Helper for Adam?

[Twilight II]

I certainly agree Twilight! We ARE on that slippery slope already. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that some Seventh-day Adventist Church, Conference, Union or District will at some point allow for LGBT marriage and perhaps even Pastors! While thumbing their nose at the World Church. We ARE seeing that happen right now with W.O. AND we see plenty of the arguments as to why it's OK.

Whether or not it's OK, it's a very serious challenge to the authority of the World Church!

LGBT issues will be done in the same way as it is being done in the secular world today, but within the Church.

The question I ponder is how will the World Church (the G.C.) react to LGBT Ministers or marriages being accepted? I don't believe the World Church will accept it, while some of those UNDER it's authority surely will. Just as we have seen with the W.O. issue.

This Church still belongs to God, it is the apple of His eye.

Those that want to try bring in these secular agendas will have to answer to Him at some point...

[Woody]

Quote:

On the back of this womens ordination is the rest of the secular agenda...

Really? Often spoken but never proven! Tis so easy to say their is a slippery slope but it hasn't even rained!!! Repeat something often enough and soon people take it as truth. But of course, it is still false. Truth has become relative, especially when it supports a cherished opinion. The pasture is full of pies, but a person can step around them.

exactly

[ClubV12]

"Prophecy" something you can only take on faith, until you see the fulfillment.

I'm not a prophet, but the evidence supports the concept that W.O. will lead to additional challenges to the authority of the world Church. What kind of challenges? I predicate one such challenge will be LGBT issues. It's only a matter of time, we are sliding down the slope right now. The dam is breaking a little at a time, soon it will be a torent of questioning the authority of the Church. And many excellent examples of why that should be allowed will be offered! There will be plenty of "hooks" to hang your doubts on, there will be a coat room in fact, with attendants to help you hang (yourself). :)

[Tom Wetmore]

The slippery slope argument is simply a concession that while there is not a strong or valid reason against the immediate issue, it might lead to something that really is bad. No matter that there is no real evidence to support the speculation, because that's not its purpose anyway. It is simply an intentional logical fallacy attempting to tarnish the former with the stink of the latter, basically a false guilt by association. And IMHO the LGBT issue is disingenuously put forward as a reason against WO because it is so loathsome to many folk that homophobia sets in to shut down any further rational consideration of the issue. It has effectively become a thought terminating cliche in this matter.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

.....but the evidence supports the concept that W.O. will lead to additional challenges to the authority of the world Church.......I predicate one such challenge will be LGBT issues.

Again, and again......accusation, but no evidence provided! Where is it????

[ClubV12]

I don't agree with that assesment Tom and here's why. Many of those who do not currently support W.O. are simply asking those who do, to honor the G.C.'s request to wait for their study to be completed. To respect the authority of the World Church.

For those Conferences, Unions or groups that have concluded they will not wait and have taken the matter into their own hands, the primary problem now is NOT W.O. It is the challenge to authority that has become the more serious issue.

The NPUC has stated they will wait, and in the same breath, have all but declared they will support W.O. regardless of what the G.C. says after they have waited. Huh??? If you were in leadership (Father, boss, business owner) and your employees told you something like that, what would you think? I don't believe whatever the issue was would be first on your mind. Your first consideration would be a serious insubordination issue!

Thus, there is no direct link between W.O. and LGBT except in the area of challenging "authority". Understanding that, there are a number of issues that various groups will want to lobby for, demanding they be heard. Taking matters into their own hands if they don't get what they demand.

Because LGBT issues are on the front burner of America right now and RAPIDLY growing in public acceptance, this issue is a strong contender for the next challenge to authority.

Will it start with a local Church? One of our Schools? A Conference? A Union or Division perhaps? It WILL happen, thats a given. I do believe this current challenge to authority will accellerate the timeline and represent "case law" as justification for the next issue.

[doug yowell]

The slippery slope argument is simply a concession that while there is not a strong or valid reason against the immediate issue, it might lead to something that really is bad. No matter that there is no real evidence to support the speculation, because that's not its purpose anyway. It is simply an intentional logical fallacy attempting to tarnish the former with the stink of the latter, basically a false guilt by association. And IMHO the LGBT issue is disingenuously put forward as a reason against WO because it is so loathsome to many folk that homophobia sets in to shut down any further rational consideration of the issue. It has effectively become a thought terminating cliche in this matter.

