab at it ... after you answer my Q.
@@PanhandleFrank well its subjective depends what side one is on.
Like Hitler invading Poland 1939?
God's word prohibits it (military attire)for Hebrew women and by extention Christian women. The heathen woman can wear what she wants.
No. God holds all people accountable for following his law.
@@SuperExodus13 where does it say in God's word that the Babylonians had to uphold the law of Moses or any law for that matter the heathen is a law unto themselves.
The heathen woman will enter into eternal damnation regardless what she chooses to wear, since they worship self or worship a false god or gods. So yes they can wear what they want, the end result is the gnashing of teeth for idolatry.
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 2:12
So called masculine clothes are often far more comfortable and practical for people.
@@thereisnopandemic The Heathen will perish, yes. That does not answer the question asked of whether the law of dress for Israel applies to the heathen.
Have you an answer? (I don't.)
40% of the Soviet Army during WW2 had women deployed into combat. A soldier is a soldier regardless of gender. Whoever is able bodied, let them advance.
If we're going to bar women from combat roles on creation mandate grounds, then why don't we view women being involved in government with equal disgust?
This lack of consistency is the weak point of men like Wilson.
You can either draft women, or we can repeal all of women's rights. You can't be excused from obligation and enjoy complete equality with those that assume your share of that obligation.
I’m not sure where Doug stands on that, or even where I stand, but combat isn’t the same as being a political representative. A senator isn’t a leader, a senator is a representative civil servant. She would neither be tasked with physical challenges equal to a man, nor would she be tasked with overt leadership. Most political positions are like this - they represent their constituency…they don’t command and guide their constituency.
@@winstonsol8713 I think you're splitting hairs here. It's only unclear to you, because you've been taught by your culture differently. If you lived in 1,000 AD, would you think this way?
The argument is based on propriety, not on physical qualifications. Every female pastor says that she's capable. That's not the question.
At the very least, we should bar women from law enforcement on that premise.
Why draft women when even men aren't being drafted?
@@gareth2736 men still have to register, even though the draft isn't used, right?
Um lack of consistency? You must not have heard... *It is equally disgusting for women to be involved in government*
Deborah led Israel in war.
She did not go into combat herself. Her position was equivalent to the politician telling the commander to 'go up'. Judges 4:8-10 and 4:14. In verse 14 she specifically says to Barak (go figure) that 'God has delivered them into your hand.
Deborah was also a judge in Israel.
Yes and even she spoke of the shame of it, given Bataks unwillingness to lead. As to Deborah being a judge in Israel, there is no problem with that, or are you trying to make an argument for women in leadership roles in the Church?
She went despite her warning that the act of manly rebellion and cowardice would mean the praise for the victory would go to a woman. THAT woman never wore armor, she killed the enemy with hospitality and faithfulness and a tent stake. Deborah went to battle against her will, and her godly counsel. Then she only went after the general's pleading and with a dire warning which God proved true to the utmost.
She was Israel's punishment.....
If women are not willing to put their lives at risk by joining the military, then they should not have the rights to vote. Voting requires a responsibility, who you vote for might be the leader that will send us to war or not, hence requiring us that are military listed to sacrifice our lives. Only those who are enlisted in the Military should be allowed to vote.
That doesn't make sense. For one, there are different types of sacrifice. In a war, not just the soldier sacrifices, but also those who are holding the fort down at home, sending supplies, and giving up their own comfort to do so.
But, I don't see where you get that requirement to vote anyway. The requirement to vote has to do with who has a stake in society. Adults in general get to vote because they are the ones active in society, who are having to work, possibly own land, and in general are responsible for their own well-being and possibly a family's. Not just men do these things. Not just soldiers do this. Why would only soldiers vote over economical decisions? Moral law? Land laws? Adults have a stake in this and thus a right to vote, I believe.
Stupid nonsense. Voting is NOT gender-based, it is human-based. A qualified citizen of any race, either gender, must have the right to vote. What about men who never had an opportunity to serve? Disability? Age? Religious beliefs (Mennonites, Quakers).
Voting should be based on net contribution, not surviving to age 18 within the country's borders without committing a felony. "Net contribution" wouldn't be limited to taxes paid or military service.
But you're right. If we're to argue women should be excused from the responsibility to maintain the country, then they should also be excused from the benefits of taking that responsibility.
Jesus said those who live by the sword die by the sword and wasn't prepared to join the Zealots and fight the Romans so shouldn't have been allowed to vote (had ancient Israel been a democracy)
For someone who understands the Bible so thoroughly I can't believe he believes so strongly in it.
Unfortunately Doug Wilson sees the world through very narrow lenses. I agree with his argument of unjust weights and measures, but he extrapolates scripture here further than it lends itself. Having a narrow view of the world can be a good, seeing as the way is narrow, however this attitude of declaring things as abominable without clear and direct guidance from scripture is ignorant and foolish. We must not make ourselves greater judges than God Himself.
Narrow as in biblical?
How is he extrapolating the scripture too far when it clearly states that a woman shouldn’t wear the clothes of a warrior?
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Look its not like i want to be drafted, but I also think you're really stretching it in your Biblical "explanations" there. The Bible really doesn't address women in the military so it's dangerous to be making things up just to support your views. If anything, the Bible goes out of its way to show strong women in a culture that generally was pretty patriarchal. Esther, Deborah, etc.
I agree with you about Christian women being strong! I know a bunch of them myself. But the whole Old Testament is descriptive about the combat process: the men fought; the women didn't. To consider one specific prohibition, Deut 22:5, the Hebrew word for what women aren't supposed to "wear" usually means something like "weapons and equipment." There's also a difference between combat and support roles or leadership roles like Esther or Deborah (although of course that was because the guys around Deborah, like Barach, weren't stepping up).
Canon Press while I don't agree with women serving in combat since men are to be the primary protectors of women, however with the argument from the Hebrew word from Deuteronomy also having a meaning for weapons and gear, then what about if a women wants to carry a concealed carry weapon for self defense? Or shooting guns for a hobby?
@@socomgaming1014 If you can't see the difference between self-defence and making war, then you're missing an awful lot of relevant distinctions.
@@UrbsDei21 Women aren't supposed to "wear" usually means something like "weapons and equipment ( a handgun for defense would be considered a weapon). Where does this passage imply self defense is acceptable? if were going to go by letter of the passage then no it's not acceptable.
@@UrbsDei21 Asking CanonPres's view on a topic does not imply having an understanding of a topic yourself.
Absolutely disagree with this mad pastor