This type of statement is of course an common characteristic of a troll which this and other commentators we have observed engage in an effort to distract and dilute the issue under discussion.
10/25/18 - #17
Troll? Perhaps this can be handled constructively without going to motive?
It seems to me that it is likely a misunderstanding of what a logical argument looks like (not that I’m an expert), and when the going gets tough, desperate flailing around ensues.
Patience wins the day.
Just my thoughts.
Indeed, I am by profession a specialist in such matters and am frequently consulted by companies with forums to construct rules of conduct, use profiling and auditing for several major international companies. While I resist the temptation to engage in being a nanny, there are and have been some very rare cases where I point this out.
Constructive dialog is a two way street and merely pointing, out based on analysis of behaviors in extreme cases such as this one, can be constructive as a reminder that behavior modification is necessary.
You can PM me and I can elaborate further on this particular case.
10/26/18 - #1
What an interesting profession and opportunity to serve—great to have you here!
I try to stay out of these personalities issues, so as not to fan the flames, and I’d feel bad if someone thought I was talking behind their back, so I’ll be quiet now, belatedly…
Well in my case you would certainly lose your job… Because i am not a troll. If i was in support of your views would you still regard me as a troll… The general society of Spectrum has a certain way or line of thinking but here comes someone with an independant opinion and you label them trolls. Thats a fanciful diversion tactic which shows you have failed to attack the topic and discussion at hand. You then go for pesonalities. Shame.
Look…lets use common sense… There is no verse that says DON NOT ordain Women to the gospel ministry. Thats a straightforward issue…That is why i brought in the cross reference that there is also no verse that talks about DO NOT ordain babies for example to the same. To which logic will agree. I therefore came with the side of saying what is the affirmative or positve teaching of the Word… What is the precedent set up… If women were supposed to be in gospel ministry, why was not Lydia, Priscilla etc ordained to the same? They certainly qualified? Why in Acts did the apostles not appoint women to assit in the ministry when they appointed the 7 deacons to carry out the work of “serving tables” and they would remain ministering the Word?
This forum limits us in that we cannot engage in a full bible discussion so one can only post nuances and points.
Since i am a troll i will answer you honestly lol.
Yes i have…I stopped following a bit because just didnt have time for some of the flimsy arguments posted…Couldn’t log in back with my old account because i forgot my password. When i reset it i realized I WAS BLOCKED for having free thought so created a new one…though i see those who diss us here dont get blocked so i guess the rules have relaxed a lot. kkkk
Is there a follow up question?
My instincts were right (again…). Thanks for answering honestly. I had the impression that I saw (here) someone before with the same frame of thinking and arguing style.
No further questions, though I am curious what was your “prior name” (before reincarnation …)
What kind of limitation are you talking about? I haven’t seen ANY limitation other than against inappropriate words, personal attacks (ad hominem), and denigrating language. Ah, long texts are also discouraged, I guess because almost nobody actually reads them.
But let’s see what your point is…
Aha! You truly are telling the truth that you are a troll.
Yes, your rhetoric is familiar. Yes. Yes.
Where is the verse that says to ordain men to the ministry?
Phoebe WAS a deacon and/or apostle. She was entrusted by Paul to introduce Romans to all the churches in Rome. She was. Go to Romans 16. Read some scholars. Paul authorized her and she was already an “ordained” deacon.
Uh, well, no one was ordained into the ministry in the bible. Ordination is an invention of the church, centuries after the last book in the canon was written.
Yes, she was an Apostle. Which is far more than a bishop. And the church of Rome met in her house (not her husband’s house.)
And Paul sent HER to every church in the area with the Letter to the Romans hidden under her cloak to preach to each church. The book of Romans, the centerpiece of the Protestant Revolution. THAT letter.
Well said Pr Eric and every blessing to you and Ruth as you settle in your new abode! Great memories of two dedicated Christians.
Thank you, Helena, for your kind words and your good wishes. We are settling in nicely with our daughter here in Berrien Springs. Just refresh me on your identity so that I can place you in my mind. God bless you.
