Print

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

[christian]

  You may not see the correlation but it is definitely there and you will see the results in the future. What you fail to realize is that Homosexuality is not against the law as the other examples you mentioned. The fight is not merely a matter of ordination of women but a power struggle of who will control the church. The institution is a representation of heaven here on earth. I have stated before that the desire of Satan is to so pervert the house of God as to make the prodigal son's return impossible. The stakes are high the church is being corrupted and misrepresented and thrown off task. The sinners desire is no longer to flee the church but rather to change the church into their image. Is Jesus no longer the groom or is he the bride now?

Neither is adultery against our country's law.  Neither is promiscuity against our country's law.

Whether this is a power struggle between men and women is another topic.

What I am against is equating women with homosexuals.
If people have to resort to that to defend the "men only" stance, then there is something very wrong.

That is true but neither of those examples are excepted as right. You will be hard pressed to find even people who have went through divorce as saying it is right. Neither will you find very many excepting promiscuity as right. However, you will find many trying to say that homosexuality is something one is born with and there is nothing wrong with it. I stated I believe that homosexuality will eventually be excepted as the norm and as something you are born with, as normal as heterosexuality. I have seen many a person re baptised after divorce or promiscuity, fornication.----- Men and women have bib-lacally been given different roles in the church. I am sure you as a woman can understand that God did not give men breast because it was not his design to have him suckle a child. Again, I believe it is Gods design that men should be the head in the church as in the home. I do believe there are times when women are required to play certain roles not design for them. When men fail to be good fathers, or are not present in the home the mother has to take up the slack but that is not excepted as the norm.

[Dedication]

Just wondering --
Do you deal much with people outside the church?
 If you did you would know that  adultery and promiscuity is the given way of life for most.
There are many strange things accepted as the norm

Many don't get married any more, they just "shack up" till they get bored of each other, then they part and find a new partner or partners.  That's accepted as a norm by A LOT of people.  It's even supported by the government.  A common law partner gets most of the privileges as a married partner now.

I taught children for several years (not in church school) , and oh so many came from broken homes, so many.  It's a sad thing really.   There are MANY mothers with children, with no father anywhere in sight.  Worse is all the mother's boyfriends the poor kids have to put up with.
And yes, it's accepted as normal in our day and age.
Normal simply means that a large percentage of the people experience it, and society accepts it as such.

School textbooks no longer have the classic father, mother, Dick, Jane and baby Sally anymore. 
Now families are depicted as -- mother and couple kids but no father, or father with kids, but no mother.  Or mother with her kids marrying a father with his kids.  Families are depicted now as a group of people living together.   And yes, they are trying to push the two fathers, or two mothers.


The break down of the family is a very real thing in our present society.
Most young men just want to play computer games they aren't interested in being a spiritual leader in home or church.  Mothers are left with the kids usually.  Though sometimes mothers leave the kids with the father and run off after their own illusive dreams.





Personally I don't think equating the women with gays etc. is going to do anything constructive.
It's hurting your cause, not helping it.

[Bob Pickle]

As C. Raymond Holmes explained how this drama has played out in other denominations, it has to do with a church's view of Scripture.

Ordination of women requires explaining away Bible passages as having to do with the culture of Bible times, and thus inapplicable for us today. Once this method of interpretation is adopted, that of making of none effect biblical texts through the use of the culture argument, then there remains no scriptural basis for excluding practicing homosexuals from the clergy or church since the same argument has already been applied to those passages too.

As far as adultery goes, one denomination I think has already gone on record as no longer discriminating against anyone who engages in any sort of sexual sin.

[Bob Pickle]

Come to think of it, in the late 1980's or early 1990's, I was told that there was an Adventist pastor who would "marry" homosexuals.

In 1996 at Andrews I was in a class at Mission Institute, and an instructor referred to some conference on Aids more than once. That jogged my memory and I asked him when he sat down amongst all of us future missionaries, "Why did the Review print two different pictures regarding that conference in which a gay activist was featured prominently?" Most wouldn't have known who the guy was.

