Print

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

[Daryl Fawcett]

General Counsel?

Are you referring to GC General Counsel, or only to Union General Counsel?

[Bob Pickle]

None of that addresses the question regarding your statement that the Loma Linda University Church wants to split from the denomination. I would still like to know where you heard that, as it is not true. LLUC has never made such a statement, they have never requested to be removed from fellowship with the denomination, and they have never stated any desire or plans to leave the denomination. Anyone who says otherwise needs to show the documentation containing that statement. I am in a position to know if LLUC were to make that drastic a move, and I know very well that they haven't. That accusation is entirely unfounded and untrue.

I spoke with a friend of mine who is mildly pro-WO, and told him that the LLU Church is planning on moving ahead with ordaining women despite the failure to change the PUC bylaws, despite the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes, and maybe I also mentioned GC and NAD Working Policy. I told him what I had written here, that the PUC and the LLU Church were already trying to split from the church.

My friend made two observations:

1. It isn't that they are "trying." They already have.

2. He wouldn't want to say that they are splitting from the church, but that's what's happening.

So I'm not alone in considering this move by the LLU Church as a split, and that was the opinion of someone who is mildly pro-WO.

[Bob Pickle]

If the Unions have the authority to make decisions on ordination it may not be rebellion.

Which of course, you know they don't have. We've already gone over that, remember?

They have authority according to their Constitutions, which were approved by the General Conference.

Their authority comes from God, not their constitutions, and Acts 15 and 9T 260-261 clearly shows that they would be out of line in going contrary to a GC Session. But you repeatedly refused to discuss this insurmountable problem, remember?

And don't forget John Harvey Kellogg, the guy who put human legal documents about truth and righteousness and Scripture, and stole the Battle Creek San away from the denomination.

[Bob Pickle]

One group, which includes a retired General Conference Officer who has published on this, state that the Unions have the authority, based upon their Constitution and By-laws and the General Conference does not have the authority to  override in this issue.    This GC retired officer clearly states that the present attempt by the General Conference to intervene in this issue is an attempt to assert power that the GC does not have.

Are you referring to Gary Patterson, the guy who on this issue misquoted or misrepresented GC Working Policy not once but twice?

[Bob Pickle]

http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/columns/z-columns-by-guest-writers/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors

The above website will give you the perspective of a retired General Conference officer as to why the action of the Unions is legal.

So the misrepresentations of Gary Patterson is what you were referring to. Why did you not mention his obvious errors when you referenced him? Really, Gregory, you should be ashamed of yourself in promoting misinformation like that.

My comments under his article may also be read at that link.

It is the use of misinformation to push the WO cause that prompts me to oppose it all the more.

[Gregory]

Bob said:

So the misrepresentations of Gary Patterson is what you were referring to. Why did you not mention his obvious errors when you referenced him? Really, Gregory, you should be ashamed of yourself in promoting misinformation like that.

My comments under his article may also be read at that link.

1) I was well aware that you had commented on his letter.  I had faith to beleive that people  could read both his comment and yours and determine for themselves what was accurate.

2) As to why I did not mention what you call "obvious errors,"  I did not mention for the same reason that I seldom mention the obvious errors that you make in your posts.  I have treated both you and him the same way.

3) Be ashamed of myself:  You have got to be kidding.   People on this forum are intelligent enough to read the differing opinions and determine truth for themselves.  I am aware that  there are those here who will differ from where I am on points.  But, I am confident that there are those who will differ with me who will also reject some of what you proclaim to be truth.  I say:  Let them make up their minds on both of us.

[Bob Pickle]

People are intelligent, but do not necessarily have enough time to read every last post out of so many in order to discover that what you just did was promote misinformation without any caveats or qualifications. It is irresponsible, Gregory.

[Gregory]

Yes, Bob.  Exactly your view of life here on this forum:  People are not going to read a document.  So, your have to tell them what it says.

You tell me that is is irresponsible to assume that I can post a document without evaulation and wihtout major comment.  I do not think it irresponsible to trust a process where people are given adocument taht they can read and evaulate for themselves.

Well,that is youand your perception of your roe in life:  You arethe one to tell people what a documet says so they do not have to read it for themselves.

[Bob Pickle]

Both you and I have a responsibility and obligation under God to not deceive people. To knowingly post a link to information that you know is misleading without any kind of caveat or clarification fails to meet that responsibility and obligation.

Failing to meet a responsibility in such a manner would qualify as being irresponsible.

That you would even argue the point suggests to me that you did it intentionally hoping that someone would be convinced by the misinformation, and would thus be deceived.

