Pastors David Asscherick and Ron Du Preez VOTE YES on Women's Ordinati

[Woody]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_HCmq11Mk&feature=share

Thanks for posting this Woody. I think it's a game changer.

[olger]

If your arm develops a strain from patting your own back, you cold apply a LIBERAL dose of ben-GAY.

[Tom Wetmore]

So Ger, let's discuss your preoccupation with gayness...

[lazarus]

If your arm develops a strain from patting your own back, you cold apply a LIBERAL dose of ben-GAY.

Originally Posted By: olger

I knew this was coming - have inside information.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: olger

If your arm develops a strain from patting your own back, you cold apply a LIBERAL dose of ben-GAY.

Originally Posted By: olger

I knew this was coming - have inside information.

[Gail]

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

If your arm develops a strain from patting your own back, you cold apply a LIBERAL dose of ben-GAY.

Originally Posted By: olger

I knew this was coming - have inside information.

I didn't connect those dots. Why did you?

[lazarus]

I didn't connect those dots. Why did you?

?

Sorry I'm not connecting these particular dots.

[olger]

ok

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Would that make it biblical now that these two are for it?

Yes. Well Gerry - it certainly is a big start.

A big start towards making it Biblical? Can things be made Biblical or not by anyone? Are they not Biblical or not, to start off with?

[olger]

If everyone is in favor of homosexuality, that makes it Biblical !

[Johann]

If everyone is in favor of homosexuality, that makes it Biblical !

I have wondered why people who are against WO are so occupied with homosexuality.

[CoAspen]

You noticed!!! I'm shocked!!

We are all waiting for an answer to that question/observation.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Wow- a couple of pretty conservative blokes!

Not anymore.

Conservatives don't say I'm open or I'll wait for the vote.

Sure they do. You stick with me, and I'll help you learn what conservatives REALLY do.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: olger

If everyone is in favor of homosexuality, that makes it Biblical !

I have wondered why people who are against WO are so occupied with homosexuality.

This because someone used the word in a sentence to make a point?

I think the point was made pretty well . Too bad you don't get it.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

If everyone is in favor of homosexuality, that makes it Biblical !

I have wondered why people who are against WO are so occupied with homosexuality.

Because homosexuality and feminism share the same ethical trajectory.

`G

[CoAspen]

Only in "The Outer Limits" of an extremely small fractionated percentage of people, thankfully!!!

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: Johann

I have wondered why people who are against WO are so occupied with homosexuality.

This because someone used the word in a sentence to make a point?

Not at all. It is because I see it used so frequently in this connection in various places.

[Johann]

Because homosexuality and feminism share the same ethical trajectory.

`G

Are you fighting for the rights of homosexuals? Are you suggesting that Ellen White supported it by stating in 1895 that certain women should be ordained?

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: olger

If everyone is in favor of homosexuality, that makes it Biblical !

I have wondered why people who are against WO are so occupied with homosexuality.

This is a good example of dishonest reasoning. The first point, namely that if many people are in favour of something, in this case homosexuality, the thing everyone is in favour of is not made Biblical just because there are many people in favour of it. This is of course solid reasoning and can't be disputed. The thing people who can't overthrow the premise now do is to introduce something irrelevant, in most cases politically correct, to associate the solid reasoning they are not in favour of with this unpopular idea, in this case being against female ordination. So, the implication they want to create is that if one has non flattering things to say against homosexuality one is also a woman hater.

[nuff sed]

Re: Pastors David Asscherick and Ron Du Preez VOTE YES on Women's

Why is what Pastors Asschrick and Du Preez vote any more important than anybody else's opinion?????

I vote "NO"... So what????? Nuff Sed

[Woody]

I know you 'nuff Sed' and you are no David Asscherick or Ron Du Preez.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

Because homosexuality and feminism share the same ethical trajectory.

`G

Are you fighting for the rights of homosexuals? Are you suggesting that Ellen White supported it by stating in 1895 that certain women should be ordained?

Never ask a double question, Johann. That's what got us into trouble in Matthew 24...

First question: NO.

Second question is remarkably similar to the first: NO.

regards,

G

[Woody]

I'll stick with Ellen White on this issue.

[olger]

Good Idea !

"We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference in God’s Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience. We must yield to the head." —Letter 5, 1861. {2BIO 431.5}

"Society is composed of families, and is what the heads of families make it... the heart of the community, of the church, and of the nation, is the household."

Ministry of Healing 349.

In 1862 James White wrote:

"Kindred to the text under consideration is 1 Tim. 2:9-13,which reads, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety. . . . . . Let the woman learn insilence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp

authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." {December 2, 1862 JWe, ARSH 6.11}

Here again we have the idea of subjection. Paul does not suffer a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man; and we do not learn from the Scriptures that women were ever ordained apostles, evangelists, or elders; neither do we believe that they should teach as such. Yet they may act an important part in speaking the truth to others. That we are correct we think will appear from the following texts: {December 2, 1862 JWe, ARSH 6.12}

No. 176. "Who Should be Church Officers?Should women be elected to offices in the church when there are enough brethren? If by this is meant the office of elder, we should say at once, No. But there are offices in the church which women can fill acceptably, and oftentimes there are found sisters in the church who are better qualified for this than brethren, such offices, for instance as church clerk, treasurer, librarian of the tract society, etc., as well as the office of deaconess, assisting the deacons in looking after the poor, and in doing such other duties as would naturally fall to their lot. The qualifications for church elder are set forth in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and in Titus 1:7-9.We do not believe that it is in God’s plan to give to women the ordained offices of the church. By this we do not mean to depreciate their labors, service, or devotion. The sphere of woman is equal to that of man. She was made a help meet, or fit, for man, but that does not mean that her sphere is identical to that of man’s. The interests of the church and the world generally would be better served if the distinctions given in God’s word were regarded." Signs of the Times, January 24, 1895, Vol. 21. No. 4, Pg. 3