He responded, "I don't know why the Review printed the pictures that it did, but the fellow is a Seventh-day Adventist in good and regular standing." I never mentioned the guy's name, but somehow he knew who I was talking about.

I replied, "Why? His church doesn't want to deal with the matter?"

He then proceeded to draw a line with "heterosexual monogamy" at one end, "homosexual promiscuity" at the other end, and "homosexual monogamy" in the middle. He then said that when he preaches to homosexuals, like perhaps at their camp meetings, he tells them to be monogamous.

You should have seen the faces of the other missionaries when he said that. He blew it and he knew it.

I am not saying that a huge push for acceptance of sodomy is around the corner, but we do have people out there with weird, kooky ideas on the subject.

[Artiste]

I don't know how wierd or kooky that is any more.  I belonged to a church during that time period that you mentioned, and the pastor, who was pretty much a personal friend of us there, said something like church people shouldn't try to change the orientation of homosexuals (SDA in this case).

[Johann]

And how long before the use of Ellen White leads to broad justification for putting the Bible aside? I know SDAs who already have. Could that perhaps be the next logical step in the Church if we continue to allow EGW to be used as divine authority? Does that fear justify banning EGW in the Church?

It seems to me that several members of this forum have already "banned" what EGW says about ordaining women, at least they brand those as rebels who take her seriously.

[Dedication]

The cultural implications

1)  Is the Biblical admonition against homosexuality a cultural thing?

No -- it is all through the Bible declared as "an abomination to the Lord".
Leviticus 18  is pretty straight forward against incest and homosexual behavior.
It's a call to LEAVE the culture of surrounding countries and not do these abominations.

Lev. 20 has a list of sins that result in the death penalty, adultery and homosexual behavior among them.
"The wages of sin" is still "death", though Christ suffered that penalty for all sinners, including homosexual sin, and forgiveness and restoration is offered to all who come to Christ for forgiveness and cleansing, yet this clearly shows it is SIN, not a "cultural restriction".

Paul's reference has nothing to do with "policies of the church" but who will and who will not enter heaven!
1 Cor.  6:9   Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
 6:10   Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 




2)  Is ordaining or not ordaining  women a cultural thing?

First I find nothing in scripture saying "to ordain a woman is an abomination to the Lord".
Secondly, what Paul does write concerning women in church  has long ago been relegated to the "cultural bin" by even the most ardent "no ordination for women" people!!

Are women silent in church? -- Paul says he does not allow women to speak in church.
1 Cor. 14:35   And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 

1 Timothy 2:11   Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
 2:12   But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

If people really take Paul seriously we would never have any woman  be an Adult Sabbath School teacher, a Sabbath School Superintendent, or any other office which requires teaching or speaking or having authority over a man.

Now, it is plain that Paul is speaking of CHURCH POLICIES, for he writes
 “...I am writing you these instructions so that ... you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God...” (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

Yes, most all Christians, including Adventists treat these verses as "cultural" and no longer applicable to our day.  Possible some Mennonites still follow it as their women wear little scarfs or hats (another of Paul's commands) and don't allow women up front.



Conclusion:
So Point One is not cultural, it is repeatedly listed in the Bible as SIN.
Point Two is dealing with church policy.

So there is a difference!

Again, my concern is equating women with homosexuals.
To do so means people have accepted the worldly claims that homosexuality is not a sin, just an orientation.
And if that is the case, really, resisting the ordination of women won't stop homosexual's from being ordained -- after all they are still physically men, and when its to their advantage they will claim to be men.

The issue with ordaining homosexual's isn't a gender issue at all, it is whether the church sees homosexual activity as sin or not.



When we as a church get confused as what is sin and what is church policies it seems we need to take a second look.