[Gregory]

Bob, as I have said:

1) I have treated you the same.  I do not generally point out the errors in the messags that you post.
2) I have faith that the adults posting here cane evaulate and  come to their own conclusion.
3) I am not going to allow you to definethe boundaries of what and how I post.
4)  I am not going to allow you to manipulate me into responding to your charges, unless I choose to do so.  Yes, I can recognize manipulation when I see it.  You are good at that,  You have learned it well and could teach other how to do such.


Bob, you are acting like you are teaching children and/or you are the one filled with wisdom who should tell the children what is truth.

I have taught adult graduate students, in an accredited school.  In teaching adult graduate students you do not give them spoon-fed answers.  You lead them to sources of information and allow them to develop their skills of review, analysis and evaulation to reach conclusions.   Yes, it is possible that some will not read all that is posted.  I sometimes get the idea that you only partially read stuff.  I have had that idea for years, which date back to my first meeting with you when you were at Eden Valley.  If some do not read all of a posting, that is their problem.  I am not responsible for that.

I have faith in the intellectual ability of the people who post here.  Take Arteste for example.  She and I differ on a number of issues.  Yet her posts reflect careful analysis and reflection.  The same is true for Dedication.  I have to be very careful as to how I respond to her.  If I am not, she spots errors in my post and graciouslly lets me know.  I have sometimes written a post in response to her, gone back to read it and decided that I would look foolish in posting it.  So, I have deleted it without posting it.  My approach to you is that you state your position well for where you are and I am comfortable in people reading your posts without comments from me.


 

[SDAminister]

Bob, as I have said:

1) I have treated you the same.  I do not generally point out the errors in the messags that you post.
2) I have faith that the adults posting here cane evaulate and  come to their own conclusion.
3) I am not going to allow you to definethe boundaries of what and how I post.
4)  I am not going to allow you to manipulate me into responding to your charges, unless I choose to do so.  Yes, I can recognize manipulation when I see it.  You are good at that,  You have learned it well and could teach other how to do such.


Bob, you are acting like you are teaching children and/or you are the one filled with wisdom who should tell the children what is truth.

I have taught adult graduate students, in an accredited school.  In teaching adult graduate students you do not give them spoon-fed answers.  You lead them to sources of information and allow them to develop their skills of review, analysis and evaulation to reach conclusions.   Yes, it is possible that some will not read all that is posted.  I sometimes get the idea that you only partially read stuff.  I have had that idea for years, which date back to my first meeting with you when you were at Eden Valley.  If some do not read all of a posting, that is their problem.  I am not responsible for that.

I have faith in the intellectual ability of the people who post here.  Take Arteste for example.  She and I differ on a number of issues.  Yet her posts reflect careful analysis and reflection.  The same is true for Dedication.  I have to be very careful as to how I respond to her.  If I am not, she spots errors in my post and graciouslly lets me know.  I have sometimes written a post in response to her, gone back to read it and decided that I would look foolish in posting it.  So, I have deleted it without posting it.  My approach to you is that you state your position well for where you are and I am comfortable in people reading your posts without comments from me.


 

Gregory,
The problem I see is this:

You are much like an officer of the state, a DA or States Attorney for the prosecution. You have brought a case up against those who are against WO. Bob Pickle is the attorney for the defense. And he has brought to the court exculpable evidence in the form of Acts 15 and 9T 260-261. But you are refusing to admit that this evidence exists. You are refusing to even discuss it.

Why is this?

Actually, you remind me of someone. Walt Thompson, the sycophantic board chairman of 3ABN. As all these proceedings began he insisted that he wanted it to be an open process and to let everything come to light.
He wanted that right up until real evidence began to come out. Then, he couldn't stand to have it known to the public what was really going on. What would the world think if they found out Remnant kicked back hundreds of thousands of dollars to Danny's pocket at the expense of 3ABN? What would the world think if it were known that the "anointed one" i.e. Danny were covering up for a pedophile? What would the world think if, well, it were known that Walt was not really a chairman but rather a warm body to be manipulated by Danny?

Is that you too? Is there a reason why you don't want to discuss Acts 15 and 9T 260-261? Why don't you want it to be admitted into the discussion? What are you hiding?

[Battle Creek]

Bob, as I have said:

1) I have treated you the same.  I do not generally point out the errors in the messags that you post.
2) I have faith that the adults posting here cane evaulate and  come to their own conclusion.
3) I am not going to allow you to definethe boundaries of what and how I post.
4)  I am not going to allow you to manipulate me into responding to your charges, unless I choose to do so.  Yes, I can recognize manipulation when I see it.  You are good at that,  You have learned it well and could teach other how to do such.


