Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Bob said:

So does a union have the "right" to decide to ordain a dog, a parakeet, a dolphin, a two-year-old, a sodomite, an unrepentant mass murderer, etc.? Is this so-called "right" so absolute that a union can decide to ordain someone who isn't a "man" when GC Working Policy requires that an ordination candidate be a man (L 45 10; L 50)?

Read it carefully.  Bob asks us to consider the claimed right to ordain females on the same level as a right to ordain a dog, sodomite, a 2-year old. 
]

Rather than belittle the point, address it.

You, as well as others, have asserted that the unions have an absolute right to decide to ordain anyone or anything they please, irregardless of GC Session votes, which position is contrary to established GC and NAD Working Policy. I have pointed out the logical inconsistency of that assertion, and I think by doing so have made it clear that neither you nor anyone else really believes that assertion.

The fact of the matter is that you don't believe that the unions have the right to decide to ordain a 2-year-old or a sodomite or a dog or an aardvark. You don't believe that the unions have the right to decide to ordain anyone or anything they please. Therefore, why not concede that you were mistaken, and then look for some other justification for the present rebellion?

[Gregory]

Bob is clear  He placs the ordination of females on the level of a dog.

He has revealed more than he intended, perhaps?

[Artiste]

You are attempting to sidestep the issue by scorn and sarcasm, Gregory.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob is clear  He placs the ordination of females on the level of a dog.

He has revealed more than he intended, perhaps?

Still refuse to address the point?

I had no intention to make any such comparison. If you find my choice of possibilities too distracting, simply remove the distracting words from the list and put in other words you find more appealing. Would peacocks, gold rings, and roses be more acceptable?

I think we have hit on a similarity between the gay rights agenda and the women's ordination agenda. The one claims an absolute right of an individual to marry whomever they want, and the other claims an absolute right for unions to decide to ordain whomever they want. But in reality, no one is comfortable in taking such claims to their logical conclusion. No gay rights or women's ordination proponent wants to take the position that people or unions have an absolute right to marry or decide to ordain a peacock or a rose or a two-year-old.

Thus, if we are going to approach these questions in an honest and open manner, the absolute right argument should be abandoned by the gay rights and women ordination proponents since they don't really believe it themselves after all.

[Gregory]

You are attempting to sidestep the issue by scorn and sarcasm, Gregory.

Absolutely not.  I am very serious.

I have referenced a reason for my belief that the Unions have the decison making authority.  I understand why Bob does not agree with that position and he has a point that should be considered.

I am not in any way being sarcastic.  My comments are very serious.   I firmly believe that he has placed women on a level with dogs.  If he did not intend to do such, I will suggest that he intended scorn and sarcasm.  But, even in that case I would still say that he has cpmpared women dogs and equated their attempt  to be ordained with the same value as an attempt to ordain dogs would have.  Believe me, I am not beng scornful and I am not being sarcastic.  I am 100% serious.

Further, I believe that the issue of ordination to ministry is a serious spiritual issue. 
Bob, by his comment, in my opinion has taken a very serious spiritual issue and trivialized it to the point where i find it very offensive.  The whole idea, in my thinking is very offinsive spiritually to attempt to equate ordination to dogs.

I think that my old and dead, grandmother would ask Bob to wash his mouth out with the old time soap that farmers used to make on the farm.

Bob raises many points that are worthy of consideration, regardless of whether or not they are accepted.  I often understand him even when i disagree with him.  But, when he made those  comments, he crossed a line in my opinion and became very inappropriate.

[Snoopy]

I agree, Gregory.  And as a woman, I take serious offense to being equated with a homosexual.  Bob has indeed crossed a line, but it isn't the first time and it won't be the last.  The last couple of months here have been quite a learning experience!!     

But one thing is certain - I chose the right screen name - at least according to Bob!!

 

[Bob Pickle]

I have referenced a reason for my belief that the Unions have the decison making authority.

Where have you given any reference that unions have unrestricted authority to ordain anyone?

If he did not intend to do such, I will suggest that he intended scorn and sarcasm.

I did not. I was simply making the point that no one believes that the unions have such unlimited authority. The same point has been made in the gay marriage debate: Can someone decide to marry their dog or cat? At no time when such a point has been made have I ever thought that anyone was intending scorn or sarcasm by making such a point.

But, even in that case I would still say that he has cpmpared women dogs and equated their attempt  to be ordained with the same value as an attempt to ordain dogs would have.

Would you then argue that someone who asks, Does someone have a right to marry their dog or cat?, is putting the same value on marrying a pet as on marrying someone of the same gender? I would not. Instead, the person making that point is simply pointing out that there is no divine basis for either absurdity.

