Leaderboard

I have been unemployed for 7 years. Please pray for the unemployed folks.

Green, I happen to believe that there may be times when it is appropriate for a public discussion in a manner that some others disagree with. From this perspective I am going to further publicly comment on a previous post of yours and my public statement to the effect that it was intemperate. I will quote brief excerpts of your longer post below and I will identify parts of it by inserting numbers in my quote. Also, people will need to read your entire quote to get the context. 1) Green, in fairness to you and the accepted meaning of the word "apostatize" I will withdraw my objection to your use of this word. You could have stated it differently. But, that choice was yours. However, I do not agree with you on this point. 2) I have substantial agreement with you on this point and I have publicly stated in many times. The issue is not that of ordination. It is that of the role that women should have in spiritual nurture. If it is wrong for them to be pastors, it is also wrong for them to be elders. Personally, I happen to believe that women may be both Elders and Pastors. 3) Green, you come across as suggesting that your stated opinion is clearly God's opinion. I am not attempting to be unfair to you and put words in your mouth, which you have not said. But, that is how you come across. What you could have done is used words to the effect that you believe that Bible teaches X. Doing so would have come across as more humble. Your statement almost sounds like a Roman Catholic position on the Pope. The only problem with that is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is human and most of the time does not act as the voice of God. 4) Rebellion involves a judgement that the individual knows what is right and has made a personal decision to go against a known conviction of the Holy Spirit. That is not appropriate. You do not have the knowledge to make such a decision. What you could have done would be to clearly state, as you often do, that people are in violation of Biblical teaching.

It's not what they say but how they say it that either makes them welcome or get into trouble.

Did you read or search through all the WO thread for its postings? Both sides had their say, the issue is that each side still believes the way they did before. Maybe that upsets some people. What you say above is not true. Those that tell you that are not accurately presenting what they believe has happened. Just because you or anyone else, can't change peoples minds does not mean you or they is walking on thin ice. You might sense some peoples frustration with the topic, as all of this has been hashed over and over on many occasions. I think you might find many of the answers to your questions by looking at the old topics and discussions.

And here is Ellen White herself on the topic of how her example would be used…that day has most certainly come. False Messages Will Be Charged Upon Ellen White.--Every conceivable message is coming to counterfeit the work of God, and always bearing the inscription of truth upon its banner. And those who are prepared for anything new and sensational, will handle these things in such a manner that our enemies will charge all that is inconsistent and overdone upon Mrs. E. G. White, the prophetess. . . . {3SM 404.3} There will be counterfeit messages coming from persons in all directions. One after another will rise up, appearing to be inspired, when they have not the inspiration of heaven, but are under the deception of the enemy. All who receive their messages will be led astray. Then let us walk carefully, and not open wide the door for the enemy to enter through impressions, dreams, and visions. God help us to look in faith to Jesus, and be guided by the words He has spoken.--Letter 66, 1894. {3SM 404.4}

The church continues to apostatize, Gregory, on this point. If the Bible were to be believed and followed, we would not be ordaining women as ministers of the gospel, i.e. church elders. Note: My opinion means nothing. God's opinion on the matter is everything. If the Sabbath were changed to Sunday, it matters not how many people commit to the change--it matters only that God Himself authorizes it. Such is the case here: God, to authorize women elders, must change His Word, and to do so requires ample notification of same. Simply rising on Sunday did not effect a change in the Sabbath, and simply making Ellen White a prophetess did not effect a change in allowing eldresses in the church. Consider that prophetesses have existed in the past without elevating them to church leadership (priest/Levite): Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Anna, etc. Even had the church issued them "credentials," did such papers change any whit of God's order? Is the church elevated to a popish position now and can seek to change God's order by virtue of signing a paper? As we all know, on one of those papers for Mrs. White, the word "ordained" was crossed out. No proof exists for whom it may have been to cross it out--but it is quite possible that Ellen White did this herself. The paper was a formality in order to receive wages for her work--it was not truly intended at that time to be an equivalent to the ordination of an elder. People today, seeking desperately for hooks upon which to hang their rebellious arguments, abuse that certificate to force women's ordination upon the church at large. Yes, I say "rebellious." We are told to call sin by its right name. That is the right name here. I may get banned from here for such talk, but how can I ignore the truth? I am certainly not the only one to see it--going back to Mrs. White's own day. Would any like to see what some wrote of the women's movement back then? Here is an excerpt: At the Women's National Council, recently held in Washington, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton made a speech in which she made known the animus of the so-called woman's rights movement in the following words:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.16} "The time is not far distant when, if men do not do justice to women, the women will strike hands with labor, with Socialists, with Anarchists, and you will have the scenes of the revolution of France acted over again in this republic." {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.17} Like most of the Anarchists, Mrs. Stanton is a rampant infidel of the Ingersoll stamp, and it doesn't augur well for the welfare of the country when the movement which she champions shall succeed, that none of the Christian women who are associated with her, disavow the sentiments which she uttered. We make no further comment than to say that such language from one who was actually suffering a grievous wrong, would show its user to be thoroughly unfit to take any active part in a free Government. {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.18} In an article in Our Day, on "Woman as Preacher," Miss Willard says:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.19} "We stand once more at the parting of the roads; shall the bold, resolute men among our clergy win the day, and give ordination to women, or shall women take this matter into their own hands? Fondly do women hope, and earnestly do women pray, that the churches they love may not drive them to this extremity." {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.20} Professor Townsend, of New York, a prominent Methodist clergyman, advises women to knock only once more at the doors of the General Conference, and, if their signals are against disregarded, never to knock again, but to take the matter into their own hands. The New York Christian Advocate says concerning this thing:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.21} "Professor Townsend uses bold words. The church will be amazed at them. Our Methodist readers will naturally begin to inquire, 'Whereunto will the thing grow?'" {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.22} And well they may make such inquiry. {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.23} When the matter of keeping Sunday is under discussion we hear a great deal about apostolic example. Not that the apostles ever kept a Sunday, but it pleases the people to imagine that they did because if they did then there is strong presumptive evidence that we ought to keep Sunday too. But the following statements by the Christ Union, with which in the main very few people will disagree, shows that apostolic example has actually no weight whatever with the people who say so much about it:- {June 8, 1888 EJW, SITI 358.24} . . .

