Flawed arguements for and against female ordination.

[Tom Wetmore]

Good point, Johann. The absurdity of maintaining that God's pronouncement of the effects or consequences of sin is somehow prescriptive has lead many down through the ages and even today to feel justified in all manner of infliction of pain on women, even to this extreme. That some do not go to that extreme, and congratulate themselves for a more "enlightened" view of loving subjugation of women still does not sanctify the curse of sin. To me it is incomprehensible to maintain that in this one aspect of the effects of sin we should not do all within our human ability to overcome it.

We as Adventists especially preach and teach an overcomer theology. It is ironic that among the more conservative-minded element of our faith that is more apt to even lead to perfectionistic extremes we are more likely to find a stubborn resistance to overcoming this one aspect of sin. It seems in every other aspect of the consequences of sin we zealously preach and come up with all manner of ministries to teach and help people reverse or overcome the ill effects of sin. We are known for our health ministry to stave off the inevitable and ultimate consequence of sin, death itself. We pride ourselves in the fact that it results in longer life and a better quality of life, even characterizing it as returning to the pre-sin ideal - back to Eden.

[Johann]

AMEN, Tom!

[Johann]

AMEN, Tom!

[Green Cochoa]

Johann and Tom,

Do either of you agree with this statement?

Quote:

The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church, and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from the dignified, responsible position God would have him occupy, displeases God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but preference is given in the word of God to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision.

If not, why not?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[debbym]

Quote:

The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church, and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from the dignified, responsible position God would have him occupy, displeases God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but preference is given in the word of God to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision.

cochoa,

i notice here that when a man is head of his family, he does not have other heads underneath him. he alone is head of the his family,

and Christ alone is head of His Church, he does not have other heads beneath him in the church.

[olger]

This post wrongly reasons that Christ is not the head of a christian home.

"Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and let the wife see that she reverence her husband." There is no friction in a relationship like that.

Friction in our church is a result of members in the church being influenced by the world, and bringing those ideas into the church.

`G

[debbym]

i will have no conversations with you olger. you already are missing the point, to attempt to communicate further will be futile.

[olger]

[CoAspen]

Deb,

the desire for control and power has subtle forms.....

[debbym]

Quote:

Deb,

the desire for control and power has subtle forms.....

ya, it is true.

i am like litmus paper, i detect it.

and i rejoice in the freedom to recognize it and in turn offer freedom to others.

I am so glad God has his hand over our church and this issue of women's ordination.

and we can be patient and forbearing to all, knowing it really is all going to be ok.

every flawed argument for and against WO has it's place in the great scheme of the conflict between good and evil. every occasion of error is another opportunity for kindness, mercy, and grace to reach and heal, and correct.

aren't boundaries something amazing and wonderful.

"perfect peace have they which love thy boundaries, o God, and nothing shall offend them."

[phkrause]

Quote:

Deb,

the desire for control and power has subtle forms.....

ya, it is true.

i am like litmus paper, i detect it.

and i rejoice in the freedom to recognize it and in turn offer freedom to others.

I am so glad God has his hand over our church and this issue of women's ordination.

and we can be patient and forbearing to all, knowing it really is all going to be ok.

every flawed argument for and against WO has it's place in the great scheme of the conflict between good and evil. every occasion of error is another opportunity for kindness, mercy, and grace to reach and heal, and correct.

aren't boundaries something amazing and wonderful.

"perfect peace have they which love thy boundaries, o God, and nothing shall offend them."

[Gordon1]

Yes, Eve also thought herself a good litmus paper.

...I can figure this out...

Problem was, she couldn't read the results.

But Adam knew right away. She had chosen evil over good.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Yes, Eve also thought herself a good litmus paper.

...I can figure this out...

Problem was, she couldn't read the results.

But Adam knew right away. She had chosen evil over good.

as this is a thread on "flawed arguments," I suppose the above comment is okay...even though it rather reeks of chauvinism...

[Tom Wetmore]

It should be taken properly as an additional flawed argument used to denigrate women. It's not Scripturally suported.

[fccool]

Quote:

even though it rather reeks of chauvinism...

FYI there's difference between chauvinism (generally can refer to being exaggerate patriotism and bellicose loyalism in general), and male chauvinism (bellicose gender loyalism to to male gender).

I apologize for being the word usage police

[Guest]

It should be taken properly as an additional flawed argument used to denigrate women. It's not Scripturally suported.

Sure it is. Why would you say that?

1Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived...

Gordon didn't say anything more than this, really. And Paul wasn't trying to denigrate anybody, he was just pointing out an incidental fact within his narrative.

Do you reject Paul?

[olger]

Plainly.

g

[Gordon1]

It should be taken properly as an additional flawed argument used to denigrate women. It's not Scripturally suported.

I've learned not to expect ex-witches, church lawyers or women preachers

to support Scriptural evidence or the EGW record.

For everyone else, there are facts:

"..Adam was not deceived,

but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim. 2:14)

"The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband.."

(Patriarchs & Prophets 53)

"Here was falsehood, so concealed under a covering of apparent truth that Eve, infatuated, flattered, beguiled, did not discern the deception. She coveted what God had forbidden; she distrusted his wisdom. She cast away faith, the key of knowledge." (Education 24)

"..she permitted her appetite and curiosity to control her reason." (3T 483)

"..it is always disastrous to disobey God." (P&P 54)

[Tom Wetmore]

Yeah, plainly you guys are not paying attention. This is not a complex conversation. What I said was two short simple sentences in response to the exchanges that preceded it. It all goes together. It all starts with post #654323. Consider the full context of the conversation as it unfolds. Go back and read and see if you get it.

And while you are at it consider looking up the word "denigrate" in the dictionary and how that fits into the context of the back and forth of the conversation.

[Gordon1]

Neither God nor Christ were male chauvinists.

Nor do the Scriptures or SOP denigrate women.

Rather, "I saw that God's order had been reversed..."

"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights

and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message."

(1T 457)

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I've learned not to expect ex-witches, church lawyers or women preachers

to support Scriptural evidence or the EGW record.

This is not a reply about WO, but rather your arrogant, nasty attitude towards those that disagree with your limited field of vision as to the spiritual experience of others. That attitude really reflects what Christ expects from those that claim to follow him??? Really???

[Gordon1]

This is not a complex quotation by EGW.

It is a plain vision relating to dress, deportment, gender distinction,

abomination and separation from the work.

"I saw that God's order has been reversed..."

1 Testimonies 457.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I've learned not to expect ex-witches, church lawyers or women preachers

to support Scriptural evidence or the EGW record.

that makes about as much sense as saying, "Canadians are stupid..."

**back to topic**

[phkrause]

as this is a thread on "flawed arguments," I suppose the above comment is okay...even though it rather reeks of chauvinism...

[Gordon1]

One can see where Bible fidelity quickly leads. Name calling, labeling, heretic hunting, denouncing neighbors. Eventually church will join with state for all-out persecution. The Jews felt this in Germany, but the final days on earth will make that pale. Like olger I say rejoice. But first repent.