Bob, by his comment, in my opinion has taken a very serious spiritual issue and trivialized it to the point where i find it very offensive.

False. But if you want to talk about finding offense, if you want to come here and use AdventTalk as a platform for promoting rebellion, I find that very offensive. And rebellion is definitely a spiritual issue:

1 Samuel 15:23  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

"'Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.' Rebellion originated with Satan, and all rebellion against God is directly due to satanic influence. Those who set themselves against the government of God have entered into an alliance with the archapostate, and he will exercise his power and cunning to captivate the senses and mislead the understanding. He will cause everything to appear in a false light. Like our first parents, those who are under his bewitching spell see only the great benefits to be received by transgression" (PP 635).

And so we see that dabbling with rebellion is akin to playing around with seances.

The question then remains as to whether the present rebellion against GC Session votes and properly constituted church authority, the latter of which is listed in the Church Manual as grounds for church discipline, constitutes rebellion against God. For the answer to that, see 9T 260-261.

The whole idea, in my thinking is very offinsive spiritually to attempt to equate ordination to dogs.

Then don't raise the issue. I certainly didn't. The only issue I raised was whether you or anyone else really believes that the unions have an absolute right to ordain whomever or whatever they want to.

I think that my old and dead, grandmother would ask Bob to wash his mouth out with the old time soap that farmers used to make on the farm.

Speaking of old, dead grandmothers, or any other dead female, 2 years old or 100 years old, do unions have an absolute right to ordain dead people? Or are they restricted by GC and NAD policy, as well as Scripture, to only ordain the living?

Or, rather than give the obvious answer to that question since it destroys a key argument used in the current rebellion, will you instead attack the question?

[Bob Pickle]

And as a woman, I take serious offense to being equated with a homosexual.

I never equated women with homosexuals. I merely showed a similarity between the women's ordination debate and the gay marriage debate.

The link between the two agendas was pointed out long, long ago by C. Raymond Holmes in his book Tip of an Iceberg. His points were based on his own personal observations as a Lutheran pastor as he saw his denomination (and other denominations) abandon holding Scripture as the ultimate authority for doctrine. He stated that it was the women's ordination debate the led to that abandonment, and to gay rights agitation and the acceptance of practicing homosexual preachers.

I am unaware of anyone attributing what happened in these other denominations to other causes, but I certainly could have missed something.

Ellen White gave as a reason for vegetarianism the avoidance of cruelty to animals, if I recall correctly. That valid concept certainly doesn't equate people and animals.

[Artiste]

if you want to come here and use AdventTalk as a platform for promoting rebellion, I find that very offensive. And rebellion is definitely a spiritual issue:

1 Samuel 15:23  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft

Since the Advent talk forum is dedicated to Biblical principles and church unity, I also find it offensive when members attempt to use this site to promote views that are going against church leadership and the world church. 

[Murcielago]

Bob is clear  He placs the ordination of females on the level of a dog.

He has revealed more than he intended, perhaps?

Still refuse to address the point?

I had no intention to make any such comparison. If you find my choice of possibilities too distracting, simply remove the distracting words from the list and put in other words you find more appealing. Would peacocks, gold rings, and roses be more acceptable?

I think we have hit on a similarity between the gay rights agenda and the women's ordination agenda. The one claims an absolute right of an individual to marry whomever they want, and the other claims an absolute right for unions to decide to ordain whomever they want. But in reality, no one is comfortable in taking such claims to their logical conclusion. No gay rights or women's ordination proponent wants to take the position that people or unions have an absolute right to marry or decide to ordain a peacock or a rose or a two-year-old.

Thus, if we are going to approach these questions in an honest and open manner, the absolute right argument should be abandoned by the gay rights and women ordination proponents since they don't really believe it themselves after all.

Perhaps using something realistic would make the question/point valid. As it is, it comes across as a rhetorical question that is not meant to be answered.

[Snoopy]

I have referenced a reason for my belief that the Unions have the decison making authority.

Where have you given any reference that unions have unrestricted authority to ordain anyone?

If he did not intend to do such, I will suggest that he intended scorn and sarcasm.

I did not. I was simply making the point that no one believes that the unions have such unlimited authority. The same point has been made in the gay marriage debate: Can someone decide to marry their dog or cat? At no time when such a point has been made have I ever thought that anyone was intending scorn or sarcasm by making such a point.

But, even in that case I would still say that he has cpmpared women dogs and equated their attempt  to be ordained with the same value as an attempt to ordain dogs would have.

Would you then argue that someone who asks, Does someone have a right to marry their dog or cat?, is putting the same value on marrying a pet as on marrying someone of the same gender? I would not. Instead, the person making that point is simply pointing out that there is no divine basis for either absurdity.