Bob, you are acting like you are teaching children and/or you are the one filled with wisdom who should tell the children what is truth.

I have taught adult graduate students, in an accredited school.  In teaching adult graduate students you do not give them spoon-fed answers.  You lead them to sources of information and allow them to develop their skills of review, analysis and evaulation to reach conclusions.   Yes, it is possible that some will not read all that is posted.  I sometimes get the idea that you only partially read stuff.  I have had that idea for years, which date back to my first meeting with you when you were at Eden Valley.  If some do not read all of a posting, that is their problem.  I am not responsible for that.

I have faith in the intellectual ability of the people who post here.  Take Arteste for example.  She and I differ on a number of issues.  Yet her posts reflect careful analysis and reflection.  The same is true for Dedication.  I have to be very careful as to how I respond to her.  If I am not, she spots errors in my post and graciouslly lets me know.  I have sometimes written a post in response to her, gone back to read it and decided that I would look foolish in posting it.  So, I have deleted it without posting it.  My approach to you is that you state your position well for where you are and I am comfortable in people reading your posts without comments from me.


 

Gregory,
The problem I see is this:

You are much like an officer of the state, a DA or States Attorney for the prosecution. You have brought a case up against those who are against WO. Bob Pickle is the attorney for the defense. And he has brought to the court exculpable evidence in the form of Acts 15 and 9T 260-261. But you are refusing to admit that this evidence exists. You are refusing to even discuss it.

Why is this?

Actually, you remind me of someone. Walt Thompson, the sycophantic board chairman of 3ABN. As all these proceedings began he insisted that he wanted it to be an open process and to let everything come to light.
He wanted that right up until real evidence began to come out. Then, he couldn't stand to have it known to the public what was really going on. What would the world think if they found out Remnant kicked back hundreds of thousands of dollars to Danny's pocket at the expense of 3ABN? What would the world think if it were known that the "anointed one" i.e. Danny were covering up for a pedophile? What would the world think if, well, it were known that Walt was not really a chairman but rather a warm body to be manipulated by Danny?

Is that you too? Is there a reason why you don't want to discuss Acts 15 and 9T 260-261? Why don't you want it to be admitted into the discussion? What are you hiding?

Quite interesting how you take pride in exposing a person who deserves six years of prison while lacking the wisdom of detecting how another person shows kindness by not exposing the foolishness inherent in some questions. That seems to be what Gregory is hiding.

[Bob Pickle]

3) I am not going to allow you to definethe boundaries of what and how I post.
4)  I am not going to allow you to manipulate me into responding to your charges, unless I choose to do so.

Sounds pompous to me.

The facts are that Gary Patterson's article was deceptive, and you linked to it without even so much as identifying the author, much less adding a caveat pointing out his error. A simple apology would be much more appropriate than long self-justifications.

Bob, you are acting like you are teaching children and/or you are the one filled with wisdom who should tell the children what is truth.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Read what Ellen White has to say about citing the arguments of pantheists. She says not to do that. Why? Because she thinks that there are no adults in the world, only children? Of course not. We are in a great controversy, and Satan is a master deceiver, and we are not supposed to help him in his work.

I have taught adult graduate students, in an accredited school.  In teaching adult graduate students you do not give them spoon-fed answers.

Spoon-fed answers aren't the issue.

Are you the type of educator that believes in putting doubts in students' heads, and letting the students sort it all out on their own? I'm all for teaching critical thinking, but not for planting seeds of skepticism in students' minds.

I have had that idea for years, which date back to my first meeting with you when you were at Eden Valley.

Please refresh my memory. I do not recall ever meeting you. When and what was the occasion?

If some do not read all of a posting, that is their problem.  I am not responsible for that.

If you post a link to a deceptive article without a caveat, and people thereby become deceived, you are responsible. Saying you aren't doesn't get you off the hook any more than Pilate's washing of his hands got him off the hook.

But let's be plain about it: Your posting that link without a caveat permitted people to be deceived into thinking that the GC has gone beyond its authority. You claim to hold credentials from the GC, and yet you created a situation which can undermine through deception people's confidence in the entity granting you credentials. Under such a situation, self-justification seems out of line.

[Artiste]

...you created a situation which can undermine through deception people's confidence in the entity granting you credentials. Under such a situation, self-justification seems out of line.

Both self-justification and deception seem to be issues right now on Advent Talk...

[Battle Creek]

...you created a situation which can undermine through deception people's confidence in the entity granting you credentials. Under such a situation, self-justification seems out of line.

Both self-justification and deception seem to be issues right now on Advent Talk...

Why not change that with some positive input?