The point is: When EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained minister, she became an ordained minister of the SDA church regardless of whether or not she had ever had a public ceremony with the laying on of hands. Green: Would you be willing for women today to be issued the credentials of an ordained minister, of the SDA church, if there was no public ceremony with the laying on of hands?

I'm not a fan of basketball (or any other sport, really), but I do really appreciate the life this woman led. Especially the "near end" of her life when she chose to share her struggles with early-onset Alzheimer's with the public. Taking away some of the stigma and shame of dementia; also letting others in on the very real struggle families have to go through--a lesson to be learned by all.

_________________any further proof? God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Sure it does..., but first let's back up. Let's read Romans 7:20 "Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." What does Paul call our human nature? "Sin living in me". That nature in you is "sin" and it disqualifies you for heaven. That's why "flesh (Sarx) and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God". In Romans 5:18 Paul tells us that "one trespass (Adam's) resulted in condemnation for all people"... Why? Because all of us share Adam's fallen nature, which Paul calls "sin living in me". Christ, as the Son of Man, took upon His Divinity a condemned humanity. Christ as the Son of Man could not take "flesh and blood" to heaven - thus it had to die. So Christ shared in our condemnation. However, Christ was conceived with God's indwelling Spirit. Thus Christ's mind was never a slave to our fallen nature! We, on the other hand, were born "slaves to sin". This simply means we were born with our natures and minds in complete harmony. Thus we automatically sinned at some primal level. Remember sin is anything outside agape love.

I'll support the motion not to start a new homo topic thread. Tacking on to a topic already up and running may have positive intent for clarifying said topic. As for me..... I'd rather talk about cats

The other side of the coin is, who you vote for could make a difference where the next meal is coming from!

I will vote for HC. Has the experience. Understands the world of politics. Emails.....really...just side tracking. Benghazi, everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. Making money with speeches.....jealousy by others for the money she made, thats what politicians do. It takes obscene amounts of money to run for office these days and she obviously had a plan in place for a long time. She is strong headed, not someone who will act like a rug, but will make compromises as needed because this country is not alone in the world. To me, its not about 'liking' someone, but can they do the job. If you try to run a business just based on having people you 'like', it is limited in its success. Everyone has their definition of 'honesty', and not always wanting it applied to themselves. To say I would agree with everything she may or may not do, past, present or future, really? Anyone else running have any experience, please standup and lets compare. Is the Donald a comparison? (my opinion, works for me)

lol.... not voting, then complaining about the people who were voted in, is illogical. As a voter, you can complain about the candidates, but not voting for any candidate makes you just... a complainer. If you don't like the candidates on the ballot, then write one in. Not voting is to give up a hard-fought fight on the part of many who have gone before us.

Yep, I will vote as usual....regardless of the above. None of the 12 apostles would be 'correct' to vote for, if alive today. Certainly not David!

One of the ways that old testament scenarios developed unhealthy mentalities about negative reality was by carrying signs and calling out "Unclean! Unclean!", wherever they moved. I'm suggesting the avatar we provide accomplishes the same affect. I ran into a story this morning that made me realize that under the most severe negative circumstances, the goodness of those highly motivated, will highly assuage the same.

Thank heavens you spoke up about this glaring problem. Gayguy' riding his agenda on his one-trick-pony has gone on way far too long. I had prayed for this place to come back to more harmony in christian-adventist dialogue and depart from all this fanfare for the support of a topic whose fundament is based on sin. Let's please follow JoeMo's advice and not respond to the existing threads on the homo topics. (feeling relief in being able to express what has been pent up in me.)