Of course, that the Church of Christ, Episcopals, Lutherns,United Methodists, ect...ect...all wrestled with this question decades before it became a likewise divisive issue in Adventism is merely coincidental.That it in every case split their churches is not rationally connected to anything but homophobia. And just because every one of them that first accepted WO as a Biblical step forward eventually followed with the acceptance of not only homosexuality but also the ordination of a practicing homosexual clergy doesn't mean that one should be duped into thinking that there is any real evidence that WO is in anyway related. Like the immediate coincidental merging of random molecules from which humanity came into being with no connection to a Creator the eventual slide of these churches into the ordination of homosexual clergy is completely unrelated to anything that might resemble a connection to the historical steps that led up to those decisions. It's all just a big coincidence that WO opponents are trying to scare the church with. Even though there was a 100% ratio of WO to HO in those churches it's only logical to conclude that there's just zero per cent chance that this same scenerio will ever become reality in Adventism. I think everyone should be able to see the wisdom in that kind of surety. In fact,I feel better already.

[Twilight II]

The slippery slope argument is simply a concession that while there is not a strong or valid reason against the immediate issue, it might lead to something that really is bad. No matter that there is no real evidence to support the speculation, because that's not its purpose anyway. It is simply an intentional logical fallacy attempting to tarnish the former with the stink of the latter, basically a false guilt by association. And IMHO the LGBT issue is disingenuously put forward as a reason against WO because it is so loathsome to many folk that homophobia sets in to shut down any further rational consideration of the issue. It has effectively become a thought terminating cliche in this matter.

Not so.

God ordained man to a leadership role.

The "world" is overturning that.

Some want to bring those "worldly" (secular) principles into the church.

Once you bring one of the secular principles in, then the rest of the agenda follows.

The secular agenda movement in the church, is not campaigning on a single issue, but tends to campaign on all the issues but at different volumes.

Right now, the role of women usurping mens ordained leadership roles is being held up.

But if that gets forced through, and it is being forced, then the next agenda item will be presented.

Slippery slopes are not always fallacious, they are often very real when you look at the agenda behind all the movement...

[CoAspen]

Continuing accusations......no suppport!

[ClubV12]

There is a difference between accusations and doing what the prophet said we should do, to wit: REASON from cause to effect.

This is a simple application of logic. Regardless of spirituality concerns, it is a reasonable hypothesis. A forecast of events that are likely to unfold in the near future, based on the current political climate of the world and the Church in question. As an investor these are the kinds of trends I would employ when considering my ROI (return on investment).

One could apply the same logic to any group, or Church, and form a reasonable opinion of what is likely in store. This is exactly what the "futures" market of stocks do everyday.

I predict increasing world riots! Not because of any spiritual knowledge (all though that does apply) but because of a law of simple economics. There is a direct relation to the price of food and riots. The Un charts the price of a basic basket of food cost. You can take this chart and apply it to riots. It is a remarkable predictor of future events. In fact, this chart predicted with considerable accuracy the "Arab Spring"!

Right now most of the world is AT or slightly ABOVE the UN price of food that predicts riots. You can even break it down to specific countries likely to first experience such riots. No "prophecy" required in this case, no accusations needed, just facts and forecasting.

[Tom Wetmore]

Of course, that the Church of Christ, Episcopals, Lutherns,United Methodists, ect...ect...all wrestled with this question decades before it became a likewise divisive issue in Adventism is merely coincidental.That it in every case split their churches is not rationally connected to anything but homophobia. And just because every one of them that first accepted WO as a Biblical step forward eventually followed with the acceptance of not only homosexuality but also the ordination of a practicing homosexual clergy doesn't mean that one should be duped into thinking that there is any real evidence that WO is in anyway related. Like the immediate coincidental merging of random molecules from which humanity came into being with no connection to a Creator the eventual slide of these churches into the ordination of homosexual clergy is completely unrelated to anything that might resemble a connection to the historical steps that led up to those decisions. It's all just a big coincidence that WO opponents are trying to scare the church with. Even though there was a 100% ratio of WO to HO in those churches it's only logical to conclude that there's just zero per cent chance that this same scenerio will ever become reality in Adventism. I think everyone should be able to see the wisdom in that kind of surety. In fact,I feel better already.

OK. Back up the statistical train. How many denominations are there currently? How many ordain women? How many ordain homosexuals? It is not even remotely close.

