Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Daryl Fawcett on September 10, 2012, 02:23:40 PM
-
Pacific Union Conference Approves Fourteen Women for Ordination as stated in the following link:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/09/07/pacific-union-conference-approves-fourteen-women-ordination
-
If I understand it right, at least most of these women will not be ordained now. They have already been ordained as commissioned ministers. Now they just receive a new card stating they are "ordained" ministers.
-
I understand their new card won't be recognized by the GC, which means it doesn't really have much clout.
If I understand it right, at least most of these women will not be ordained now. They have already been ordained as commissioned ministers. Now they just receive a new card stating they are "ordained" ministers.
-
I still want to know who lied regarding PUC not going forward because their bylaws weren't changed.
I also want to know why PUC is violating their bylaws.
And why the rush to ordain women on October 6, which is probably prior to Autumn Council? Here the GC Exec. Comm. is going to meet to discuss what is going on, and PUC is just rushing on ahead. It's sickening.
-
I still want to know who lied regarding PUC not going forward because their bylaws weren't changed.
I also want to know why PUC is violating their bylaws.
And why the rush to ordain women on October 6, which is probably prior to Autumn Council? Here the GC Exec. Comm. is going to meet to discuss what is going on, and PUC is just rushing on ahead. It's sickening.
I agree and am also surprised that they would push ahead and knowingly approve something contrary to their own bylaws as well as the policy of the GC.
They are not only in rebellion with the GC, but are also in rebellion with their own constituency who's delegates voted down (65% of the required 66%) the proposed bylaws amendment.
-
I understand their new card won't be recognized by the GC, which means it doesn't really have much clout.
If I understand it right, at least most of these women will not be ordained now. They have already been ordained as commissioned ministers. Now they just receive a new card stating they are "ordained" ministers.
There could be similarities. The ordination card of Doug Batchelor does not grant him access to a number of SDA churches where his ministry is not recognized today.
I am not defending the actions of the PUC in this case, just reporting.
-
I still want to know who lied regarding PUC not going forward because their bylaws weren't changed.
I also want to know why PUC is violating their bylaws.
And why the rush to ordain women on October 6, which is probably prior to Autumn Council? Here the GC Exec. Comm. is going to meet to discuss what is going on, and PUC is just rushing on ahead. It's sickening.
I agree and am also surprised that they would push ahead and knowingly approve something contrary to their own bylaws as well as the policy of the GC.
They are not only in rebellion with the GC, but are also in rebellion with their own constituency who's delegates voted down (65% of the required 66%) the proposed bylaws amendment.
Yet 79% voted to approve ordination of women. Again, I am interested in hearing about the Freudian side to this issue. Bob, Daryl, SDA Minister, there is a valid question on whether there is truly a Freudian issue here, and what those who may have Freudian issues with women have to say about the supposition that they do, and that their opposition to women may be based on a fear or loathing of women. Would any of you be able, or willing to answer this question?
I am also still interested in knowing your source for the outright lie you mentioned in your false statement that Loma Linda University Church Wants to split away from the denomination. Would you care to provide the source of that falsehood?
-
I had to share this story:
Lara Beaven
Many years ago I was a daily newspaper reporter in a semi-rural part of Ohio that had many churches, including several pastored by women, something that struck one of my editors as fascinating given the area's traditional/conservative nature. I was assigned to profile a couple of them. It was one of my favorite assignments. The pastor of the non-denominational church was quick to explain/refute the headship arguments against women pastors and the United Methodist minister shared the following story. One week the pastor invited a guest preacher to her pulpit. If I remember correctly, it was someone akin to an Adventist conference president. After the service, the woman pastor and the guest preacher were greeting parishioners. A little girl of about six came up to the female pastor and said with amazement, "I didn't know men could be preachers too!"
-
I had to share this story:
Lara Beaven
Many years ago I was a daily newspaper reporter in a semi-rural part of Ohio that had many churches, including several pastored by women, something that struck one of my editors as fascinating given the area's traditional/conservative nature. I was assigned to profile a couple of them. It was one of my favorite assignments. The pastor of the non-denominational church was quick to explain/refute the headship arguments against women pastors and the United Methodist minister shared the following story. One week the pastor invited a guest preacher to her pulpit. If I remember correctly, it was someone akin to an Adventist conference president. After the service, the woman pastor and the guest preacher were greeting parishioners. A little girl of about six came up to the female pastor and said with amazement, "I didn't know men could be preachers too!"
