Print

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

[christian]

My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.

Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.

I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.

Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.

[Artiste]

You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.

[Murcielago]

You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.

[Artiste]

See the new topic on "gender neutrality".

[Murcielago]

See the new topic on "gender neutrality".

Oh. Thanks.

[christian]

You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.

That is exactly what I am implying. The people who say that is not the issue are fooling themselves. Already scientist and others are saying that people are born gay. Once the church votes that it is gender neutral it sets itself up to being sued for discrimination.
And before people say that is crazy think about this. The Jewish people were suppose to usher in the Savior of the world. Actually, the very purpose for their existence as a nation was for that purpose. However when the Savior of the world came they murdered him, exactly opposite of what their design was suppose to be.

[Dedication]

My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.

Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.

I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.

Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.

Could you please explain what in my comment led you to think I want to be gender neutral?
I'm very happy to be a woman.   I do NOT want to be an ordained minister.  \

I just find some of these arguments to be rather on the desperate side to keep women in their place.

[Dedication]

You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.

Well said!!!!
And I'll say it again for emphases.

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference (propensity)

[christian]

You're right, Christian, and the next "gender neutral" action would logically be to include homosexuals as church clergy, a topic that is already being raised by some.

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.

Well said!!!!
And I'll say it again for emphases.

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference (propensity)

And I will say it again for emphasis.

The movement is that Homosexuality is a gender, not a sexual preference. Most Homosexuals believe that they were born that way and that it is not a choice.

[Dedication]

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference.

Well said!!!!
And I'll say it again for emphases.

Homosexuality is not a gender, it a sexual preference (propensity)

And I will say it again for emphasis.

The movement is that Homosexuality is a gender, not a sexual preference. Most Homosexuals believe that they were born that way and that it is not a choice.

So does the church make it's decisions on what a "movement" defines as a gender, or on what
God defines as a gender?

Do we attack a God given gender, because the world introduced a concept that isn't real?

[Johann]

My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.

Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.

I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.

Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.

Could you please explain what in my comment led you to think I want to be gender neutral?
I'm very happy to be a woman.   I do NOT want to be an ordained minister.  \

I just find some of these arguments to be rather on the desperate side to keep women in their place.

Welcome to Advent Talk, Ulicia. You are not the only one who finds these arguments on the desperate side. If you followed the arguments, including what president Ted Wilson said at the CUC meeting, not one of the opponents of ordaining women used a valid argument against the question, except their definition of unity and authority.

These people keep claiming they have Scripture and Ellen White on their side, but the real evidence is nowhere in sight, unless they interpret Scripture in a way that would discredit the Spirit of Prophecy, and who wants to be caught doing that?

This is the reason why you find all of these desperate arguments.

There are some in ----- who ought to be men instead of boys and heavenly minded instead of earthly and sensual; but their spiritual vision has become obscured; the Saviour’s great love has not ravished their souls. He has many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. You are children in growth and cannot comprehend the mysteries of God. When God raises up men to do His work, they are false to their trust if they allow their testimony to be shaped to please the minds of the unconsecrated. He will prepare men for the times. They will be humble, God-fearing men, not conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord. They will be kind, noble, courteous; yet they will not be swayed from the right path, but will proclaim the truth in righteousness whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. {5T 263.1}

True leaders, according to this, will not be "conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord."

[christian]

My opinion --
A lot of people don't see it so much as opposing the General Conference, they tend to see the Adventist Church as an American Institution being told by third world countries (where women are regarded as lessor creatures) what they can and can't do.
Adventism, even though the General Conference office is still in America, now has it's greatest membership outside of America, so they now have a larger vote.

Of course there are people in America who are against women ordination as well, so it isn't a clear cut thing here, but the battle of cultures is playing its role here.

I'm not sure it really is a battle of cultures. If our members in other countries base their opposition on Scripture rather than culture, it really isn't a battle of cultures.

Bob, notice they want to be gender neutual.

Could you please explain what in my comment led you to think I want to be gender neutral?
I'm very happy to be a woman.   I do NOT want to be an ordained minister.  \

I just find some of these arguments to be rather on the desperate side to keep women in their place.

Welcome to Advent Talk, Ulicia. You are not the only one who finds these arguments on the desperate side. If you followed the arguments, including what president Ted Wilson said at the CUC meeting, not one of the opponents of ordaining women used a valid argument against the question, except their definition of unity and authority.

These people keep claiming they have Scripture and Ellen White on their side, but the real evidence is nowhere in sight, unless they interpret Scripture in a way that would discredit the Spirit of Prophecy, and who wants to be caught doing that?

This is the reason why you find all of these desperate arguments.