I will not respond to people who lack information and substance on a matter but attack the person behind the matter. If you have nothing to say on the topic please keep quiet. You have digressed from the topic at hand to seek to identify if i am a troll etc. Do you think i would have answered George honestly that i was already on this fourm??? What stopped me from lying? hello…
I ask the question…Jesus was not bound nor forced to obey the tradition on the times or Pharisees unless what they taught was in harmony with the full teaching of the Bible…We this in many cases and even the attacks on the disciples regarding washing of hands, the grain on the sabbath issue etc. Therefore i pose the question…Knowing that Jesus did not sin in thought or conduct, why then did Jesus “”"“uphold”"" a patriarchal idea of “”"“discrimination”"" against women by not calling (ordained as well) women like His mother, Mary Magdalene etc to the apostleship or ministry? Mary would have been the best to be an apostle after Jesus ascension…What about the Samaritan woman who evangelised the town all in one day; why didnt Jesus call her in to the ministry? Why did Jesus call that young ruler (Matt. 19) to follow him when there were more worthier women close by?
The orginal wording for the ladies in the NT was diakonos (servant) according to our scholars, why was it not translated with the same wording for apostle… This is the moment we then say the translators were confused etc? Will not the same argument be used by Sunday keepers? We will obviously answer and say Isaiah 28v10 that verse must be compared with verse to establish a doctrine…So also with WO…Not arbitrary texts twisted to create doctrine or quotation from R&H saying EGW confirmed the ordination our sisters to the minstry when such quotations clearly speak of work similar to community work or welfare…Ordination of a woman in a general sense IS NOT a problem nor an issue that is why we have baby dedication etc which are forms of dedication (ordination?) but when it comes to the minstry as per the argument at hand, we cannot step beyond the line that the Bible has not revealed…Maybe if Sr White had given a clear thumbs up I would be 100% with you, but sadly there is nothing…
If its an invention of the church (roman medieval church?), why are you clamoring for it? Why would you want our sisters to advocate for things which at the end of the day are Catholic institutions and are therefore non biblical? Should not you then be advocating removal of ordination for all… Unfortuantely there is no leg to stand on . Ordination is biblical…Laying on of hands is the other terminology used. 1 Tim 4v14, Heb 6v2…
I wasn’t clamoring for anything.
The church ties ordination to being a full minister, one that can be prompted to manage other ministers and take leadership roles in the church. If you are not ordained, you do not qualify for these roles. If you are a woman, the church says you cannot be ordained.
While ordination has no real meaning, the church has tied status, pay, the potential of promotion, and the actual ministerial duties you’re allowed to perform to ordination. So that makes it matter.
My point is that for those that whine that only men should be ordained because the bible says so are speaking from ignorance. Ordination does not appear in the bible.
Not all Catholic institutions are non-biblical. I did not call for ‘our sisters’ to do anything.
I do think that Adventists should step out of the 19th century and notice that the world has changed and that the idea that males should lead females is no longer either the norm or even acceptable in most circles.
Yes that would be just fine. I believe one of he European unions are now doing just that - since ordaining only men justifiably violates their laws designed to protect women against the prejudicial ideas the GC is promoting.
There is no ordination in the bible. Laying on of hands is not ordination.
Timothy 4:14 says “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.”
This does not reflect our concept of ordination. We do not have a presbytery that emits prophetic utterances in order to bestow on people spiritual gifts. I’ll go so far as to say we as a church do not teach or believe this to be how things work. At least not how they work anymore.
I always tread carefully on this notion that we must move with (i.e. be moved by) the nuances and ideologies of the world. Christ prayed in John 17 that we should remain in the world but not be off the world… So because the world is doing something is not our sign to shift camp forward with them…Note, we must always remain relevant and contextual in our societies, but that being in sync must come at the cost of laying aside our beliefs because the world is ridiculing us…no…Peter and John were told to keep quiet and not preach Jesus in the temple and they said whether its right or wrong is not our issue; we will obey God and not man…
Obviously the debate boils down to whether WO is biblical or not…Thats the real issue which unfortunately the world church is divided upon. So can we agree to disagree and others practice as they please?hmmm… Shall we maintain unity and uniformity?hmm…Shall we err on the side of caution ie. will we lose anything with not changing the status quo until we have an affirmative biblical revelation on WO lest we adopt things that will NOT be reversible in future even is WO would be seen as wrong.