Johann,
Interesting that the story is about United Methodists, a denomination racing to irrelevance. With an indistinct message and an unbiblical push for "women's rights", it's no wonder they're losing thousands and thousands of members each year. Who would want to emulate that?
http://m.christianpost.com/news/united-methodist-church-continues-to-decline-in-america-but-gains-in-africa--79384/
-
I am also still interested in knowing your source for the outright lie you mentioned in your false statement that Loma Linda University Church Wants to split away from the denomination. Would you care to provide the source of that falsehood?
It isn't an outright lie.
Spectrum is the source. Spectrum reported that the LLU Church is moving ahead now and will be ordaining women as gospel ministers on October 6. To me, that's trying to split off from the church.
Numbers 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly <05712>, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Numbers 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation <05712> are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Numbers 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company <05712>, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.
Numbers 16:6 This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company <05712>;
Numbers 16:9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation <05712> of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation <05712> to minister unto them?
Numbers 16:11 For which cause both thou and all thy company <05712> are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?
Numbers 16:16 And Moses said unto Korah, Be thou and all thy company <05712> before the LORD, thou, and they, and Aaron, to morrow:
Numbers 16:19 And Korah gathered all the congregation <05712> against them unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation <05712>.
Numbers 16:21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation <05712>, that I may consume them in a moment.
Numbers 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation <05712>?
Numbers 16:24 Speak unto the congregation <05712>, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Numbers 16:26 And he spake unto the congregation <05712>, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
Numbers 16:40 To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD; that he be not as Korah, and as his company <05712>: as the LORD said to him by the hand of Moses.
Interestingly, the LXX uses the Greek word sunagoge, "synagogue," for the Hebrew word 05712 in these verses.
One might argue that Korah was not trying to split off of Israel, was not trying to start a new church or organization, but that he was just trying to change the leadership of the existing organization. But Moses' choice of words suggests that he indeed was trying to establish his own "synagogue" in competition with the "synagogue" that God had established.
Similarly, Spectrum reports that the LLU Church is gearing up to thumb its nose at gospel order and the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. To me that says that the LLU Church wants to be an independent ministry.
-
I am also still interested in knowing your source for the outright lie you mentioned in your false statement that Loma Linda University Church Wants to split away from the denomination. Would you care to provide the source of that falsehood?
Murcielago, You need to understand Bob. He makes a lot of statements that go beyond what can be documented. I do not know that I would call him a liar as I consider a liar to be someone who intends to decieve. As I beleive that he believes that what he states is truth, I do not think the word "liar" fits. But there does seem to be patterns in what he says.
He makes statements that sound to reasonable peopole to be stating X. When challenged (questioned) he retreats, suggests that he has been misunderstood and that there are other things tha he might have said. At times the end result is that no one really knows what Bob said. One example of this type of a statement is the statements that he has made about a major payment to the IRS. The current situation is that at this point in time no one really knows whether Bob has stated that the payment was a million dollars, or some other amount. No one really knows if Bob stated that 3-ABN made the payment, or if some other person made the payment for 3-ABN, or if some other person made the payment for something that they did, for which the IRS charged them.
Bob also strings together isolated statements/events and puts them together in a manner that he builds a so-called "strawman" that he can then destroy. Just look at his response to your challenge to his comment about the Loma Linda church. He cites verses from the Biblical book of Numbers and comments on the Greek in the LXX. From there, apparently based upon his use of the Greek in the LXX he comments on the choice of words that Moses used. One major error is that Moses probably did not know Greek. The Biblical books that Moses wrote were written in Hebrew.
Bob has clearly done this with me, in his comments to the effect that I advocate rebellion. I have not spent a lot of time challenging him on his misrepresentation of my position because I do not believe that it is worth my time to debate with someone who misrepresents to the extent that he does, even though he probably believes what he is saying.
I wll also note here that Bob has done the same in comments that he has made about Danny Shelton and 3-ABN. This is just something that Bob does. Yes, ~Cindy :), you can quote me on your web site if you wish. Yes, there is some truth in what Bob has said. Yes, Bob has pointed out some questionable (wrong, inappropriate) that have been done by Danny and 3-ABN. I do not argue that. But, reasonable people who are fair and objective cannot agree that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have done everything that Bob seems to have claimed. Of course, it may be that Bob has claimed nothing badabout 3-ABN & Danny and everyone is mistaken as to what he has actually claimed about them. As I have said, it can be hard to know what Bob has actually said.
