TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes. I can do no more because Scripture does not say, "Thou shalt not put women in combat." Contrary to your accusation against me earlier, I've been honest about this. But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.
Joe, it may be something I'm missing, (and I never meant that you were being dishonest intentionally, although I guess that's implied and I'm sorry) but I'm having a hard time following what you are saying. You said
What about women leaders? Corporate? Military? Political? And, if we step further into the secular arena, is there a point where headship is no longer an issue? A major issue here is also whether or not there is biblical justification to separate secular and religious.[/QUOTE]
and I showed that God forbade Priestesses but allowed Queens. I thought that settled the matter of whether the religious principles of headship are the same as secular principles. We could go to the dozens of examples like women with male servants for further proof. And you answered
Furthermore, the king in Israel was to be both a religious and political leader. They were decidedly inseparable. As the king went, so did the nation. Furthermore, every king was to write down the law. I see no separation of secular and religious here.
And we're just going to realize neither one of us understands the other one or disagrees with the other one on this issue. You disagree with what I've tried to support with Scripture, and I look at the above statement ask myself if you really know where you idea of secular headship being the same as religious headship will lead you.
Another problem may be simply one of writing style.
Tim, that's really an empty assertion. I've provided Scriptures that show principles and precedents that Sarah refutes.
Means to me that Sarah successfully showed your argument flawed, although I doubt you really meant that.
But it is fair to point out that she has no biblical grounds for desiring women to be in combat. The biblical examples, principles and precedents are clearly against her assertion.
Her assertion was that she does believe women should be allowed in combat along with me under normal circumstances, (and I disagree as I said) but is willing to be shown differently by the Bible. But I don't think you've proven your case. Rather, that in insisting on the principle of headship being the same in both religious and secular matters you torpedo yourself.
I personally think that everyone participating on this thread would come to a 99% agreement level over a prolonged dinner with good wine (except for Moderator "R" because due to his domestic situation he's hoping for a blanket ban on all forms of female violence).