I know the question was brought up before, and everyone tried to give answers, but all the answers were basically just opinion based. So I'm very curious as to what is actually Biblical in this situation.

Thanks.

I'm just looking for opinions, and to help add to the discussion. Those are some really great thoughts, Lycanis. I like those ideas.

So, in addition to the previous question, in a fantasy world where you have so many different types of peoples and things, would there maybe be an acceptable race where the females acceptably fight with the males in battles? What would this look like from a Biblical point of view?

You're welcome. I thought so, but wasn't sure. Thank you, I'm glad you like them.



I believe so, though you should be careful doing it I think. I'm modeling the humans in Vadra after real humans, so I will hold them to the same standard I hold real human theology.
But with other races you could have the differing roles work a bit differently. I think for simple preference-sake and to keep from being overly confusing and or complicated, I will be keeping all races to some form of what I said above, but maybe the women of the other races will be more likely allowed to go out to war (for example if they've been given some special ability to help the men of their own race in war, and the men of their race are not distracted in the same way, or maybe only under certain circumstances). It would be important though to make sure that if you're saying something is how God might make something (according to your fallible and finite imagination), that it makes sense and will work.
For example if there was a race where the God-figure said that both men and women should fight, simple as that, then that race may run into problems such as almost everyone going out to war and leaving insufficient workers to keep up the community in the village, provide food for the army, etc. There should be distinct differences between genders it seems like, regardless of the race, and it would be difficult to make up what those are in a way other than what God said for us, but I think with minor tweaks you could end up with something different enough to be interesting while being logical and proper enough for it to be something God might approve of given the world and race.

...I hope that makes sense and helps.

I have a very long post about Deborah in this thread, early on.

I think I gave them in my... big post, on page four. *checks * Yep, they are there.

As for Fantasy races, you would have to make it clear that it is still wrong for humans.

In my world I acknowledge that it is not everything, and that God is an all powerful visitor. In my world the system of morals is always intact, or it would merely be pretending that God was evil. In Fantasy you have strange cases, for instance a woman who shapeshifts into a male lion. In Fantasy you have to ask yourself more questions.

I have thought out answers to many questions, and I need to type them in and post them.

Thanks Tsahraf.

It bugs me when people cross-dress. I've seen girls who literally looked so much like guys that I couldn't tell without looking closely and listening for their voice. Even the immodest trend of wearing pants very low and showing underwear has crossed over to the women who want to look like men. It's despicable.

In my fantasy race, everyone has powers, and both males and females fight, for that is what they were created to do.

They were created to fight?

This special breed of human was created to protect the earth, yes.

Interesting.

Neat...

As a girl who lives near St. Louis and has visited E St. Louis, I can tell you that this has a very particular meaning. If you do this you should be aware of the statement you are making, so feel free to pm me. I am available for telling any who are interested, but be aware it is a "tricky subjects" type statement.

XD

You're amazing Airi.

Thank you, Eli....

I know what you mean about fashions, Short. Not only do girls wear odd clothing, but I've met boys who wear makeup.
And I hate it when people wear their pants so low. It's indecent, looks ridiculous, and restricts their ability to walk. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to be stuck on your way to class behind somebody who can't move their feet more then five centimeters apart?

No more off-topicness. I believe I brought up the topic of women in battle when they weren't human. If anyone is looking to expound on that, they ought to visit here: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=4185

Would it be a good idea to make a different thread on women in battle in a different place that is on the subject of how they would be portrayed? I believe this one, being in Theology, is more supposed to be a discussion of whether or not it should be a good thing for women to be in battle, and I believe another thread on the other subject I mentioned would be helpful.

I agree, Rwebhu.

Go for it, Juliet. Thanks for being so efficient.

Yes, it would be a good idea.

Alright. * wrinkles forehead * Now where would that be best put....

Character Development, I would think.....

Maybe Technology & Warfare?

I find that there is Biblical precedent for neither man or woman to be in battle. That is only if the story takes place after Christ, of course. If this story takes place in the Old Testament time period of a world, then I would find no problem with a woman going to war.