Bob, by his comment, in my opinion has taken a very serious spiritual issue and trivialized it to the point where i find it very offensive.

False. But if you want to talk about finding offense, if you want to come here and use AdventTalk as a platform for promoting rebellion, I find that very offensive. And rebellion is definitely a spiritual issue:

1 Samuel 15:23  For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

"'Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.' Rebellion originated with Satan, and all rebellion against God is directly due to satanic influence. Those who set themselves against the government of God have entered into an alliance with the archapostate, and he will exercise his power and cunning to captivate the senses and mislead the understanding. He will cause everything to appear in a false light. Like our first parents, those who are under his bewitching spell see only the great benefits to be received by transgression" (PP 635).

And so we see that dabbling with rebellion is akin to playing around with seances.

The question then remains as to whether the present rebellion against GC Session votes and properly constituted church authority, the latter of which is listed in the Church Manual as grounds for church discipline, constitutes rebellion against God. For the answer to that, see 9T 260-261.

The whole idea, in my thinking is very offinsive spiritually to attempt to equate ordination to dogs.

Then don't raise the issue. I certainly didn't. The only issue I raised was whether you or anyone else really believes that the unions have an absolute right to ordain whomever or whatever they want to.

I think that my old and dead, grandmother would ask Bob to wash his mouth out with the old time soap that farmers used to make on the farm.

Speaking of old, dead grandmothers, or any other dead female, 2 years old or 100 years old, do unions have an absolute right to ordain dead people? Or are they restricted by GC and NAD policy, as well as Scripture, to only ordain the living?

Or, rather than give the obvious answer to that question since it destroys a key argument used in the current rebellion, will you instead attack the question?

Looks like somebody hit a nerve.  Apparently, AdventTalk is a place where the rules evolve as we go along.

So, if one supports female ordination they are deemed "a rebel" by Bob.  And since it's his forum, he can do and say what he wants...  I get it.  Well Bob - if you are any indication of what heaven is to be like, I'm not sure I want to be there.  Maybe I'll just have to take my chances on the other side.

[Johann]

What don't people do when they discover they have no real argument left to defend their own bias?

[Bob Pickle]

So, if one supports female ordination they are deemed "a rebel" by Bob.

Not at all. If you read the comments on the Mid-America Union website, Columbia Union website, and other websites, you will find pro-WO individuals and undecided individuals denouncing the present rebellion too.

Lynn wrote:

I am saddened by this decision.  I truly do not know if ordination of women is needed or Biblical. That part is confusing to me.  I do know that rebellion is not pleasing to the Lord.  We have been asked to hold off on doing this until/unless adopted by the whole World Church so that there is no division or side-taking.  Constituents that voted this, would it not have been better to wait it out, go forward in unity?

Sue Dalton wrote:

If the GC had voted for it, then I would not have a problem with women being ordained but they didn't and I accept their decision. ...  May God help those in open rebellion and all those who will join you.

A really good one by a pro-WO Mid-America pastor, I think that's probably somewhere on Spectrum or AToday's site.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob is clear  He placs the ordination of females on the level of a dog.

He has revealed more than he intended, perhaps?

Still refuse to address the point?

I had no intention to make any such comparison. If you find my choice of possibilities too distracting, simply remove the distracting words from the list and put in other words you find more appealing. Would peacocks, gold rings, and roses be more acceptable?

I think we have hit on a similarity between the gay rights agenda and the women's ordination agenda. The one claims an absolute right of an individual to marry whomever they want, and the other claims an absolute right for unions to decide to ordain whomever they want. But in reality, no one is comfortable in taking such claims to their logical conclusion. No gay rights or women's ordination proponent wants to take the position that people or unions have an absolute right to marry or decide to ordain a peacock or a rose or a two-year-old.

Thus, if we are going to approach these questions in an honest and open manner, the absolute right argument should be abandoned by the gay rights and women ordination proponents since they don't really believe it themselves after all.

Perhaps using something realistic would make the question/point valid. As it is, it comes across as a rhetorical question that is not meant to be answered.

How would you suggest wording the question?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

They have the right to change the Sabbath Day worship, the ordination of adulterers, the ordination of practicing Gays and Lesbians. They have the "RIGHT" to adopt macro-evolution as a statement of Faith...and then THE WORLD CHURCH has the right to disband these rebellious organizations and to pull the credentials of ALL the field workers in that field, including CHAPLAINS!!!

Keep that in mind as you endorse, implicitly or explicitly, rebellion against the World Church!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Unions have a right to hold special Union meetings.  They have the right to decide on who is to be ordained.