There are some in ----- who ought to be men instead of boys and heavenly minded instead of earthly and sensual; but their spiritual vision has become obscured; the Saviour’s great love has not ravished their souls. He has many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. You are children in growth and cannot comprehend the mysteries of God. When God raises up men to do His work, they are false to their trust if they allow their testimony to be shaped to please the minds of the unconsecrated. He will prepare men for the times. They will be humble, God-fearing men, not conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord. They will be kind, noble, courteous; yet they will not be swayed from the right path, but will proclaim the truth in righteousness whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. {5T 263.1}

True leaders, according to this, will not be "conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord."

 Interpreting the scriptures in a way that is consistent with the scriptures is not discrediting Ellen G. White. Please stop trying to put your words into other peoples mouth and minds. We have consistently said that men and women have different roles and how that discredits Ellen G. White is a mystery to me. We have all concluded that there are exceptions to the rule and circumstances that arise where God works outside the norm, however there is no scriptural evidence that this is a call for a gender neutral approach. Both the concept that God used Ellen G. White and the concept that women and men have different roles are compatible in every way.

The fact that you come to a conclusion on the basis of someone elses argument, in no way means that is the conclusion of others, they are just that, your conclusions. Again, woman's roles and the role of Ellen G. White are completely compatible. There are not desperate arguments but rational ones based on the Biblical principles of the church and based on the makeup of men and women. It is you that cannot seem to see what is right before your face. God made men and women different but equal. The woman was made with breast for child birth to rear the children and the man was given the main responsibility to be the head of the church and the head of the family. Neither position was to be looked at as above the other.   

[Bob Pickle]

James Greene justified his intended rebellion against the GC Session votes in this letter: http://www.columbiaunion.org/site/1/July%20Constituency/7-24-2012%20Ltr%20to%20Ted%20Wilson%20GC%20President.pdf.

In it he argues that Fundamental Belief # 14 is opposed to the GC Session votes, and he pretends that the GC Session votes were only a recommendation (... I must at this time vote against this recommendation of the General Conference in Session ...).

One thing Greene fails to notice is that FB # 14 recognizes that there are indeed distinctions between male and female. FB # 14 does not say that there are no distinctions. It merely says that those distinctions should not be divisive.

And thus FB # 14 does not deny what we all acknowledge as absolute truth, that there are things that only men can do, and there are things that only women can do. Our roles in God's creation are different. Only women have babies.

[Gregory]

Le1)t us look a bit more at the letter the Bob cites and the fundamental belief that is quoted:

1)  The fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church are focused on spiritual issues.  They are not focused on issues of anatomy.  IOW, they do not deal with whether or not males have breasts on which children can nurse.  OUr beleifs do not address the issue as to whether or nto men can give birth.  Whether or not men can nurse children and give birth has nothing to do with the spiritual roles that men and women play in spiritual nuture.

2)  The underlying fundamental belief says:  " . . . differences between . . . male and female, must not be divisive among us.  We are all equal in Christ, . . . we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.  . . . We reach out in one witness to all.   This unity has its source int he oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children.?


The position of the author of the letter that Bob cites is that the cited fundamental belief clearly calls for no distisnction between males and females in the spiritual service that they give to the denomination.  I will suggest that position is correct.

This issue is complex.  Honest people do see it differently.  It is not fair to individuals involved to claim that those who favor the action of the Ckolumbia Union Conference are advocating rebellion and/'or are in rebellion.

Questions as to whether or not men can nurse and give birth simply make us look foolinsh.

One shoud argue their position on the basis of theBible and prior church practice.;  Again I will point out:  EGW carried the credentials of an ordained minister for years.  She filled a position of spiritual leadership.  So, did other women, one of whom was a Conference President for a short time.
 

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory,

I think you are muddying the waters regarding the point that I made. FB 14 acknowledges that there are differences between the roles of men and women. Greene wants to pretend that it does not.

This issue is complex.  Honest people do see it differently.  It is not fair to individuals involved to claim that those who favor the action of the Ckolumbia Union Conference are advocating rebellion and/'or are in rebellion.

No, it is not unfair, and the issue is not complex. The issue is super simple. In 1990 and 1995 people in North America asked the highest church authority on earth under God to permit them to ordain women, and the answer was "NO." Like rebellious teenagers, James Greene and others are rebelling against those votes, without any clear authorization in the Bible or SoP to justify their actions.

Read again what Greene wrote: "... I must at this time vote against this recommendation of the General Conference in Session ...." Since when was the 1990 and 1995 votes mere recommendations? Since when? And since they weren't, why is Greene calling them such? And why is Greene publicly stating that he is refusing to obey the highest authority on earth under God? How dare he!