Could you explain your biblical reasons behind why neither male nor female should go to war after Christ? Or why before Christ came you feel women could go into organized battle, biblically?

Well, I assume that a woman could go into battle with a male (as Deborah did) just not leading the battle. If a male is not there to lead the job, I suppose a female could do it for him (as Jael did).

After Christ, there are many verses in the Bible that state against killing. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Matthew 5:44. "For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places," Ephesians 6:12. Instead of fighting, we should turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) and should 'Not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' (Romans 12:21).
After writing this, I realize that all this is in reference to killing. Christians are allowed in battle to be nurses and to help people (as some are), I just believe that followers of Christ should not take another's life, thereby condemning him/her to eternal suffering.

We have a thread on pacifism, if you would like to continue to discuss that, Astro. I disagree, but this is not the thread for me to do that in.

So, because I know there have been several references to Deborah, I'm going to put a link to my Deborah post that is earlier in this thread. viewtopic.php?p=30810#p30810

I think Deborah's example is very strong and clear, and I don't think it supports women going off into organized battle to lead and fight in hand to hand combat.

What is your opinion of Jael, Airianna?

I know the question was for Airi, but I'd just like to point out that Jael was not in battle. She stayed at home and Sisera came into that home, and then she killed him in his sleep. I don't really see what she has to do with women as soldiers.

I agree, the situation was specialized a bit, and didn't constitute a battle at all. She killed him, period.

*Nods* I would have to agree with them, Astronomer. It wasn't a battle, she just killed him.

Okay, thank you.

I would ditto what everyone else said.

I actually love the character of Jael....

I do too, in an Alfred Hitchcock type way.

*chuckles *

Hey everyone,

Actually, in referencing back to y'all creating a new thread in how you should portray women in battle, this is the place for it. Here you can share your opinions on women in battle, and discuss how it should be portrayed in your writing. That is the purpose of the Theology room.

OK, continue with your discussion. Just wanted to let you know.

Oh-key. * scrawls note about just what the Theology forum is for *

Women go to war daily along with men, and have been doing so since the gulf war; I know female veterans. The Bible has few cases of this, but those were ancient times. And let's not forget Joan of Arc who led the French charge of independence. Women are capable of being warriors. I even display this in Ska'Lah'Seh a bunch. While the whole warrior woman in skimpy armor is nothing more than the foolishness of Hollywood, a woman in full plate charging into battle is a reasonable sight (though women do better in lighter armor as it allows them to better take advantage of their increased agility). It does not mess with a woman's psych any more than a man's. Woman are perfectly capable in warfare.

I think the question is more concerned with whether or not women should go to battle, not whether or not they're capable. Or am I misunderstanding the intent of the thread?

I'm pretty sure you've got it right, Tarin. The argument has mostly been whether or not women should be fighting.

Out of curiosity, can anyone make the case that women should be fighting without making reference to their supposed "equality" with men?

I think that is an excellent question, Sam.

And women's capability has little to do with anything. Women are very capable individuals. Even though their brains are not hardwired to endure the things they would have to endure in battle like men's are (and that is a fact, I've seen the research on chemicals released, or not released in the brain, and the differences in the ways a woman's brain naturally functions and a man's naturally functions), they can still do the job. They can still push past their natural inclinations. I mean, we have many men who are doing the same thing, just pushing past their natural inclinations in the opposite direction. Women’s capability should never be called into question, unless of course we are talking a woman unaccustomed to military life, because believe me, for a woman to equal a man in the military, she’s going to have to do some serious muscle developing and endurance training, because her body is naturally not the same as a man’s. Doesn’t mean she has to go body build, but she does have to work on a few things to truly be able to compete and not be a danger to the men on her team.

The question is should.

Also, I find it interesting that no one has talked about women in battle from the male soldier's perspective. Perhaps because 1% of Americans are in the armed forces (and my Daddy and I figured out, based off of my knowledge of who is a military brat on Hw, and we actually fit that percentage in children who come from military households) and the guys on HW are not in the military, nor have they ever fought in a war.

