Dos and Don'ts, all we need to know is the Bible; however, not all is covered explicitly. Discuss how Christians should act or what they should do when facing divorce, smoking, and other issues.

Should Christians allow women to be drafted?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Christians allow women to be drafted?


  • #2
    My opinion is that whether our government requires women to be drafted or not is the business of the government and all of it's citizens.
    The US is not a theocracy not matter what our supposed origins.
    Should Christians, as Christians take a stand. I don't think so. What I mean, is that if a Christian disagrees with this trend, they should stand against it, as a Citizen. The idea that we should establish a Christian position on the matter is mistaken, in my belief.

    My personal belief is that Christians should follow the lead of our Lord, and focus our time and attention at spreading the Good News.

    It seems like some Christian's operate on the principle that we're supposed to be fixing this world (morally) or even saving the world (environmentalism).
    This world is destined for Fire.



    Comment>

    • #3
      Hello Mackey,

      We are not fixing this world. We are salt... preserving rather than spoiling and corrupting this morally defaced world, that is, in the face of a tasteless populace. If we lose our saltiness, we mind as well be trampled under foot, because we are no good for anything.

      There's nothing much worth fighting for if we give up our women. There isn't anything more important to me, personally, in life than my covenant wife and daughter.

      On the topic of women in the draft, the Presbyterian church recently brought the topic front and center, and as far as I know, working on a conscientious objector clause.

      As far as taking a stand: Report of the Committee on Women in the Military and in Combat

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by William View Post
        We are not fixing this world. We are salt... preserving rather than spoiling and corrupting this morally defaced world, that is, in the face of a tasteless populace. If we lose our saltiness, we mind as well be trampled under foot, because we are no good for anything.
        “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

        “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

        Matthew 5:13-16

        I'm afraid you may be twisting the meaning of the verse to fit your need. "we might as well be trampled under foot"! You've kind of expounded on the meaning of Christ's words. I will be trampled underfoot by no one, whether I take the "wrong" position in this matter as my Lord has specifically and unequivocally stated that he will NEVER leave me or forsake me ... let alone toss me aside. He will lead me into all truth and righteousness. And I will not allow anyone to judge me based on a political position!!

        This kind of pressure has been used in many churches to try to control members. I will have no part in it.

        The Christians who make stands on various political issues (abortion, opposing gay rights etc) do not seem to be leading people to "glorify your Father in heaven." In fact, these actions seem to further drive non-believers away. Save these people and these issues take care of themselves.

        Our saltiness, our good deeds, involve loving our neighbor as ourselves, loving our enemies, feeding the hungry, giving water to those who thirst.
        Not taking a particular position in a political position.

        These are disputable matters that do nothing but distract both believers and non-believers from attention to our Father and His will.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Mackey View Post
          It seems like some Christian's operate on the principle that we're supposed to be fixing this world (morally) or even saving the world (environmentalism).
          This world is destined for Fire.
          There is a theological term called fatalism. It goes something like this.... if God is sovereign why try? If the world is destined for destruction why try to prevent the inevitable? In essence a fatalistic argument would have you lay down and be trampled under foot rather than stand up and fight.

          Originally posted by Mackey View Post
          I'm afraid you may be twisting the meaning of the verse to fit your need. "we might as well be trampled under foot"! You've kind of expounded on the meaning of Christ's words. I will be trampled underfoot by no one, whether I take the "wrong" position in this matter as my Lord has specifically and unequivocally stated that he will NEVER leave me or forsake me ... let alone toss me aside. He will lead me into all truth and righteousness. And I will not allow anyone to judge me based on a political position!!

          This kind of pressure has been used in many churches to try to control members. I will have no part in it.

          The Christians who make stands on various political issues (abortion, opposing gay rights etc) do not seem to be leading people to "glorify your Father in heaven." In fact, these actions seem to further drive non-believers away. Save these people and these issues take care of themselves.

          Our saltiness, our good deeds involve loving our neighbor as ourselves, loving our enemies, feeding the hungry, giving water to those who thirst.
          Not taking a particular position in a political position.

          These are disputable matters that do nothing but distract both believers and non-believers from attention to our Father and His will.
          On the subject of Matthew 5:13 Christ calls the apostles the salt of the earth, because it is their office to salt the earth: because men have nothing in them but what is tasteless. The world is dying, it is under a death sentence, but we are tasked with preserving it and not corrupting it or spoiling it anymore when in contact. What is characteristic of tasteless men is intolerable in a Christian. In contrast, the salt that loses its saltiness becomes hurtful and communicates barrenness, and may even infect the world with further depravity.

