Leaderboard

Sorry but this is not the humor section??

? Know my heart ?

Here's another difference between unity and uniformity - London is the capital of England. Denver is in Colorado. These are facts. We are united in this thought - no "opinion" is needed. What about peanuts? Are they good for you? 98% of the population of the world would probably agree with that statement. What about the 2% that are severely allergic to peanuts? Would they agree that peanuts are good for you when they need an Epi-Pen injection for just walking by an open jar of peanut butter? Heck no! We do not all have a uniform opinion on peanut butter opinion on peanuts. But we are sufficiently united to respect those who disagree with us to the point of respecting those with peanut allergies out of respect for their physical health. Shouldn't we respect the opinions of others regarding WO for their spiritual health? In the Catholic Church, it has been an offense punishable by excommunication to practice any form of birth control except abstinence. How effectively can the Catholic Church effectively enforce this without losing a large percentage of their membership? They can't; so they don't. If the SDA Church makes it an offense to have women pastors punishable by functional disfellowship from the GC, how can they enforce this without the risk of losing a large percentage of the membership (not to mention the financial base)? I predict they will not be able to; so they won't. In the end, financial concerns will override policy. After all, the corporate church (no denomination intended) is a business as well as (maybe even before) a spiritual organization.

Here's what I see as the difference between unity and uniformity. Since the church is supposed to be a family, I will use my blood family as an example. We are a family of 5 siblings and our respective partners and children. We have VERY diverse spiritual and political views; some of which are not discussed because the level of disagreement causes fights. Our thoughts and opinions are not even close to being uniform. But let someone come in and try to disrupt or divide our family - all that difference of opinion goes out the window and we band together to help the family member(s) in distress or fight against the forces that would divide us. My dad, who was the patriarch of the family, encouraged us to have our own opinions rather than insist that we all agree with him and/or my mom on all aspects of life; and to respect each others' opinions even if we didn't agree. THAT'S unity. Over our 35 years together, my wife and I have discovered several things we don't (and never will) agree upon. We are not uniform in our thoughts. Nonetheless, we have no doubt that we love each other deeply and will stay together until death do us part. That's unity. As a church family, we all have diverse opinions of certain subjects. If you are against WO, are you still an adopted child of God? Do you love and believe in salvation from Jesus? Me too! We're siblings. We're united in our love of Christ. If you are for WO, are you still an adopted child of God? Do you love and believe in salvation from Jesus? Me too! We're siblings. We're united in our love of Christ.

There is a link to it in the posted Spectrum article. I didn't like it. Making it sound like the issue of WO was crucial to the mission of the Church. They make it sound like it's an issue of church unity; when it is actually an issue of church uniformity. It reminds me of the conflict in the early Church between the Judaizers and Paul concerning what Gentiles had to do and believe to be "brothers" in the faith. WO is a distraction from the mission of the Church , which is to spread the Good News about the Kingdom. Continued discrimination against women has NOTHING to do with spreading the Gospel; in fact, I think it has the opposite effect. Notwithstanding, the issue of WO does not affect my relationship with my brothers and sisters in the church.

Ahhhh....I am getting older but I can still stand on my own two legs! Not sure what spirituality has to do with legs...but to each their own!! Speaking of legs...however...not sure what you are trying to say? You don't like my comments, is that it? It's okay, it doesn't bother me!

Wanderer.....you argue a point that was not being addressed. We/I are taking about 'womens ordination', under the quise of 'headship' being the rule.

The bigger issue to me, is that man seems to believe, he the human, has the sole right to 'ordain'....... ordain1 make (someone) a priest or minister; confer holy orders on. Again, humans desiring to take the role of God in leading others to Him. Did Christ not come to destroy that myth? Would He walk down the isle to congratulate those who condemn the women claiming to be following the voice of God and bringing others to Him? ( fruits of their labor) I, for one, am not going to interfere with the leading of the HS. Talk about 'out of context', is that not the usual happening with human interpretation of scripture when desiring to prove a certain point. I wonder how many people really believe God is in control or that humans have to help Him......in order that others will have 'correct' understanding?

One can then be lead to believe, based on prior rhetoric, that having women 'ordained' to be leaders in the church, pastor a church, leader over men including the .org is 'destroying Gods Church'. What is always missing in such an argument, is that Christ never spoke about a .org when refering to His Church but rather to those that followed Him. The RCC, however, does teach that Christ did just exactly that when speaking to Peter. That is the basis of their theology and is has crept in the the SDA .org from time to time...'headship'. I find it very interesting that after all we have taught about 'following after the beast', with the meaning being used most often to describe the RCC, there are some choosing to do that within the .org however unwittingly or just ignoring the parallels.

Sorry, other than the fact that the mobile court still stands, I only have access to hearsay from those that live there, unlike evidence of the town of Paradise somewhat further South in California. The quite heavy rains of the last two weeks have removed any present fire dangers. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-paradise-fire-victims-rain-20181127-story.html