I come from a heavy military background, and many of my "uncles" (when you're a military brat, you end up with lots of aunts and uncles who aren't really your aunts and uncles), or my Dad's best friends, were in the military. Men in the service, if they are honest and don't feel like the woman they are telling the truth to will jump down their throats for saying it, will tell you a very different story about what happens when women are in the military. Not all of them, of course, especially in our culture, but a number of them. Not all of whom are Christians, by the way. It has nothing to do with religious views vrs non religious views, and equality of the sexes.

However, I will say this. As I said before, 1% of Americans are willing to fight for their country and be willing to give up everything for the sake of their family’s freedoms and safety. While I do not agree with women going off to war, I will be the first one to tell any man that until they are willing to step up, so that women don’t feel the need to have to defend their country, I don’t think they have the right to judge a female soldier. We have seen time and again through history that when the men stop stepping up to the plate, women will. It’s always a bad thing. But if men won’t protect, then it is rather unfair to expect the women to sit back and say “fine”. If I didn’t hold the convictions I do, then I’d be one of those women (I fight in other ways now, which I won’t go into because they are not really part of the discussion). I’d be stepping up to fight for what my both my Great Grandfathers, three of my 4 Grandfathers (long story), and my Father fought for. What my uncles fought for. I wouldn’t want to stand idly by and watch as the men of this country shrink from the armed forces and leave us women and children defenseless. From the woman’s perspective, someone has to do it, and if the men won’t, they will. We’re that way about most everything.

My brothers are not in the armed forces at this point, for multiple reasons (the ones old enough, I mean). But if there was ever a need, my men would be joining the fight. It’s not my place, it’s theirs. My place is to defend my family in case the enemy gets that far.

*nods*
I don't remember whether you've explained this before or not, Kaitlyn, but I noticed you said it wouldn't be right for women to fight, but I never saw an explanation. I'd like to know what you think.

In my opinion (which lacks deep theological study), I think that if a woman can handle it, she should be able to. But that's not saying there are many women who would be capable of this. I agree with you, Kaitlyn; it's quite rare for a woman to be able to function in battle without being a danger to the men around her on her side. But if she can, and she isn't a liability, I don't see why she shouldn't. You may be able to convince me otherwise if you can give theologically sound proof.

Now, other jobs in the military, I have a stronger opinion on. I think it's fine for women to hold other positions. Take for example the wife of the youth pastor at my church. She's in the Reserves now, but she was a Navy corpsman; a chief, in fact. I don't see a problem with this; in fact I strongly support it. Though things change if the woman has children. I don't think children should be away from their mothers for that long. But if this is a single woman, and she wants to support her country in this way, I think she should go for it.
[/kindasortaofftopic]

Yes, I mentioned reasons way back somewhere, probably very early on in this thread. However, you have to believe what the scriptures say as to the role of men and women (biblical, not hyper conservative views, or hyper legalism views) in order to accept women's place as leaders (which, might I say, women can be leaders, just certain types) and their place as protectors and in times of war. It's a complicated topic, to be honest, which is why I roll my eyes when people make it seem very cut and dry.

This makes sense to me, but can you clarify something? It sounds like you're implying that most women in the military are only in there because not enough men are stepping up. Are you?

No. I don't think that is why most women are serving. I do know that is why some are, but I think men should be very careful when saying things about female soldiers.

Ah. Got it.

Hmm. I would say that, although in today's world the 'warrior girl' theme might be overused, it's still absolutely fine to include woman in battles in a story. It's backed biblically too, in Judges 4 and 5, which show us examples of women in battle and playing major roles in the fight.

-KatieGrace

I think that if women can handle being in battle, they should have the choice. In my fantasy world, human women don't normally enter battle because they never learned the things they'd need to know in order to do it - however, the other four races (elves, dwarves, faeries, and rakshatherions [shapeshifters]) are the opposite; females of those races fight when the need arises, because they were taught fighting skills early on.

The reason for that isn't because the humans are weaker; it's because there are much more humans than there are of any other race. So it's common sense to make sure that both genders of the other races know how to fight in case a war is declared.

So yeah, bottom line of what I believe is that women should go into battle if they have the correct endurance and training, and if it is their choice.