So, Murcielago do not pay much attention to what Bob has said about the Loma Linda University Church. It is not worth your time. Reasonable people will take Bob's statement with a grain of salt People who are not rasonable will not agree with your response to Bob. Just let Bob continue to tell the story as he sees it.
NOTE: On a personal note to ~Cindy: Recently a proposed post of mine was not allowed to be posted on 3atalk due to the fact that it was considered "off topic." Actually, my proposed post was dead center to the topic. However, since the person who rejected it did not understand that it was very much on topic, it just might have been that no one else would have understood it as being on topic. So, if no one else would have understood it, perhaps it should have been rejected.
Why am I posting a personal message in a public post? I have talked about Bob in this post. Actually all of us can be misunderstood, to include me. I was not clear in that proposed post.
-
At times the end result is that no one really knows what Bob said. One example of this type of a statement is the statements that he has made about a major payment to the IRS. The current situation is that at this point in time no one really knows whether Bob has stated that the payment was a million dollars, or some other amount. No one really knows if Bob stated that 3-ABN made the payment, or if some other person made the payment for 3-ABN, or if some other person made the payment for something that they did, for which the IRS charged them.
I am fairly certain that all I have ever said is that the IRS was paid over $1 million. To the best of my recollection, I have purposely never stated the exact amount our sources stated, and I have never said who paid the IRS because I do not know. Thus, when someone changes the amount from over $1 million to $1 million, and states that I said that 3ABN paid the IRS, it is not out of line for me to correct the misperceptions.
Just look at his response to your challenge to his comment about the Loma Linda church. He cites verses from the Biblical book of Numbers and comments on the Greek in the LXX. From there, apparently based upon his use of the Greek in the LXX he comments on the choice of words that Moses used. One major error is that Moses probably did not know Greek. The Biblical books that Moses wrote were written in Hebrew.
One major error that you, Gregory Matthews, have made in this statement is that the Hebrew word used for God's "congregation" and the "company" of Korah is the same, which I made clear in my statement above. I referred to "synagogue" because of the two words, the Greek word is more readily recognizable to the average reader than the Hebrew word.
I have not spent a lot of time challenging him on his misrepresentation of my position because I do not believe that it is worth my time to debate with someone who misrepresents to the extent that he does, even though he probably believes what he is saying.
What misrepresentation? If you oppose rebellion, just say that you oppose any union or conference or church moving forward with the ordination of women prior to a GC Session vote authorizing the same. Thus far I do not recall you making any such statement, but I do recall you making the statement that the unions presently have a right to ordain anyone, and that would be despite the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes.
But, reasonable people who are fair and objective cannot agree that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have done everything that Bob seems to have claimed.
Like?
-
So, Murcielago do not pay much attention to what Bob has said about the Loma Linda University Church.
Here we have a major Adventist church moving independently from GC Sessions, which is the highest authority on earth under God within the church, and you say to pay no attention to comments about that independent movement constituting a split?
-
I still want to know who lied regarding PUC not going forward because their bylaws weren't changed.
I also want to know why PUC is violating their bylaws.
And why the rush to ordain women on October 6, which is probably prior to Autumn Council? Here the GC Exec. Comm. is going to meet to discuss what is going on, and PUC is just rushing on ahead. It's sickening.
Any answers?
-
Bob said:
One major error that you, Gregory Matthews, have made in this statement is that the Hebrew word used for God's "congregation" and the "company" of Korah is the same, which I made clear in my statement above. I referred to "synagogue" because of the two words, the Greek word is more readily recognizable to the average reader than the Hebrew word.
Bob, I did not expect you to come back with such a perfect example of what I was saying. I never stated that the Hebrew words were the same. I do not believe that they are. But, I did not check and I did not want to pound on you for another error, especially when I did not want to take the time to check it out.
Any way, thanks for such a good example of how you can misrepresent what people say. I could not have come up with a better example.
AS you seem to be uncertain as to what I said, here is some of what I said.
1) I suggested that you probably do not know Greek. If I am wrong and you are actually fluent in Greek, tell us so.
2) I said that Moses probably did not know Greek. Comonsense. The Greek of the Bible dates from the time of Christ. Moses did not live in that period of time. If you want to tell us that there was a form of Greek that existed in the time of Moses of which Moses would have been knowledgeable, please tell us why this is not evident in the writings of Moses.