[Bob Pickle]

The cultural implications

1)  Is the Biblical admonition against homosexuality a cultural thing?

No -- it is all through the Bible declared as "an abomination to the Lord".
Leviticus 18  is pretty straight forward against incest and homosexual behavior.
It's a call to LEAVE the culture of surrounding countries and not do these abominations.

Lev. 20 has a list of sins that result in the death penalty, adultery and homosexual behavior among them.
"The wages of sin" is still "death", though Christ suffered that penalty for all sinners, including homosexual sin, and forgiveness and restoration is offered to all who come to Christ for forgiveness and cleansing, yet this clearly shows it is SIN, not a "cultural restriction".

Paul's reference has nothing to do with "policies of the church" but who will and who will not enter heaven!
1 Cor.  6:9   Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
 6:10   Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree, and so do most of our members. But nevertheless, the culture argument still gets used today, and will get used in the future.

2)  Is ordaining or not ordaining  women a cultural thing?

...

1 Timothy 2:11   Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
 2:12   But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

If people really take Paul seriously we would never have any woman  be an Adult Sabbath School teacher, a Sabbath School Superintendent, or any other office which requires teaching or speaking or having authority over a man.

...

Yes, most all Christians, including Adventists treat these verses as "cultural" and no longer applicable to our day.  Possible some Mennonites still follow it as their women wear little scarfs or hats (another of Paul's commands) and don't allow women up front.

At least certain Church of Christ and Plymouth Brethren groups  do as well.

But here is a problem:

1 Tim. 2:13-14  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

How can Paul's statements be just cultural when he cites Creation and the Fall, events that transcend every human culture, tradition, and policy on earth?

[Gregory]

Is it a sin to be homosexual?  MY answer, No.

Is it a sin to engage in homosexual conduct?  My answer, the Bible says it is.

NOTE:  When I say that it isnot a sin to be homosexual, I do not justify the conduct.  I have known a number of homosexuals who were celebate.  They did not engage in homosexual conduct.

[Artiste]

Is it a sin to be homosexual?  MY answer, No.

Is it a sin to engage in homosexual conduct?  My answer, the Bible says it is.

NOTE:  When I say that it isnot a sin to be homosexual, I do not justify the conduct.  I have known a number of homosexuals who were celebate.  They did not engage in homosexual conduct.

How did you know they weren't engaging?

Did you follow them around and watch closely enough to know for sure?

[christian]

Just wondering --
Do you deal much with people outside the church?
 If you did you would know that  adultery and promiscuity is the given way of life for most.
There are many strange things accepted as the norm

Many don't get married any more, they just "shack up" till they get bored of each other, then they part and find a new partner or partners.  That's accepted as a norm by A LOT of people.  It's even supported by the government.  A common law partner gets most of the privileges as a married partner now.

I taught children for several years (not in church school) , and oh so many came from broken homes, so many.  It's a sad thing really.   There are MANY mothers with children, with no father anywhere in sight.  Worse is all the mother's boyfriends the poor kids have to put up with.
And yes, it's accepted as normal in our day and age.
Normal simply means that a large percentage of the people experience it, and society accepts it as such.

School textbooks no longer have the classic father, mother, Dick, Jane and baby Sally anymore. 
Now families are depicted as -- mother and couple kids but no father, or father with kids, but no mother.  Or mother with her kids marrying a father with his kids.  Families are depicted now as a group of people living together.   And yes, they are trying to push the two fathers, or two mothers.


The break down of the family is a very real thing in our present society.
Most young men just want to play computer games they aren't interested in being a spiritual leader in home or church.  Mothers are left with the kids usually.  Though sometimes mothers leave the kids with the father and run off after their own illusive dreams.





Personally I don't think equating the women with gays etc. is going to do anything constructive.
It's hurting your cause, not helping it.

What you said is so very true, but a lot of the blame goes to the church. We have an obligation to point the world to Jesus but we have become much to preoccupied with success here in this world. In many ways we are worse off than those in the world because they may except their situation but they when expose to truth recognize it.