Let's look at the real experience of just one of the denominations you mention. That some have wrestled (or continue to do so) with homosexual ordination is not a correlation either. I have spoken several times with United Methodist officials on this. Their General Conference Session practice is to have an open agenda, meaning that anyone can propose an item be put on their agenda. Every session for the last few decades someone has proposed homosexual ordination. Every single time it is defeated. And the percentage of the vote against it does not change.

If you are looking at statistical correlation between WO and homosexual ordination, consider this one. The Roman Catholic Church is one denomination that does not, and likely never will, ordain women. Would you dare hazard a guess what percentage of ordained Roman Catholic priests are homosexual? By most estimates the percentage of its priests that are in fact homosexual far exceeds that of any other religion, Christian or otherwise. And some may find this shocking, but the official Roman Catholic Church stance is not a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and practice. The official policy of the Roman Catholic Church is that it will ordain a known homosexual upon a vow of celibacy after he has been living without homosexual activity for several years. I guess it is believed the celibacy keeps both homosexual and heterosexual priests sexual pure. I think we have a pretty good idea how well that works...

[Johann]

All good, balanced quotes on the matter Tom.

The Father and the Son are in perfect unity, as were Adam and Eve before sin. In either case there was never any consideration of who held what position, because their every thought and purpose were in perfect harmony.

Then Jesus took on human nature and something happened, that perfect unity changed. Jesus now acknowledged, accepted and came under authority to the Father, whereas before such thoughts and concepts were never a consideration.

Man has been blinded by sin for so long our inherited and cultivated tendencies toward evil make it difficult understand how to perfectly apply the tender relationship that should exist between a man and woman. Even so, the authority of man over woman was established by the Father, whether we get it perfect or not, it remains.

Are you saying that what Tom quoted only applied before the fall, and that Ellen White was not at all giving her testimony to the church in her days?

[ClubV12]

Johann, my first paragraph is a referrence to before the fall and the perfect unity both the Father and the Son enjoyed. As well as the angels. Consider Lucifers statement to them that HE was acquainted with the law and declared the fallen angels had gone to far to return. This strongly implies the angels were NOT familiar with the law. Why is that? They never considered any other option than adoration, love, a willing spirit, putting others first. To them this was just natural, the law was not an issue.

When the law became apparent things began to change remarkably, first in heaven and then on earth. An awareness that law existed brought questions of, "What is this law, what does it mean"? Questions never before posed. This is consistent with Toms observation on the issues of authority, which are indeed applicable to the law.

Perhaps it was not his intention that I interpret his comments toward authority as I have, but I believe they never the less apply. This WO issue I see as a direct threat to the authority of the World Church. Before anyone even knew there was a law, this would never have been an issue because it would have been natural to "submit" one to another.

It was Ellen White who said authority, Adam to rule over Eve, was designed to be a blessing. A necessary "evil" if you would as a result of sin. I will leave it to others to contemplate what "rule over" means and how to apply it individually and corporately. For ME it means, I will submit to my local Church board, my Pastor, Conference and on up. Even when I don't like their policy. I will be very careful how I "protest", in what fashion. I will not employ threats or be in open rebellion to the leadership. To find the balance in all this is difficult to say the least.

The law comes from the "great law giver", that is the Father.

[Johann]

For ME it means, I will submit to my local Church board, my Pastor, Conference and on up. Even when I don't like their policy. I will be very careful how I "protest", in what fashion. I will not employ threats or be in open rebellion to the leadership. To find the balance in all this is difficult to say the least.

The law comes from the "great law giver", that is the Father.

You and I are in agreement with your statement that I have emphasized. I am following my leadership from the local level all the way up to our division of the General Conference.

I am fully supporting my leadership in this situation, and the reason I am supporting my leaders in various discussion is to prevent "eager" church members from pouring out judgments on them for rebellion before this matter has been peacefully solved.

[doug yowell]

OK. Back up the statistical train. How many denominations are there currently? How many ordain women? How many ordain homosexuals? It is not even remotely close.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

But the RCC still doesn't ordain either women priestesses (??)or known practicing homosexual priests so, of course, there's no connection to something that hasn't happened.

Quote:

But at least their clergy measures up to the male requirement. The SDA version ignores the man requirement

One can only shake their head in disbelief at that statement!! The RCC just didn't know!! Wow, that explains their silence during WW2 and the extermination of the Jews on their front porch!!!

Want to revise your statement???

[doug yowell]

One can only shake their head in disbelief at that statement!! The RCC just didn't know!! Wow, that explains their silence during WW2 and the extermination of the Jews on their front porch!!!

Want to revise your statement???

