Posted on 07/21/2019 7:04:19 AM PDT by Macoozie
Women, however, have increasingly made it through the nine-week Ranger course, and the numbers of those trying out for other special operations jobs is slowly inching up.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
“...So what are men going to do about it?...”
Evidently, let more slide through.
That is the difference...I see “biblical” as a context for the times. You see it as a rulebook you selectively use.
If you look at the context of the day, armies were counted in the hundreds—for the most part. Tribal factions that, on their best day, could field a few thousand warriors.
At the end of the day the field was taken, and the opponents enslaved, raped, or “disappeared” into the slavery (or a pick or two out of three.)
Applying that context today is absurd—the destructive power of the military today would be used to annihilate the enemy, their homes, and would “salt” their grounds for generations.
The bible in this situation is a nice “guide”. The world has changed to the point where looking to a 2,500 year (+) manual is akin to the absurdity of the Islamist using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives.
"Selectively use." Perhaps you are like those who presume that there are no distinctions btwn types of laws, and covenants, that is it inconsistent to stand for basic universal morals while rejecting ceremonial laws, as well as nor observing the letter of all culturally applied laws, or the contextual mandates in the wars of conquests.
At the end of the day the field was taken, and the opponents enslaved, raped, or “disappeared” into the slavery (or a pick or two out of three.) Applying that context today is absurd—the destructive power of the military today would be used to annihilate the enemy, their homes, and would “salt” their grounds for generations.
Apparently somehow you not only think the Bible only teaches one manner of war, and government, but you also think my remark about the negative effect of making war more antiseptic means that I am advocating the US nuke all its enemies.
The bible in this situation is a nice “guide”. The world has changed to the point where looking to a 2,500 year (+) manual is akin to the absurdity of the Islamist using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives.
Absolutely wrong again, but which is expected if you imagine what I stated you seem to presume, let alone being ignorant of the fundamental contrasts btwn Islam and NT Christianity . Care to elaborate on how the Bible being a sure guide as understood by the NT church is as absurd as Islamists using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives, on this pro-God forum?
But as JR just posted about liberals,.
No, it's not racism! It's not about skin color or where they came from. It's their openly displayed hatred for America, hatred for our Constitution, hatred for the rule of law, hatred for law enforcement, hatred for our Judeo-Christian founding, hatred for our Founders, hatred for our God-given rights, hatred for capitalism, hatred for constitutionally limited government, hatred for the basic building block of our society, in fact, the foundation of Western civilization, ie, our pro-life, pro-family, one-man/one-woman Judeo-Christian way of life.
I would guess it would nearly equal the sensation of getting it handed to him by a 'boy'.
Wow, quite a leap from a discussion about warfighting in the Old Testament to calling me unAmerican.
You cannot compare waging war in the OT and then jump to suggesting we follow the peaceful path of Jesus.
You might want to check that.
Your knee jerk reaction to the blind following of the Koran vs the Bible tells me you cannot discuss human nature as you are hardwired against it. Too bad, because I enjoyed the discussion.
I missed this part...
Blame yourself for sounding like a ignorant (or sophist) liberal (including prohomosexual apologists) by arguing there are no distinctions btwn types of laws, and covenants, and concluding "The world has changed to the point where looking to a 2,500 year (+) manual is akin to the absurdity of the Islamist using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives."
You cannot compare waging war in the OT and then jump to suggesting we follow the peaceful path of Jesus. You might want to check that.
Which is not what I explained, and instead your take is a presumption the flows from your apparently ignorant conception that following the Bible either means waging war as in the OT or pacifism of Christ, when Scripture supports separation of powers, and the just use of the sword by the civil powers, and of limited war, and peace treaties , and of basic universal moral laws vs, other types, the basic form of judicial system we have and means of judgement, and of the spiritual vs. carnal means of war by the church, etc. In contrast to the Qur'an.
It was your job to show that looking to a 2,500 year (+) manual is akin to the absurdity of the Islamist using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives.
Your knee jerk reaction to the blind following of the Koran vs the Bible tells me you cannot discuss human nature as you are hardwired against it.
Rather, it was your "knee jerk reaction" to my correction of your erroneous broad brush of warfare in the Bible and my remark as regards making war more antiseptic that is the problem, calling looking the Bible as being absurd, like that of Muslims (thoghh you added the word "blind").
Too bad, because I enjoyed the discussion.
Rather, it do not think you did, but I will leave you to your indefensible presumption if you like.
Good luck with your fairy tales.
Recourse to attempted sarcasm is a poor excuse for an argument.
Inability to know when there IS no argument is the sign of a zealot.
Your wife must love it when you simply cannot walk away from a discussion.
Lets post your quote, "The bible in this situation is a nice “guide”. The world has changed to the point where looking to a 2,500 year (+) manual is akin to the absurdity of the Islamist using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives" as a thread on FR and see how many agree with it, and how many you can disparage in response to their opposition to it.
Your wife must love it when you simply cannot walk away from a discussion.
Do you often call debate a mere discussion? Your wife must love it when you resort to ad hominem as a substitute for an argument you provoked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.