[Gregory]

Ariste asked:

How did you know they weren't engaging?

How do I know that any person who comes to Christ gives up their sinful behavior and repents?

No, I do not have to followo them arround.

I simply believe in a God who can give people the power to give up their sinful behavior.


who is the God you believe in?  Is your God powerless?

[Murcielago]

Is it a sin to be homosexual?  MY answer, No.

Is it a sin to engage in homosexual conduct?  My answer, the Bible says it is.

NOTE:  When I say that it isnot a sin to be homosexual, I do not justify the conduct.  I have known a number of homosexuals who were celebate.  They did not engage in homosexual conduct.

How did you know they weren't engaging?

Did you follow them around and watch closely enough to know for sure?

Churches where the members are followed and watched are generally known as oppressive and dangerous cults. I would think that if Gregory engaged in that sort of behaviour it would warrant a call to the cops.

[Artiste]

Ariste asked:

How did you know they weren't engaging?

How do I know that any person who comes to Christ gives up their sinful behavior and repents?

No, I do not have to followo them arround.

I simply believe in a God who can give people the power to give up their sinful behavior.

who is the God you believe in?  Is your God powerless?

It is fine to voice high-sounding religious principles.

You said:  "I have known a number of homosexuals who were celebate.  They did not engage in homosexual conduct."

I can say that this is an unlikely scenario, having dealt with hundreds of homosexuals, most of them professionally, but also some who were friends.

(Don't look now, but they may be laughing behind your back...)

[Dedication]

2)  Is ordaining or not ordaining  women a cultural thing?

...

1 Timothy 2:11   Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
 2:12   But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

If people really take Paul seriously we would never have any woman  be an Adult Sabbath School teacher, a Sabbath School Superintendent, or any other office which requires teaching or speaking or having authority over a man.

...

Yes, most all Christians, including Adventists treat these verses as "cultural" and no longer applicable to our day.  Possible some Mennonites still follow it as their women wear little scarfs or hats (another of Paul's commands) and don't allow women up front.

At least certain Church of Christ and Plymouth Brethren groups  do as well.

But here is a problem:

1 Tim. 2:13-14  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

How can Paul's statements be just cultural when he cites Creation and the Fall, events that transcend every human culture, tradition, and policy on earth?

That is a difficult verse to understand:
It says Eve "was deceived and was in transgression".

"Adam was not deceived."
But why is there no comment made in that verse about the fact that he transgressed as well, and if not deceived then it was outright  rebellion.   Sinning wilfully.
If he were a "leader" why didn't he take Eve's hand lead her to God when He came to talk with them, and intercede for her, instead of "sinning wilfully"?   Obviously he didn't trust God, he took things into his own hands.

Of course the Moslems and even some of the Jews back in Christ's day had some pretty strange ideas about women -- women weren't regarded as humans but simply as tempters.   (That's worse than being equated with homosexuals, as it's equating women with satan himself)
There were Pharisees who would close their eyes everytime a woman was in sight, even if they fell and stumbled all over the place because they couldn't see where they were going, they considered their bruises a badge of righteousness.

But beyond the questions that arise concerning this --
the fact still remains that this is NOT talking about ordination.
This is talking about women speaking and teaching and having their ideas upheld over a man's (any man's?) ideas in church.

And our church, even those opposed to ordination, have placed those verses in the cultural bin.

Where we stand now in these issues is basically that a woman can do all the work that an elder or even most pastors do within the local churches -- teaching, speaking in church, leading out in seminars and programs, organizing all sorts of church programs -- basically everything except baptizing new members and doing marriage performances.  And no one thinks there's anything wrong, it's only the question of ordination.   Yet, Paul doesn't talk about ordination.

So -- haven't the "no women ordination" people already shown that they regard these verses as "cultural".?