I'll think about it after you get done shaking your head. Uh, why would I want to revise my statement?

[debbym]

If adam sinned first and not eve, i still think the fall of the human race would not have been complete.

It took both of them to complete the fall of mankind.

lucifer planned to creat eternal sinners. If they would just get to the tree of life he would have it. God intervened. don't you think cain would have loved to get a hold of that fruit and live forever without having to kill a lamb?

If both had not fallen, there would be no little baby sinners populating the earth. Satan had to settle for sin being perpetuated through progeny. He has made the most of it, but alas it is a temporary rule.

Adam needed Eve to have the love of an equal, and to have offspring. This is what all the other creatures had. Ultimately Adam needed Eve to fully comprehend God. It took both genders to for them to experience a love that would closely represent the love of God. let us make man in our image, male and female. Ideally through family love we express and experience God's love for us.

The love of mother to child most closely represents God's love. sorry guys.

This is not an excuse to sexualize God's love, or to genderize spiritual leadership. Men and women lead each other all the time, and have many non sexual relationships.

[Twilight II]

If adam sinned first and not eve, i still think the fall of the human race would not have been complete.

It took both of them to complete the fall of mankind.

lucifer planned to creat eternal sinners. If they would just get to the tree of life he would have it. God intervened. don't you think cain would have loved to get a hold of that fruit and live forever without having to kill a lamb?

If both had not fallen, there would be no little baby sinners populating the earth. Satan had to settle for sin being perpetuated through progeny. He has made the most of it, but alas it is a temporary rule.

Adam needed Eve to have the love of an equal, and to have offspring. This is what all the other creatures had. Ultimately Adam needed Eve to fully comprehend God. It took both genders to for them to experience a love that would closely represent the love of God. let us make man in our image, male and female. Ideally through family love we express and experience God's love for us.

The love of mother to child most closely represents God's love. sorry guys.

This is not an excuse to sexualize God's love, or to genderize spiritual leadership. Men and women lead each other all the time, and have many non sexual relationships.

God already genderized leadership, do you think He needs correcting?

[doug yowell]

The love of mother to child most closely represents God's love. sorry guys.

I liked your comments until I got to this one. If the mother's love most closely resembles God's love then why did Jesus ask us to call God Father? If both sexes represent God's image then why wouldn't both parents have an equally representative of the Godhead kind of love? Doesn't that make more sense?

[debbym]

Quote:

I liked your comments until I got to this one. If the mother's love most closely resembles God's love then why did Jesus ask us to call God Father?

Oh I am sorry you did not know about this, it is in e. white's writings.

it is about the dependency, and sensitivity on both sides.

2t 281 refers to mother who should have acted as priest of household. still looking.

tenderest earthly tie is between child and mother. 2t 536

so this is the model of the tie we are to have with Christ.

DA 191 also.

there are others, but i offer these in these in this quick moment.

God is closer to us then our mothers. Fathers develop more closeness as the child matures a bit.

our relationship with Christ surpasses all human relationships. He knows us and loves us best.

but we learn about love as a nursing enfant from our mothers first. or bottle nursed.

[debbym]

Quote:

from debbym The love of mother to child most closely represents God's love. sorry guys.

This is not an excuse to sexualize God's love, or to genderize spiritual leadership. Men and women lead each other all the time, and have many non sexual relationships.

Quote:

from twilight God already genderized leadership, do you think He needs correcting?

i was actually saying, we do not base the genderizing of leadership, om the reality of the intimacy between the mother and her enfant.

to ask me if i think God needs correcting, it like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife.

i have lots of questions about male and female leadership.

there are lots of females in positions of responsibility and leadership all over the world, and men too.

the man and woman are a team. if the husband dies, the wife does not just fall down and her and her children all just die because he is not there, without that male leadership.

I believe God created the male female relationship to be a beautiful and divine gift. it has not been able to be improved upon. it is the very basis and foundation of the family, when God is creating the union. even every alternative physical relationship other then male and female, still model after the divine model.

although the male or female ego without the modifying of the Holy Spirit is quite unbearable. it is not ones masculinity that in any way qualifies one to be a spiritual leader, it is ones connection to the Holy Spirit.

A child filled with the power of the Holy Spirit will lead others to Christ. it has happened before it can happen again.

If we all just made it our first responsibility to be under God's coaching to be the best we can be for him, then i think whatever comes of this diologue will be ok.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

from debbym The love of mother to child most closely represents God's love. sorry guys.