3) I referenced the Greek of the LXX. Bob, you know that the LXX was written in Greek. You surely cannot be telling me that I am wrong on that. By the way, it was you who referenced the LXX.
-
Let me give you an example of logic that is true in its constiltutent parts, yet is false in it conclusion:
1) Animal life has two (2) seperate and distinct genotypes--male and female. TRUE
2) X is animal, alive and male. TRUE
3) Therefore, X is not female. FALSE
How so:
Hermaphrodites are both male and female. This is a 3rd genotype that is NOT seperate and distinct. As an example, certain worms are both male and female.
There is other living animal life that is male during one part of thier life cycle and female during another part of their life cycle. I have given you a specifric answer for my statement above. I will let those who are interested, check out the accuracy of this statement.
O.K. I will give you a hint: Clownfish are born male and may change to female.
Wrasses are born female and may change to male.
There is more. But, you-all can check it out.
-
Bob said:
Here we have a major Adventist church moving independently from GC Sessions, which is the highest authority on earth under God within the church, and you say to pay no attention to comments about that independent movement constituting a split?
Again, Bob, you have given an excellent example of how you misrepresent what someone (me in this case) said.
I said that Mercielago shoud not pay any attention to the comments that you make on this issue. I did not say that he should not pay any attention to comments on that issue mady by other people. There is a difference.
-
Might this help?
"I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai Stevenson
-
Bob said:
Here we have a major Adventist church moving independently from GC Sessions, which is the highest authority on earth under God within the church, and you say to pay no attention to comments about that independent movement constituting a split?
Again, Bob, you have given an excellent example of how you misrepresent what someone (me in this case) said.
I said that Mercielago shoud not pay any attention to the comments that you make on this issue. I did not say that he should not pay any attention to comments on that issue mady by other people. There is a difference.
How did my statement misrepresent what you said? I think you're being picky.
-
Bob said:
One major error that you, Gregory Matthews, have made in this statement is that the Hebrew word used for God's "congregation" and the "company" of Korah is the same, which I made clear in my statement above. I referred to "synagogue" because of the two words, the Greek word is more readily recognizable to the average reader than the Hebrew word.
Bob, I did not expect you to come back with such a perfect example of what I was saying. I never stated that the Hebrew words were the same. I do not believe that they are. But, I did not check and I did not want to pound on you for another error, especially when I did not want to take the time to check it out.
Then I recommend that you read carefully what someone else writes before you make personal attacks against them. "I never stated that the Hebrew words were the same." BUT I DID!
Read what I wrote. I clearly identified the Hebrew word as being Strong's # 05712, and stated:
"Interestingly, the LXX uses the Greek word sunagoge, "synagogue," for the Hebrew word 05712 in these verses."
I gave every single verse, I believe, that contained that Hebrew word in Num 16.
1) I suggested that you probably do not know Greek. If I am wrong and you are actually fluent in Greek, tell us so.
Depends on what you mean by fluent. I have the equivalent of two years of Greek classes, and have not forgotten it all.
2) I said that Moses probably did not know Greek.
Straw man.
3) I referenced the Greek of the LXX. Bob, you know that the LXX was written in Greek. You surely cannot be telling me that I am wrong on that. By the way, it was you who referenced the LXX.
I already explained why I cited the LXX. Straw man.
-
I am also still interested in knowing your source for the outright lie you mentioned in your false statement that Loma Linda University Church Wants to split away from the denomination. Would you care to provide the source of that falsehood?
Murcielago, You need to understand Bob. He makes a lot of statements that go beyond what can be documented. I do not know that I would call him a liar as I consider a liar to be someone who intends to decieve. As I beleive that he believes that what he states is truth, I do not think the word "liar" fits. But there does seem to be patterns in what he says.
He makes statements that sound to reasonable peopole to be stating X. When challenged (questioned) he retreats, suggests that he has been misunderstood and that there are other things tha he might have said. At times the end result is that no one really knows what Bob said. One example of this type of a statement is the statements that he has made about a major payment to the IRS. The current situation is that at this point in time no one really knows whether Bob has stated that the payment was a million dollars, or some other amount. No one really knows if Bob stated that 3-ABN made the payment, or if some other person made the payment for 3-ABN, or if some other person made the payment for something that they did, for which the IRS charged them.
