Feminism and Adventism

(Robert Lindbeck) #81

@Nymous, please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say we should deliberately break the law. I said we can’t keep the law. If you have broken one law you are just as guilty as if you had broken every law.
My post was about salvation by works. The majority of people (IMHO) try to keep the law in the hope of being saved. In reality they try to keep the law because they are saved - saved by Grace. Using a marriage analogy…Does a husband do good things for his wife because he wants her to love him? Or does he do good things for his wife because he loves her?

(Robert Lindbeck) #82

Does a husband do good things for his wife to make her love him? Or does he do good things because he loves her?


The problem is the overall “framework” behind social justice that smuggles in ideas and ideals that seem to be more of a recent political development that’s detached from any viable history that we’ve had in the past.

When we are discussing equality today, it seems to be missing the context of the responsibility of the individuals who are striving for equality. It seems to be centered about the responsibility of the “majority to minority” or a perceived “oppressors to the oppressed”. It’s seldom contextualized in quality of responsibility of the individuals as opposed of the equality of the expected outcome.

It’s should be quite obvious that all of us are not equal I’m 6-7, hence that height gives me advantages in some settings, while it would not be advantageous in other. It would be absurd to demand that I should slouch or cut off my legs so that the rest would be more “equal”. That would be absurd context for equality.

A more viable concept of equality would be freedom to express individual advantages in some specialized setting that benefits the entire group.

What we have in context of the “modern feminism” is the idea that women were mistreated in the past, and oppressed by men, as opposed to the idea that environment were oppressive to both men and women, and any contractual agreements that were made, were in context of split responsibilities as opposed to the “master/slave” relationship that we view in the past.

After all, if you really want the equality of outcome, then why not equalize all outcomes, since men don’t merely dominate the societal leadership settings, but they also dominate the early deaths, suicides, prison population, undesirable and risky jobs, and many other stats that evade the “statistical equality” that women don’t really care to force equality of outcome on.

So, we live in a rather bizzare context of “social justice”, which views justice as a unidirectional concept applicable to normalizing the desirable settings, and leaving the undesirable as is by ignoring to mention those.


We also have to remember that it was the same woman who advocated enforcing skit lengths, and headship of the man in a family as a Biblical standard.

I think that we have remember that in the present cultural context “the equality” seems to be measured against the “upper extreme” of certain perceived benefits, and it discounts the full scope of the responsibilities one need to assume in order to “be in charge” of something.

We also have to consider it in context of “idealism” of Christianity as a religion that follows the “telos” of our biological differences. Modern feminism culture attempts to erase these as non-existent, and that’s rather absurd to say at the extremes of statistical distribution of differences between men and women.

While there are isolated contexts in which a woman would do certain tasks just as good, or better than a man, and man would perform certain tasks better than a woman… at the extremes of statistical distribution, the “extreme man” would have vast advantages over “extreme woman” in some settings, and would have vast disadvantages in other.

And you have to keep in mind that leadership is that “extreme ideal setting” that gives “the best men” certain advantages over “best women” in that setting, unless of course you can argue that in some settings there are no “best men”… in which case I would concede that “best woman” could be a viable alternative.

Of course, it seems like an extremely unpopular view in our culture, but it’s not detached from facts of psychology and sociology that are readily available for review.


The quote by the rabbi.


That was a post seeking a higher authority like the Hebrew National hot dog commercial. The rabbi name is fictional but implies a super kosher authority.

The church has constant battles over words.


I posted it earlier with the 4 requirements in ACTS 15.

What if there were no requirements? Just let all of the perverted depraved gluttons come into the early church?

This anti-discrimination trend is just an ambiguous blank secular rule like the social justice/fairness movement.

People have more realistic insight who are military leaders & managers.

Anti-discrimination, does not factor in human predispositions, propensities, sociology, history and the basic family structure.

Earth is experiencing IS 3:12 in greater measure.


George, I would be interesting to know your working definition of discrimination. Without that, I can’t even begin to respond to your points.

(George Tichy) #89
  1. Discrimination is a word that does not need interpretation.
  2. My definition? Just Goggle “discrimination definition.” It’s right there.

(reliquum) #90

the current trend within my faith community, “masculinism” (dressed up in slick three-piece Male Headship sharkskin) may seem to be counter to perceived inroads of feminism (viewed untressed and derogatorily as Woemans Ordination), but it is not, it is the same. The archaic and standard narrative of “Male Only Ordination” has been steered wrong, and has it’s eyes on the wrong thing, and has become exactly like the feminism faction it fears.

