[color=#0000FF][b]KattyKit wrote:[/b] [quote]She IS pointing out the things you've said. She's not using verses because it's not the verses that are the problem. It's your tone of voice and phrasing. Do you have any idea just how dang condescending you sound?[/quote][/color] That's so often a problem on the Internet. A forum is no place to judge other's personality or tone. It's soooo easy to get upset about a subject being discussed and then think the worst about the author (without even knowing that person). My advice is to not attack the messenger, but rather the message. It's far too easy also to confuse a person's confidence in what they're saying (what they believe) with thinking that person is being condescending. You guys don't know me in real life and anyone who does know me will say just the opposite. I see myself in a state a spiritual warfare, but not against flesh and blood. I don't care to attack individual's personalities or even their character...but I will attack what I perceive to be false ideas at every turn. These are strongholds that need to be torn down. Not the people themselves, but the strongholds of false ideas (doctrines, teaching, philosophies) that bind them. [color=#FF0000][1 Corinthians 10:5-6] "For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ..."[/color] That's truly my aim and, yes, I pray pretty well every time I post that I do so in a spirit of love. There does come a time when the Sword of the Spirit (the Word of God) will cut between the flesh and spirit of a person...and this does not always look or feel good at first, but will result in the blessing of those who hear in the end.

Did you know that female midwife's still deliver over 2/3 of all births worldwide? Did you know that midwifery was overwhelmingly the only method for gynecology and obstetrics before the 1900's? That was before the more modern age of male OBGYN's came into existence. Did you know that the word wife is...yes, that's right, feminine? Contrary to the dogmatic claims of modern medicine (based on very limited and scattered records for which no real proof is ever given as backing)...with all factors considered, it was no less safe giving birth to a baby before the 1900's than it is today (maybe even more safe in some ways back then, especially when compared to the higher overall malpractice related fatality rates in modern hospitals). Most of the propaganda put out by the globalist owned medical establishment is simply a way of instilling fear in order to manipulate us into buying into the system. It's no accident that most of the doctor's educational materials are bought and paid for by drug corporations or the foundations that also own much of big pharma. Most doctors are only taught and indoctrinated with what will not conflict with the financial balance sheets of such companies. Are you aware that hospital related accidents/mal-care are now one of the leading causes of death in America (something like 400,000 a year in America)? Why do you think doctors are required to have such expensive insurance? In addition to this, due to the lack of personal care and the sheer numbers of patients they deal with...the hospital environment becomes very emotionally sterile, understaffed, and robotic...leaving room for more personal error as there are so many distractions and so little personal attachment. Home births and midwifery are by far a much better option for both the health of the mother and of the child. Don't fall for the propaganda machines of the Medical/Food & Drug Industry- who rely on fear tactics to gain more revenue from the people. Home births, delivered by a mid-wife (and even without a midwife), are much less stressful and by far less dangerous than those performed in the cold and sickness infested environment of hospitals. Now, moving on to a different aspect of this subject, I have a few more questions to consider (helping to make all of this much more real and relatable). If it's acceptable for a woman to reveal her nakedness and allow a male doctor to touch her in private areas, then I have some questions for you that also follow that teaching. Is it ok to walk around naked in a nudist colony? They're just like doctors (desensitized)- no lasciviousness or lust there either, right? Many of them think the "Spirit" is leading them too. So are you willing now to agree with that lifestyle? I know there are some nudist proponents here on this website, so no need for you to answer for your stance is obvious. This question is for those who know that the Bible commands women to be modest in public (which includes any form of nakedness, of course). You cannot argue against that lifestyle if you are not going to argue against such a mini nudist colony in the hospital room. That would be hypocritical. So why don't we just say, "if the Spirit leads you" to those Unitarians who have nude church every Sunday? How about models that pose nude for artists to paint? They're not doing it out of lust. Even further, how about a married couple that films a sexually explicit video of themselves for a college course? Hey, they're married and the intention of the video is to educate the sex therapist students. So what's wrong with that? Should a woman feel comfortable walking around naked in front of her father? Surely he would be even stronger not to lust than a doctor would be. And even if lust were the determining factor, what exactly would you cite as