Bob also strings together isolated statements/events and puts them together in a manner that he builds a so-called "strawman" that he can then destroy. Just look at his response to your challenge to his comment about the Loma Linda church. He cites verses from the Biblical book of Numbers and comments on the Greek in the LXX. From there, apparently based upon his use of the Greek in the LXX he comments on the choice of words that Moses used. One major error is that Moses probably did not know Greek. The Biblical books that Moses wrote were written in Hebrew.
Bob has clearly done this with me, in his comments to the effect that I advocate rebellion. I have not spent a lot of time challenging him on his misrepresentation of my position because I do not believe that it is worth my time to debate with someone who misrepresents to the extent that he does, even though he probably believes what he is saying.
I wll also note here that Bob has done the same in comments that he has made about Danny Shelton and 3-ABN. This is just something that Bob does. Yes, ~Cindy :), you can quote me on your web site if you wish. Yes, there is some truth in what Bob has said. Yes, Bob has pointed out some questionable (wrong, inappropriate) that have been done by Danny and 3-ABN. I do not argue that. But, reasonable people who are fair and objective cannot agree that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton have done everything that Bob seems to have claimed. Of course, it may be that Bob has claimed nothing badabout 3-ABN & Danny and everyone is mistaken as to what he has actually claimed about them. As I have said, it can be hard to know what Bob has actually said.
So, Murcielago do not pay much attention to what Bob has said about the Loma Linda University Church. It is not worth your time. Reasonable people will take Bob's statement with a grain of salt People who are not rasonable will not agree with your response to Bob. Just let Bob continue to tell the story as he sees it.
NOTE: On a personal note to ~Cindy: Recently a proposed post of mine was not allowed to be posted on 3atalk due to the fact that it was considered "off topic." Actually, my proposed post was dead center to the topic. However, since the person who rejected it did not understand that it was very much on topic, it just might have been that no one else would have understood it as being on topic. So, if no one else would have understood it, perhaps it should have been rejected.
Why am I posting a personal message in a public post? I have talked about Bob in this post. Actually all of us can be misunderstood, to include me. I was not clear in that proposed post.
MODERATOR HAT ON
Inappropriate comments. Please review Forum Rule #1. Address any communications about AdventTalk Administration activities privately.
MODERATOR HAT OFF
-
I am also still interested in knowing your source for the outright lie you mentioned in your false statement that Loma Linda University Church Wants to split away from the denomination. Would you care to provide the source of that falsehood?
It isn't an outright lie.
Spectrum is the source. Spectrum reported that the LLU Church is moving ahead now and will be ordaining women as gospel ministers on October 6. To me, that's trying to split off from the church.
Numbers 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly <05712>, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Numbers 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation <05712> are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Numbers 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company <05712>, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.
Numbers 16:6 This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company <05712>;
Numbers 16:9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation <05712> of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation <05712> to minister unto them?
Numbers 16:11 For which cause both thou and all thy company <05712> are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?
Numbers 16:16 And Moses said unto Korah, Be thou and all thy company <05712> before the LORD, thou, and they, and Aaron, to morrow:
Numbers 16:19 And Korah gathered all the congregation <05712> against them unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation <05712>.
Numbers 16:21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation <05712>, that I may consume them in a moment.
Numbers 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation <05712>?
Numbers 16:24 Speak unto the congregation <05712>, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Numbers 16:26 And he spake unto the congregation <05712>, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
Numbers 16:40 To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD; that he be not as Korah, and as his company <05712>: as the LORD said to him by the hand of Moses.
Interestingly, the LXX uses the Greek word sunagoge, "synagogue," for the Hebrew word 05712 in these verses.
One might argue that Korah was not trying to split off of Israel, was not trying to start a new church or organization, but that he was just trying to change the leadership of the existing organization. But Moses' choice of words suggests that he indeed was trying to establish his own "synagogue" in competition with the "synagogue" that God had established.
Similarly, Spectrum reports that the LLU Church is gearing up to thumb its nose at gospel order and the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. To me that says that the LLU Church wants to be an independent ministry.
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 am also still interested in knowing your source for the outright lie you mentioned in your false statement that Loma Linda University Church Wants to split away from the denomination. Would you care to provide the source of that falsehood?
It isn't an outright lie.
Spectrum is the source. Spectrum reported that the LLU Church is moving ahead now and will be ordaining women as gospel ministers on October 6. To me, that's trying to split off from the church.
Numbers 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly <05712>, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Numbers 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation <05712> are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Numbers 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company <05712>, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.