          My point being, and why I alluded to Matthew 5:13 was to point out uselessness. Salt is a remedy for unsavoury meat, but there is no remedy for unsavoury salt. If a Christian does nothing in the face of decay, corruption, and spoil, then he is unprofitable. He is therefore good for nothing. What use can he be put to in which he will not do more harm than good?

          Now to address your response to which I have no idea why you decided to address whether someone is judging you or your political position, and then why you passed judgment on other Christians and the church... .

          You say, "various political issues", which I assume you mean subjects of morality and virtue "drive non-believers away"? If so, this is consistent with the Matthew 5:13-16 because we know that followers of Christ are known for their vices and virtues, for example of good or bad. The knowledge we have must be communicated for the good of others, like a beam of light from a lighthouse warning ships at sail of approaching danger. We know that the world hated Christ because people love the darkness rather than the light for their works were evil John 3:19; John 15:18. We know people are not driven away from glorifying the Father in heaven because of any other reason other than reasons found in Romans 1:2, and in John 15:18. Lastly, a good deed can be simply having a Christian conversation which can do much towards the conversion of sinners. A conversation that overcomes prejudices about the church and religion, that is, so they may be convinced of the truth and excellency of the Christian religion, and be provoked by holy emulation to imitate good works and to glorify God.

          God bless,
          William
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Mackey View Post
            The US is not a theocracy not matter what our supposed origins.
            That is true. The US isn't a theocracy so it has no right to impose Christianity on anyone. But the US and every other nation are all part of a universe that was created and is ruled by God. Governments are given the authority by God to punish those who do wrong and reward those who do right. But it is God who determines what is right and what is wrong. The government is forbidden to promote Christian theology but it has been established to promote Christian morality.
            Clyde Herrin's Blog
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by theophilus View Post
              That is true. The US isn't a theocracy so it has no right to impose Christianity on anyone. But the US and every other nation are all part of a universe that was created and is ruled by God. Governments are given the authority by God to punish those who do wrong and reward those who do right. But it is God who determines what is right and what is wrong. The government is forbidden to promote Christian theology but it has been established to promote Christian morality.
              On the role of the church from the above article: When it is maintained that the church is concerned with civic affairs, is under obligation to examine political measures in the light of the Word of God, and is required to declare its judgments accordingly, the distinction between this activity on the part of the church and political activity must be recognized. To put the matter bluntly, the church is not to engage in politics. Its members must do so, but only in their capacity as citizens of the state, not as members of the church....

              The church is certainly not to be regarded as handling or concluding political affairs when it declares the religious and moral implications of political measures; it does not determine civil affairs, it simply propounds and defends the requirements of God's revealed will in reference to civil affairs...

              The question remains: how is the church to proclaim the counsel of God as it bears upon civil affairs? It is obvious that there are two means, in particular, of proclaiming the Word of God, namely, the pulpit and the press.... If it is to be faithful to its commission it must make its voice heard and felt in reference to public questions. The church may not supinely stand aside and ignore political corruption. For example, on the the ground that to pronounce judgment on such issues is to intermeddle in politics....
              Far from being removed from political issues of the day.... I can't wrap my mind around forfeiting our first amendment right to secularism: Supreme Court Justice Scalia: Constitution says government can favor religion

              Furthermore, Scalia says the Constitution says the government can favor religion. I think our choice is clear as Christians, "Theonomy or Autonomy".

              God bless,
              William
              Comment>

              • #8
                I agree with Mackey.

                Back to loving our neighbor as ourself, treating our neighbor as ourself means equal rights, and women have fought for their rights for a long time, why would a huge church want to be the ones to objectify against them? Yes, God made women for a reason, and men for a reason, but traditional gender roles are already going down the drain, and unfourtunately only continue to do so. Trying to swim against the rapids is pretty pointless, you use all your time and energy, and eventually you lose anyway, as you are thrown into or under the cold, rough waters.

                Should women be able to fight in the army? Yes. Should they take men's place in the army? No.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by AGustOfWind View Post
                  I agree with Mackey.

                  Back to loving our neighbor as ourself, treating our neighbor as ourself means equal rights, and women have fought for their rights for a long time, why would a huge church want to be the ones to objectify against them? Yes, God made women for a reason, and men for a reason, but traditional gender roles are already going down the drain, and unfourtunately only continue to do so. Trying to swim against the rapids is pretty pointless, you use all your time and energy, and eventually you lose anyway, as you are thrown into or under the cold, rough waters.