the thing that makes doctors different from other men? You can't say that they are impervious to lust- there's a string of lawsuits to prove you wrong on that point. I think scripture makes it quite clear that no man is immune to such temptations. So why tempt him? Is there some spiritual gift that doctors receive in college, which removes the possibility of lust from their heart or that gives them special moral rights to routinely look upon/touch women's private areas who are not their own wife? I could get more and more obvious with these questions, but I think you can already see where this wicked reasoning is leading us. Please consider the end results of this logic and where it has taken our culture. I really do hate to see this modern trend (relative modesty to the point of nakedness) continue to have its place in the Church of America. It's a serious problem and I'm determined to do my part to bring it out into the light. Now, some may ask the question...why are my threads (so far) focusing so much on specific scenarios (outward/fleshly), instead of just only talking about the "spiritual" or heart level concepts involved? Well, the answer is simple (other than the safe driving/dressing illustration I gave earlier). It's because this is where we get desensitized. It happens very subtly over time. As can often be seen, the heart's intentions to be modest can be right. The problem is that being raised in our culture can dumb down the conscience, heart, and soul toward what's popular or common. So I just want to bring these ungodly influences of our culture out into the light- one by one, if necessary. I'm not ignoring the heart issues; I'm depending on them. The reason I'm being so specific about outward compromise in the Church, is because I am depending on believers with pure intentions or holiness desiring hearts to read this and to apply it to their lives. I would not teach this subject to unbelievers, because the Bible says that such things are foolishness to them. [1 Corinthians 2:14] I'm expecting you to accept what I'm saying because your heart is in the right place and BECAUSE your spirit is sensitive and because your intention is to live holy (including modesty). I hope that gives you a clearer picture of where I'm coming from. At this point, I do want to be sure that no one is taking me out of context. Either way we look at the issue of modesty, it is a matter of the intentions of the heart. I know what the Scriptures have to say about real modesty and virtue, which is why I took the time to elaborate on one such verse in a previous section. [1 Timothy 2:9] I even said the following about it: "this verse is telling women, who should already be covering (adorning) their nakedness, with what heart motivation they should go about doing it." So now that's where I want to continue. What should the heart of a woman be toward modesty in dress and how should that heart bear fruit (good works) into her life- into the way she adorns herself?" This takes me to my next point. I am specifically focusing on public nakedness (in a way), because public nakedness (if by choice or by passivity) is simply an outward expressions of inward lack of modesty. Women who go out into public revealing parts of their nakedness (or even just the more obvious sensually arousing areas of their form discussed in earlier threads) are showing that they are inwardly desensitized in that area. Now, does this mean that she is desensitized to all modesty in any situation? No, most believing women do try to dress modestly in those situations that their conscience is still sensitive to. Yet...what happens if, because she was raised in a culture that exposed her to accepting that as normal, her conscience is not sensitive to a particular situation (like being immodest at beaches, pools, gym class, playing sports, in doctor's offices, or when publicly breast feeding)? A woman is usually just desensitized in those areas that are popular or common to our culture. I'm not putting a bunch of outward laws on any of us; I'm trying to reason with your inner man so that your outer man will be equipped by the Holy Spirit to seek change. Another point I made clear in the previous posts is that modesty (of the heart) expresses itself (outwardly) in two ways: not too much adornment and not too little adornment (i.e. nakedness revealed). So, by its very nature, public nakedness is immodesty. Public nakedness is not the only form of immodesty, but it is the form that I have chosen to use as an example in many of my threads. Since most I speak to can at least agree that "public nakedness (immodesty) is not good," I can only assume this means they would agree that nudist colonies and such are immodest, sinful, or not acceptable for a believer. I'm glad most believers can at least agree on that point, because the very same thing that's happening in nudist colonies is what's happening between a female patient and her male doctor (intellectual intentions aside). So, we really should all be able to agree that a woman should still be modest in front of the public (including male doctors)...lest we be hypocritical.

I don't hang around here much anymore, but I don't like the OP or any of these topics he's brought up. As soon as I get some free time, which may be tomorrow, I would love to jump in on this. I have some points I'd like to throw out. Also, where is Brittany? I would LOVE to see her input on this.