Numbers 16:6 This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company <05712>;
Numbers 16:9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation <05712> of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation <05712> to minister unto them?
Numbers 16:11 For which cause both thou and all thy company <05712> are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?
Numbers 16:16 And Moses said unto Korah, Be thou and all thy company <05712> before the LORD, thou, and they, and Aaron, to morrow:
Numbers 16:19 And Korah gathered all the congregation <05712> against them unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation <05712>.
Numbers 16:21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation <05712>, that I may consume them in a moment.
Numbers 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation <05712>?
Numbers 16:24 Speak unto the congregation <05712>, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Numbers 16:26 And he spake unto the congregation <05712>, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
Numbers 16:40 To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD; that he be not as Korah, and as his company <05712>: as the LORD said to him by the hand of Moses.
Interestingly, the LXX uses the Greek word sunagoge, "synagogue," for the Hebrew word 05712 in these verses.
One might argue that Korah was not trying to split off of Israel, was not trying to start a new church or organization, but that he was just trying to change the leadership of the existing organization. But Moses' choice of words suggests that he indeed was trying to establish his own "synagogue" in competition with the "synagogue" that God had established.
Similarly, Spectrum reports that the LLU Church is gearing up to thumb its nose at gospel order and the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. To me that says that the LLU Church wants to be an independent ministry.
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 could be wrong, but I think it is in reference with their rebellion against the session voted policy of the GC in that they are going forward with the also rebellious decision of the session vote of the PUC, which also went against the session voted policy of the GC.
-
If the Unions have the authority to make decisions on ordination it may not be rebellion.
-
If the Unions have the authority to make decisions on ordination it may not be rebellion.
They have authority only within the policies of the GC that were voted on in GC Sessions.
They don't have the authority to go against those GC policies.
-
Daryl:
They have authority according to their Constitutions, which were approved by the General Conference. You are clearly wrong to say that they only have authority within the policies of the GD that were voted in GC sessions.
This is one reason that this problems exists.
-
There are two groups on the issue of the authority of the Unions:
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. NOTE: My wording.
The other group states that the GC does have this power and the Unions do not havea the power to go against what the GC wants at this time.
Both groups have knowledgeable people on their sides.
Ulltimately, the decision as to auathoritiy will not be made by eithere you or I. The denomination will have to resolve the underlying issue. It will not be resolved by those who make simplistic quotes from Ellen White and/or other written policies. It is not that simplistic.
-
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.
-
Well, the GC is on the verge of having their Annual Fall meeting, therefore, we will soon know who has the authority and who doesn't.
I am also certain their GC legal people are also preparing for this.
-
Bad news...General Counsel seems to support Women's Ordination and is actively coordinating the process of closing the door to debate or revision by encouraging having the Unions ordain asap.
Remember, Todd McFarland was Parlaimentarian for the Pacific Union Special Constituency and could easily have encouraged a Special Meeting of the General Conference Executive Committee, but did not.
Understand that once the two unions have ordained women there will be no easy way to put that Genie Back in the bottle. If the GC moves to discipline (assuming they had the political will to do so) and tried any maneuver to reverse the Ordination, the cost of litigation with various entities would be cost prohibitive, not to mention issues with the EEOC once the door is pushed open. Can you see Mr Obama's Justice department just thrilled to tear apart the GC's fundamental beliefs in open administrative hearings, then tearing apart the colleges and universities for Title 7 issues and taking away federal student aid (yes, the feds now have COMPLETE control of student funding)?
There is little question we are on the edge of disaster and will pay a heavy price for this Apostasy.
On the other hand, take away the funding and we would have to return to old fashioned SDA education. Back to the waldensian era. Might actually be a good thing. VERY CATHARTIC...Bye, bye Loma Linda, Andrews, La Sierra and whatever else is left!!! Bye, Bye whole churches, conferences and even unions. Bye, bye NAD!!! And what is left will be pure Seventh-day Adventists.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
General Counsel?
Are you referring to GC General Counsel, or only to Union General Counsel?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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...
-
...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?
-
Todd McFarland is also General Counsel to the General Conference.
General Counsel?
Are you referring to GC General Counsel, or only to Union General Counsel?
-
Wouldn't that place him in some sort of conflict of interest?
Todd McFarland is also General Counsel to the General Conference.
General Counsel?
Are you referring to GC General Counsel, or only to Union General Counsel?