This is not an excuse to sexualize God's love, or to genderize spiritual leadership. Men and women lead each other all the time, and have many non sexual relationships.

Quote:

from twilight God already genderized leadership, do you think He needs correcting?

i was actually saying, we do not base the genderizing of leadership, om the reality of the intimacy between the mother and her enfant.

to ask me if i think God needs correcting, it like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife.

i have lots of questions about male and female leadership.

there are lots of females in positions of responsibility and leadership all over the world, and men too.

the man and woman are a team. if the husband dies, the wife does not just fall down and her and her children all just die because he is not there, without that male leadership.

I believe God created the male female relationship to be a beautiful and divine gift. it has not been able to be improved upon. it is the very basis and foundation of the family, when God is creating the union. even every alternative physical relationship other then male and female, still model after the divine model.

although the male or female ego without the modifying of the Holy Spirit is quite unbearable. it is not ones masculinity that in any way qualifies one to be a spiritual leader, it is ones connection to the Holy Spirit.

A child filled with the power of the Holy Spirit will lead others to Christ. it has happened before it can happen again.

If we all just made it our first responsibility to be under God's coaching to be the best we can be for him, then i think whatever comes of this diologue will be ok.

This is the whole point.

God has engendered the roles and ordained them.

Secular society is trying to overturn that.

When those two things are clearly seen, then the issue resolves itself quickly.

[debbym]

Quote:

This is the whole point.

God has engendered the roles and ordained them.

Secular society is trying to overturn that.

When those two things are clearly seen, then the issue resolves itself quickly.

i guess i do not really know what secular society is doing.

Japan has 5 genders. i wonder what the japanese sda church thinks of this fear of losing God's divine blessing if women are accepted in church leadership.

God created the sexes. I do not know where the line is to what is exclusively male and what is exclusively female activities.

as a female i do a lot of gap closing emotionally between people, and a lot of soothing ruffled feathers. is this a role? or a skill that a man cannot do? if a man does this, is he less masculine or less of a man?

there are clear distinct different biological functions.

is there a divine sociology? this is an important question.

sounds like we have some good strong christian sda men who are feeling their exclusive God ordained right to a certain role is being threatened.

Quote:

from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1981.tb00282.x/abstract

"This article describes men's gender role conflict and strain that emanate from rigid gender socialization. The author proposes 10 assumptions about how gender role socialization and sexism can be psychologically dysfunctional for both men and women. The masculine mystique and value system and men's fear of femininity produce six patterns of gender role conflict and strain in men's lives. These patterns are discussed and their effects on men's psychological and physical well being are presented. Four recommendations for counselors and psychologists are offered to increase sensitivity to gender role conflict and decrease the emotional pain in people's lives caused by sexism and restrictive gender role socialization."

i have heard of men that cannot change diapers, because they feel it is the woman's role.

what role differences do you see for men and women other then spiritual headship which you have made clear.

do you know any other activities that you see as clearly for the man and clearly for the woman other then sexual function?

there was a time when a women could not drive a truck that was a manly thing, do you think if a woman drives a truck she is less of a woman and being manly? is it a sin for a woman to get out their with a shovel and dig a ditch? which activities are sinful for women to do. and conversely which activities are sinful for men to do.

i really want to understand this better.

i know wonderful faithful married sda women who are not particularly delicately feminine. I do not see them as any less a women. and good married sda men who are gentle and nurturing, and i do not see them as any less manly.

i am not secular, but a very bible reading and praying Christian. I Don't see a clear set of biblical customs as to what is feminine or masculine. I believe it was written to speak to various cultures and sociologies around the world for all time. this is very broad. God's love is very wide and reaches to everyone. His will excludes sin. i wonder if much of what we are shifts and changes over out lives as our hormone levels fluctuate, and that is not cultural or sociological, but biological.

[ClubV12]

In spite of some of what I've read making a case for leadership roles for women, I remain unconvinced you can find that in the bible or the Spirit of Prophecy. I have heard several sermons, on various topics, where the presenter has used Spirit of Prophecy statements to sustain the point at hand. Stephen Bohr comes to mind as one. I really like Bohr, I thank God for his ministry. But I must strongly disagree with some of his conclusions as to what Ellen White was or wasn't saying! Other Pastors I've heard are so far off in left field as to not even warrant further study on their spurious claims about this or that.

And by leadership I mean to say women Pastors leading or headship of a Church. Rare exceptions in a case by case basis excepted. Perhaps on an informal or temporary basis.