Perhaps the Masculinists ought raise their eyes onto the Shepherd, instead of the udder one, the serpent poseur and his attendant, an emasculating fear of feminism.

BTW, has anyone else noted that the serpent is… a male?


George, There are several meanings for the word. That is why I asked for your “working” definition.
A person can discriminate between right and wrong.
A person can discriminate between orange and red.
A person can discriminate between styles of music.
A person can discriminate between roles
A person can discriminate between good and bad.
A doctor can discriminate between certain illnesses.

You and I and everyone else discriminates in many ways.
God discriminates in ways you many not agree with. So who are you to pass judgement on Him.
God asked Adam and Eve to discriminate between trees in the garden.

Did Jesus discriminate when he chose only men to be his apostles?
Did Jesus discriminate when he chose only the tribe of Levi to be priests?

(George Tichy) #92

If you support discrimination of women, please don’t waste your time trying to convert me to your kind of religion. It’s not going to happen!


So when did the male headship become archaic? 10,50,100,1000,2000 years ago? And who is to determine that it is archaic? you?

(Steve Mga) #94

Timo –
YES! It is curious that we read over it decades and the fact that the Serpent was
a MAN-serpent that spoke to Eve we have missed.

But that is the way it is with a LOT of Scripture. We READ but we Do Not SEE.
And, because we Do Not SEE we Do Not UNDERSTAND.


You will have to develop a little bit more here…



I was answering to @robelle who concluded his comments with:

to which I answered:

And my question to him was:

It is a simple question because I expect a simple answer.

(Cfowler) #97

Gotcha! :slightly_smiling_face:



I never said that you said that.

This is why I asked you if it was okay to steal, or lie, or kill…

You are totally right here but how can you prove why it is the case?

You are totally right here (though I don’t know how many people try to keep the law in order to be saved in the SDA church). We are not supposed to keep the law in order to be saved. We keep the law because we are saved and changed from within. For example, I don’t steal not just to show God that I am a good person. I don’t steal because, through the sacrifice of Jesus and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, I am a changed individual with a new mind and a new heart, able to do what God requires from me, not for personal gain but but to glorify Him, not through my power but the power of God and the love of Jesus that is in me.

So, when you said that we cannot keep the law, you are right… if we try to do it by ourselves. But if we are changed from within and have the power of God then it is possible.

(Robert Lindbeck) #99

@Nymous and @cfowler my answer is No, but we all do it. We may not rob banks or break the law in overt ways. Breaking the law goes beyond just a physical act. And stealing can be more than just monetary. We all do it…take a longer lunch break, spend time talking around the water cooler instead of finishing that project. Or how about “murder”? How many times have we been so angry at a person that we wish harm on them, or worse.
What about the theft of hope? Hw easy is it to steal someone’s hope through a discouraging attitude or talk? The same could be applied to faith.

Everybody has the gift of God’s Grace. Some choose not to accept it. Without God’s Grace we are naked before God and we will be judged according to our works. We all know how that ends.
If we accept God’s Grace, when God looks at us He doesn’t see our works, He sees the scarifice of God. When we accept His Gift of Grace what changes is not our ability to keep the law, it is the motive we have for trying to keep the law. If it is our ability to keep the law that changes, then we could “outgrow” Grace. Regardless of our motive or actions changing, if we accept the Gift of God’s Grace, God does not see our works when He looks at us, He sees the sacrifice of God.

(Sirje) #100


Absolutely. The law is like a thermometer - Paul calls it a mirror. When the thermometer (the law) tells us we have a problem, the problem isn’t the fever (our law breaking); the problem is an illness (our sinfulness) that causes the fever.

I will always remember the news accounts of a plane that crashed into the Potomac in DC. It took with it a number of cars off the bridge. It was winter and the river was cold with ice on its edges. When a helicopter came to throw a life vest into the water, one man automatically placed it around someone nearby. The copter threw down the vest a number of times, and each time, the man gave lit to someone else. When finally there were no more people around him, he was dead.

I can see myself doing that if my children were in harms way; but in a panic situation, where there is no time to think about what you’re doing, my inclination would be to save myself. I hope I never have to find out. Like C.S. Lewis writes, under the heading, “Nice People or New Men” - …imagine yourself a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first you can understand what He is doing - fixing drains and a leaky roof. You already knew they needed fixing; but when He starts knocking down walls and it all begins to hurt, you wonder what He’s up to. "You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself".__

Making law abiding decisions makes us into law abiding people, in behaviour - and maybe that’s all we can expect; but we will never be sinless through our behaviour, worthy to live in the sight of God.