AZ_Five56 said:
weenis said:
Move out of cities.
Move to intentionally Christian rural communities that are popping up in purple states/red counties.
Move Christians into county sheriff's offices.
Move women out of leadership positions.
Just wondering... what's your justification for moving women out of any leadership positions?
Throughout all of scripture, the only time women are in leadership positions is when God's people, namely men, are under judgement. It's also modeled in church leadership as well, with the qualifications of elder and deacon.
This isn't strictly a Biblical concept, here's Ayn Rand-
Now consider the meaning of the Presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the President is the highest authority; he is the "Chief Executive," the "Commander-in-Chief." Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a President is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government. In the performance of his duties, a President does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for Presidency or for any important position, anyway.) To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require total depersonalization, an utter selflessness and an impersonal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values-a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.
It is conceivable that in some unusual historical context, in some period of extreme national emergency, it would be proper for a woman temporarily to assume the leadership of a country, in the role of President, if there were no men able to assume it. But what would this imply about the character of the men of that time?
As a society, we've completely lost focus of the distinctions between male and female. To the point that schools are putting litter boxes into children's bathrooms because kids think that they are genderfluid cats.
Men are created and designed for public life and engaging in the square. Whether it's a war of economics, or with a sword, that's the position of a man. Women are man's helper, tending to the home, caring for children, and her husband.
AZ_Five56 said:
I'm all about good people stepping up into leadership roles such as the sheriff's offices as you mentioned, but I'm not sure that moving out of the cities into rural Christian communities is what the Bible instructs Christians to do.
The cities are lost. It's nearly impossible for Christians born in the city to flourish in ways that they can outside. We've been brainwashed into chasing a house, a car, and a career.
Lot's choice to live in the city was destructive for his family. Yes, he is in the hall of faith, but I believe there is wisdom in learning from his mistakes.
Cities impose higher taxes, those tax dollars support fundamentally anti-Christ activities to a level not comparable when living rural.
The danger to your family is increased in the city.
Those in the city are oftentimes a slave to the city, they MUST be in the city, whether it's lifestyle choices, debt, jobs, college, etc. We can't serve two masters.
The conclusions Tim Keller reached in "City Church" are completely backward. We shouldn't be doubling down on the city, we should be forming Christian communities to send missionaries into the city.
It's almost getting to the point where it's going to be impossible to live in the city and not be surrounded by actual legitimate pornographic enactments. That's something a Christian should strongly think over, whether that's appropriate to surround yourself or your family in.
Christians are to be fruitful and multiply. Men should marry young, have kids young, raise them in a Christian household, for them to be kings.
But what do city people have? They raise their kids in the city, sending those same kids to public school, to rub shoulder to shoulders with genderfluid fox queer, and then those same Christian parents are scratching their heads wondering how their precious "salt and light" Johnny went wrong.
Strategically, I see city living and city life as arguing with a flat earther. Christian family growth is going to be a constant debate against your immediate surroundings that are forcing their arguments on you. Your continued living in the city and trying to live biblically is a counter argument. The city doesn't care about your counter argument.
It's like debating a flat earther. Don't debate flat earthers. Don't try and make Babel into something it's not.
I encourage everyone to watch this series on Amazon -
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Rampant/dp/B07Z8G12XP?tag=azs08d-20
Here's a trailer-
[bbvideo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxJpvLri7cw[/bbvideo]