[color=#0000FF][b]NinjaUnicorn wrote:[/b] [quote]I don't hang around here much anymore, but I don't like the OP or any of these topics he's brought up. As soon as I get some free time, which may be tomorrow, I would love to jump in on this. I have some points I'd like to throw out. Also, where is Brittany? I would LOVE to see her input on this.[/quote][/color] All discussion is definitely most welcome. Please, though, I ask that you first actually read the posts I've made (in all three related threads) before making any comments of disagreement. That way, those who have already read my posts will not have to re-read them again if you bring up points that have already been addressed and I then have to re-post pieces of them again.

Okay, so we've now heard all about the problems of feminine modesty versus male doctors...so, what about some practical solutions to deal with these issues. This really is the role of the Church to be creative enough to come up with solutions to protect those things that God's Word deems as precious and worthy of protection. Rather than us throwing up our hands and allowing the World to dictate these areas of our lives, we should always naturally desire to make provisions in the world so that our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are protected from spiritual harm to their hearts and marriages. [1 Corinthians 6:1-8] To that end, I would start by suggesting a few simple solutions that would set this area of our culture back into healthy balance and would protect the hearts of those around us once more: 1) Instead of churches spending millions of dollars on flashy building projects, mega churches, and sports facilities (etc)...perhaps we should care more about encouraging modesty in women and protecting them from being violated by men. One way to do this would be for churches to raise money for and encourage more women to go to medical school on FREE (church paid) scholarships. This would dramatically increase the number of female doctors available to treat female patients. 2) Churches should unite to fund and run Christian medical schools for separate genders. Only females will work at, teach, and learn in the ALL FEMALE college and only the female anatomy would be studied. As well...the ALL MALE colleges will only be for males and only male anatomy would be studied. These schools would, of course, meet every governmental standard for all forms of medical care and would be EXTREMELY affordable (if not free) for women. 3) Churches should unite to fund and run real Christian hospitals for separate genders. The hospital for females will be in a separate (unconnected) building than the hospitals for males. The cost of care at such hospitals would be minimal. Before we claim that this is unrealistic for churches to afford...it's really just a matter of creativity and changing priorities. It can be done. These are just a few ideas, off the top of my head, and I'm SURE many others could put their heads together in the Church to come up with even better ideas to remedy this modern ill in our society. Christians are supposed to care more about protecting our women from forced or fear based immodesty than we do about flashy worship buildings and sports venues. The Church needs to get back to building life giving hospitals moreso than entertaining worship theaters. I don't have a problems with building awesome churches, but we need to care for the more important matters first in our culture...and then build our awesome churches later. My take.

Yes because seperate schools doesn't sound at all like the sexism in the 19th century.

1 and 3 aren't bad ideas...they fall in line with the idea of churches being a blessing to a community rather than taking from it. But (without being an expert on the matter) I'm going to say you can not meet the proper standards to be licensed as a doctor without studying both male and female anatomy.

What about those females who want to be seen by a male doctor or vice versa? What about those who ascribe to neither the male or female gender? Gender is a social construct, whereas sex is biological. That means that you're talking about sexed hospital etc rather than gendered. From what you are saying that means that someone who is biologically male yet gendered female for lack of better words can go to a female only hospital etc. How do you take into account such things? Unfortunatly, the world is not straight black and white when it comes to male and females.

[color=#0000FF][b]KattyKit wrote:[/b] [quote]Yes because seperate schools doesn't sound at all like the sexism in the 19th century.[/quote][/color] Or perhaps you have just been deceived in your secular influenced education regarding past generations of Christians. Maybe we're not intellectually and morally superior to Christians of the 19th Century. Maybe, in reality, the separate schools had less to do with men not respecting women and more to do with a healthy understanding of the differences between men and women. Maybe the [u]men[/u] who were actually behind the movements for mixed sex schooling, women's right to vote, women's right to smoke, women's right to work outside the home, women's right to choose...were actually just using those things to manipulate women in the eventual goal of the breakup of the family (though some of those things are perfectly fine in and of themselves). Maybe these same men were interested in collecting the revenue of taxes made from the other half of the head of each family, separating husbands and wives (through so called feminism), and separating the children from their parents (to be schooled and propagandized by the secular satanically run state) in the end. Maybe, just maybe...they've done quite well in their goals. Look around us. We're much worse off morally and as families (over 50% divorce rate) than those of the 19th Century. Just a thought. Please do the research. [color=#0000FF][b]serfofChrist92 wrote:[/b] [quote]1 and 3 aren't bad ideas...they fall in line with the idea of churches being a blessing to a community rather than taking from it. But (without being an expert on the matter) I'm going to say you can not meet the proper standards to be licensed as a doctor without studying both male and female anatomy.[/quote][/color] That is really part of the point. Such "standards" need to change back to what is good and natural once again. Recently, congress passed a bill that actually legalized bestiality in the military. No one seems to understand why this was tucked into the NDAA bill, but many think it's probably to keep themselves out of legal trouble as they experiment with part animal part human hybrids (for "super soldiers" etc)...I don't know why, but the point is that they did legalize it for the military. Also, recently they've been struggling to get a bill passed that will require doctors to be trained and perhaps even have to perform abortions in order to become "a licensed" physician/doctor. From what I know it didn't pass, but the point is that what our secular society or corrupt government requires for standards to be licensed as a physician is not always good and is in desperate need of reform. That's what we as Christians should be in this world...not conforming to it, but showing forth the light of truth by example before them. Fight the good fight. [color=#0000FF][b]keyseya wrote:[/b] [quote]What about those females who want to be seen by a male doctor or vice versa? What about those who ascribe to neither the male or female gender? Gender is a social construct, whereas sex is biological. That means that you're talking about sexed hospital etc rather than gendered. From what you are saying that means that someone who is biologically male yet gendered female for lack of better words can go to a female only hospital etc. How do you take into account such things? Unfortunatly, the world is not straight black and white when it comes to male and females.[/quote][/color] Yes, I'm aware. There are also men and women who swear on their life that they have a natural sexual attraction to animals (bestiality) or to children (pedophilia). There are also those who claim that child sacrifice (abortion) is their God given right to choose. Are we, as Christians, really willing to shape and conform the institutions we create to accommodate to such lifestyles? Should Christian clinics offer abortion services to women? Should Christian churches offer to perform marriage ceremonies between a woman and her dog or a man and his 7 year old daughter? After all, this is what they feel is their natural attraction and who are you to argue against such feelings and say they are any less legitimate than a man being sexually attracted to his own gender. I hope most Christians here will have enough discernment of right and wrong to answer NO to all of these questions. And, so, neither should we shape our Christian institutions to support any lifestyle that is not truly natural and good according to the Word of God. If a man has unnatural sexual desire for another man, and he comes to a Christian hospital for men, he will just have to do as he is expected to do in mixed gender hospitals today. There's no good reason, whatever sexuality a man perceives himself to be (homosexual, pedophile, etc) that women should be exposed to him. The Bible is clear about this matter. For more information on what Scripture has to say about this subject, feel free to read through the following thread: What Is & Is Not Porn [url]http://www.mypraize.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=214&func=view&id=474266&catid=2[/url]

After doing some searching, the version of the bill that outright struck [url=http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles/925-article-125-sodomy]Article 125[/url] from UCMJ was only passed by the Senate. The version that was signed into law [url=http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:2619]says[/url]: "(2) by striking the item relating to section 925 (article 125)." What this means exactly, I don't know. Article 125 [i]is[/i] still on the UCMJ website for now; 180 days after 30DEC2011 would put the bill going into effect sometime at the end of this month (by my count June 28). I guess that's all a drawn out way of saying you're right. The portion of UCMJ that prohibits sodomy also prohibits bestiality. Rather than amending the section, it looks like they removed it altogether (we'll know for sure in 18 days). As for the slippery slope argument, that legal recognition of consenting homosexual unions will encourage bestiality and pedophilia, it is worth noting that the key difference between homosexuality and the latter acts is that the first requires consent. As it is now, a minor *cannot* legally consent. An animal *cannot* legally consent. Most reasonable people will agree with this. Thus, legal recognition of homosexuality does not automatically imply that tomorrow we won't be able to justify saying no to pedophiles or other creeps. Maybe the only difference is that bestiality and pedophilia are both currently socially unacceptable; if you change that, you can easily play with the rationality that prohibits both acts. But at least for now, there is a valid rational argument that nullifies the slippery slope.