Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Snoopy]

I'm not sure why we need three different threads on this topic.





EDIT:  OK - fixed that.

[Alex L. Walker]

I believe he has, Snoopy.

[Bob Pickle]

They have not gone as far as you accuse them of doing, although they advocate the possibility of going further in the future than what your Rome-inspired ideology claims to be right.

That's not how published reports have portrayed their votes. When asked for clarification, one individual declined to say that they would not move forward now. I repeat, when explicitly asked for clarification on this particular point, one individual declined to say that they would not move forward now.

Please knock off the "Rome-inspired" stuff.

[Snoopy]

I believe he has, Snoopy.

Thanks for that Alex.  I just saw his response in another thread on the same topic.   However, I disagree with him.

[Bob Pickle]

Welcome back, GJ.  You never fail to show with a bang.  You are soo funny!  Proceeed!

Artiste, you know I don't believe in evolution, and I do respect other's beliefs mainly because I have no heaven or hell to put them in, so if God allows them to be where they are, what else can I do?  However, I do believe that homosexual activity to be a sin, but no greater than any other.  I believe in ordination of women, because ordination(not the laying on of hands like in the Bible) is some that is man made and subject to discriminatory actions by men(and some women) in order to maintain "control".  There are too many instances in the Bible of women, in authority to men both politically and spiritually(just for two examples, Miriam, Deborah, Anna...I'll throw in a NT example to show consistency).  So, if God placed women in authority when He ruled Israel, Why would I? If God not only said it, but gave His own example of it, that is good enough for me.  No rationalization by men about why they should be in control can sway me.  It is also part of SDA history. We had women who were ordained(30+ during the time of EGW.).  SDAS only took issue with this after those women and EGW died.  So at this point, we are inconsistent at best.  But you know to each his own........If God'w own example is not good enough then as I said, proceed..........

Di, no one questions whether a woman can be called to be a prophet.

Do you know the names of any women ordained prior to Ellen White's death?

The 1881 GC Session did not approve a resolution to ordain women, and that was the only resolution of 40 that they did not approve. On what basis do you think that this only became an issue after Ellen White died in 1915, when that resolution was not adopted 34 years earlier?

[Bob Pickle]

I believe he has, Snoopy.

Thanks for that Alex.  I just saw his response in another thread on the same topic.   However, I disagree with him.

Do you disagree with the use of the text in question, or with the idea that it is the role that matters, not the service itself?

[Snoopy]

I disagree with your argument based on that text.  Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not ordain women".  I agree with Murcielago's point that it is quite possible that such a prohibition exists only in the minds and on the agendas of church leaders.  Saying that a women should not usurp man's authority is absurd in today's world.

[Bob Pickle]

I disagree with your argument based on that text.  Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not ordain women".  I agree with Murcielago's point that it is quite possible that such a prohibition exists only in the minds and on the agendas of church leaders.  Saying that a women should not usurp man's authority is absurd in today's world.

That isn't the only text on the question, but we can start with that one. What do you think Paul was saying in that text?

Note that Paul uses creation-based and fall-based arguments to support his position, whatever that position may be.

If today's world is what makes Paul's statement absurd, then that illustrates the problem. Other denominations that have grappled with this issue ended up having to also grapple with whether they should ordain practicing homosexuals. Many would claim that in today's world, not ordaining such would be absurd.

For Adventists there is a greater issue: If today's culture mandates that we set aside some texts, then what about the Sabbath/Sunday issue? In today's world the culture is different than in Bible times, and Sunday is now a special day in society rather than the Sabbath. Must we be so rigid regarding the text that we stick with the Sabbath despite today's culture?

So what we need to ensure unity is a way to deal with Paul's statements that does not set aside the text because of today's culture. Unfortunately, this is a major weakness in the women's ordination camp, and that is a big reason why they have not been more persuasive.

[Snoopy]

I didn't say to set the text aside, or any other.  I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the text.

And sorry, but it will be a cold day you know where before I listen to a sermon preached by a practicing homosexual, male or not male!!!

[Alex L. Walker]

Please define a practicing homosexual, Snoopy.

[Alex L. Walker]

Snoopy: Do you believe it is wrong for someone who admits they are homosexual to preach if they have not ever engaged in homosexual sex and if so why?

[Murcielago]

I disagree with your argument based on that text.  Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not ordain women".  I agree with Murcielago's point that it is quite possible that such a prohibition exists only in the minds and on the agendas of church leaders.  Saying that a women should not usurp man's authority is absurd in today's world.

That isn't the only text on the question, but we can start with that one. What do you think Paul was saying in that text?

Note that Paul uses creation-based and fall-based arguments to support his position, whatever that position may be.

If today's world is what makes Paul's statement absurd, then that illustrates the problem. Other denominations that have grappled with this issue ended up having to also grapple with whether they should ordain practicing homosexuals. Many would claim that in today's world, not ordaining such would be absurd.

For Adventists there is a greater issue: If today's culture mandates that we set aside some texts, then what about the Sabbath/Sunday issue? In today's world the culture is different than in Bible times, and Sunday is now a special day in society rather than the Sabbath. Must we be so rigid regarding the text that we stick with the Sabbath despite today's culture?

So what we need to ensure unity is a way to deal with Paul's statements that does not set aside the text because of today's culture. Unfortunately, this is a major weakness in the women's ordination camp, and that is a big reason why they have not been more persuasive.

Perhaps we do set aside some texts? Romans 14:14, 1 Timothy 4:1-4

[Snoopy]

Please define a practicing homosexual, Snoopy.

Ask Bob - I was responding to what he posted.

[Snoopy]

Snoopy: Do you believe it is wrong for someone who admits they are homosexual to preach if they have not ever engaged in homosexual sex and if so why?

I don't see your point.

[Alex L. Walker]

 My question is do you have an issue with someone who believes they are homosexual pastoring a church or being ordained if they have never engaged in homosexual sex.

If God created some humans to be attracted to the same sex....that being it is not a choice....do you have an issue with a homosexual preaching if they have chosen not to engage in homosexual sex.