                  Should women be able to fight in the army? Yes. Should they take men's place in the army? No.
                  Another Fatalistic view. God only wanted those that lapped up water like dogs - Judges 7:5.

                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    I get that women's fight for equality has been long and hard. It's still in progress. The feminists can be really nasty to those of us who actually like the traditional roles. With equal rights, comes equal responsibility. Responsibility to support the nation? Okay. I don't think there's anything wrong with women volunteering to fight like they do now. I even think there are good reasons for women to act in less dangerous support capacities in the military to free men up for actual fighting.

                    I worry that in considering drafting women, they're not really considering the risk of their draftees being pregnant. Drafting age is also prime childbearing years. It's not only a question of whether they're sending women to fight but are they sending innocent gestating babies out there? Even high-tech tests in the hospital can't detect conception for a few weeks. Would they want to risk babies health by sending them through bootcamp or out to fight inside their mothers?

                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Yet another tough issue here. I guess drafting single women in the military is fine. Although I do understand the point where fathers have this responsibility to protect their children, especially their daughter and wife. And by allowing them to go into the military, how else can they protect them there? However, I also understand that as adults, we are entitled to our own decisions as well. So as long as the single woman isn't forced into it, then we cannot really do anything about it.

                      But if it's a mother, then problems might arise. The first and primary responsibility of a mother is to take care of her children. It might be even worse if the father is also in the military. Who else is going to take care of the child? What if both parents die on the battlefield?

                      And lastly, the issue of sexual harassment. I think that if women are deployed in the military, they are in greater risk of being harassed or raped. And that's what scares me the most, that women are more vulnerable to such horrible act.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        If this thread is about equality of gender in military service, I have noticed that women are growing in number in the police force. And although there are women soldiers here but very few unlike in the police force. In fact, I have a cousin who is a policewoman with the rank of Lieutenant. She studied in PNPA (Philippine National Police Academy) and had chosen the police force because she said the army is a different territory, a hostile one for women. And then what we expected had happened, my cousin had married a policeman. When I asked why, my cousin said that she had to choose between getting a boyfriend or being abused by her male colleagues. I'm sorry for telling tihs confidential story but that's a fact.

                        My cousin has a daughter, now 14 years old. She had long separated with her husband and she migrated to the US last year.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Quite honestly the warrior role in any society should, and should always be, a male role. Without going into the ethics of conscription (the draft) it really should be only men who are considered for military duty. Obviously our culture has slid so far to even encourage women to join the military, but it does not make it right. Of course I will be labeled "sexist" for this view, but women should be home with their families, not be in combat.

                          In a related topic our denomination has recently drafted language into our statement of faith pertaining to this. Basically we have made it clear that we do not support including women in the draft and should it come to that we will, as members of our denomination, go before the draft board to petition the decision to draft our daughters/sisters/wives as something that is against the tenets of our faith.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Knotical View Post
                            Quite honestly the warrior role in any society should, and should always be, a male role. Without going into the ethics of conscription (the draft) it really should be only men who are considered for military duty. Obviously our culture has slid so far to even encourage women to join the military, but it does not make it right. Of course I will be labeled "sexist" for this view, but women should be home with their families, not be in combat.

                            In a related topic our denomination has recently drafted language into our statement of faith pertaining to this. Basically we have made it clear that we do not support including women in the draft and should it come to that we will, as members of our denomination, go before the draft board to petition the decision to draft our daughters/sisters/wives as something that is against the tenets of our faith.

                            I agree. Society has become too androgynous and it's not good. They lie to us and tell us that we're pretty much androgynous, other than the obvious differences. But, men and women are physically, mentally, and psychologically different, and that's how it should stay. Rights are one thing, trying to have a man become a woman, or a woman become a man is another.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              He makes a great Biblical argument against why woman shouldn't be in the army. But there are practical reason why woman shouldn't be allowed in the army, outside of being nurses or taking care of the camp. While it's not always true, most women can't keep up with men physically and the women who are in don't carry the same load as the men do. This means that they get the same privilege of being a soldier without doing the equal amount of work. It makes the army weaker because the stronger ones have to compensate for it. If a woman is able to carry as much and do as much as a man, then she can be in the army but not if the rules have to change to let her in.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap