North American Division Responds to False Claim

(Stan Lastings) #102

You did not answer, you blurred order (Adam then Eve) at the expense of incorporating mankind into the totality of the creation story. Thats not how interpretation happens.

(Tim Teichman) #103

From the story’s text, I imagine Elohim creating them together at exactly the same time.

“Mankind” does not mean “male persons”, it means human persons, or humanity. “…male and female he created them.”

(Carlo Schroeder) #104

Thank you brother. My brother James has the right to his opinion, and I do respect that. But as you pointed out, the women were always the guilty or blamed as being the cause of man to sin, like she forced him. And in the examples I submitted, there women were innocent, and it damaged them emotional and psychologically.
I will add another example, now for someone who doesn’t work for the church, it really means nothing, it is only words. But for women, it is abuse, and because most men have never been women, they have no idea how it feels. So, an account of a conference is a woman, and she has apart from being accountant, she has five other functions, she works and the males boss complain. So they replace the female with a male, and one would except that he would have the same job description, NO. He is only the account, and according to his bosses he is not capable of doing so much work. He is paid the same, but does less work.
That is how male headship works.
Pastors decide that only they deserve benefits, and not the married females.
That is according to God’s plan, because on the new earth there will be a big wall, separating male and female.

(Carlo Schroeder) #105

I have this definition of Adam, from biblical scholars, those who speak English and Spanish, and it goes something like this:
" In Genesis 2 we read the creation account of the first human being.[1] In many English translations of Genesis 2, the first human is simply called “man”. This “man” is understood by most people as referring to a male human rather than to a generic human. However, in the Hebrew text, the first “man” is not specifically referred to as a male human ( ish ) until after the “operation” mentioned in Genesis 2:21-22when a part, or side, is taken out of him.

After the “operation”, the now undoubtedly male human sees the female human and says, “This one is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh! She will be called ‘woman’ ( ishshah ) because she was taken out of ‘man’ ( ish )” (Gen. 2:23). The first woman ( ishshah ) and the first man ( ish ) may have both been a part of, or one side of, the first human being ( ha’adam ).[2]"

(Stan Lastings) #106

You use the word imagine, I think that is fine but I was trying to combine the two passages into a coherent whole. One says Adam first and then Eve, The other he states He created mankind (not just males) If you combine the two passages into a systematic whole then first and second have no theological significance as interpreted by the anti women’s ordination interpreters. Rather a proper Scriptural interpretation would suggest that the creation of men and women was consideration as whole regardless of order or as you imagine a co creation. My point is order or co creation are irrelevant. Creation of men and women is scripturally portrayed as equal. I think thats what I trying to say. LOL

(Tim Teichman) #107

I don’t. They were written to stand alone. Two different creation stories by two different groups thinking of very different creation epochs. To combine them robs a little from each and then the sum is less than the parts.

Neither does, whether or not they are inappropriately merged.

OK? Do you think I don’t think that? Of course they’re equal, and also they complete each other.

(Steve Mga) #108

Carlo –
I don’t know how much you know about Sex Education of Women in the 1800,
the 1900s.
But WOMEN were also TOLD in the 1800’s NOT to let the ankle show as it
stimulated the man. There were other things that women were cautioned NOT
to Do as it stimulated the man and MADE the man do Bad Things, THINK Bad
Thoughts. Women were blamed if the Man became out of control.
In the 1900’s this SAME Instruction was given. When something bad happened
to them, such as being assaulted, it WAS THE WOMAN who was Asked – WHAT
did YOU do to provoke HIM?? It was the woman who was blamed for violence
against her in the home.
And this is being carried forward into 2019. Anyway, that is the way it was, is, and
will be in the United States, and in the Church.

When we look at the lives of married pastors. The Wives do LOTS of FREE work for
the Church, because they are seen as “doing nothing” as the pastor’s wife. Where
actually many of them do a lot to keep CHURCH going.

(Carlo Schroeder) #109

We have a " pastor" which is the wife of the pastor, the people see her more of a pastor than her husband. But there are very few, because some are so young they slight order than my 15 year old daughter. What we have in Mexico, is a caste system, pastor and family, then serfdom. You don’t see this if you are visiting, only by living here. The state I live in has the highest level of femicide, men killing women, in Mexico, and it is the most Catholic state in Mexico. Also, the highest suicide and abuse level, because of Catholic male headship, so what will change, if a Catholic becomes Adventist. The truth is a more extreme expression of religious beliefs, which results in abuse in family. Children leaving the church, and teen pregnancy. This is how it is here, but each country is different.


There is another reason for this association between WO and LGBT in the minds of people: the fact that the reasoning, argumentation, and language used to promote the former cause can easily been used to promote the latter cause. We can already see that when we consider how the LGBT movement has been successfully using the same rhetoric as the civil rights movement. So, the debate has been moved from the position of morality (as it was in the past) to the one of civil rights.

The anti WO are afraid that the same thing will happen: first, the WO advancement, then the LGBT advancement using the same steps as the one used by the WO movement.

(Stan Lastings) #111

I’ll stand with what I said earlier.


Fulcrum 7 is not a laughing matter. It is capturing the allegiance of hundreds of thousands, and has caused a rift within our own local church already.

To me the major weapon being used against God’s people is this false splitting of our people into liberal and conservative factions. The characterization of “liberal” and “conservative” is fundamentally flawed. Very subjective, and very broad brush and very divisive. I recommend that all who love their church and it’s mission would try as best as possible to refrain from using those terms. We do not need to mimic the political world, where, by the way, the same terms are not working out very well either.

(Steve Mga) #113

the Hebrew word for Adam just means EARTH, the ground.
Humans were made from “the ground”, and to “the ground” we will return.

(George Tichy) #114
  1. I wish I could know who I am talking to, i.e., your real name.
  2. Fulcrum7 is nothing but a ghetto where a certain kind of people abide, mostly people who do not respect disagreeing views and ideas. It’s place where radical ideals are defended, a place where ultraconservatives feel good about themselves. There is no room for serious and open minded discussion.
  3. “Capturing the allegiance of hundreds of thousands?” Really? How do you know this, how do you substantiate this statement?
  4. And, last but not least, a question for you:
    What site makes you more comfortable, where do you like to participate more, Fulcrum7 _____ or Spectrum _____ ?

(Sam Matthews) #115

I’ve long advocated for LGBTQ rights within ordination. There is no male and no female within the priesthood of bellievers and many of my fellow LGBTQ person’s have long been disenfranchised by our denomination. To call for one kind of justice (for women) and deny the other (for persons of diverse genders and sexuality) is offensive and inappropriate. We all deserve to have God’s calling on us recognized.

The NAD in some senses has seemed increasingly open to this possibility. But the backstepping in WO is a canary in the coalmine for all kinds of justice and equality.

(jeremy) #116

i think you’re right up to a point, nymous…i think at least half of the anti-WO contingent do believe that an acceptance of WO paves the way irretrievably to an acceptance of LGBT…their fear isn’t so much WO, as it is LGBT…in fact they resist WO because they believe that in doing so, they’re resisting LGBT…

of course a careful review shows that while there are a few superficial similarities between WO and LGBT, these are two fundamentally separate questions…in the first place, there are explicit biblical and egw proscriptions against LGBT, but none against WO…this critical difference cannot be fairly overlooked, or overcome through argument…it is an ineradicable fact…

but in the second, often overlooked, place, scriptural support for MH (male headship) cannot be separated from the prevailing culture, whereas scriptural denunciation against LGBT is markedly contrary to the prevailing culture…that is, we cannot say that the MH we see in the bible isn’t an accommodation to the known MH of the cultural context, whereas the anti-LGBT message we see is framed in terms of an entire separation from the known prevailing culture (eg., in Lev 18 god is calling israel away from the culture of canaan and egypt)…there’s no chance that this anti-LGBT message can be attributed to bible culture in any way, as MH can…an anti-LGBT message is in fact establishing a culture altogether separate from the one that we see existing in bible times, as well as our own time…

these facts are always overlooked by the anti-WO crowd…one of the big conservative talking points is that the same hermeneutics that opens the door to WO opens the door to LGBT…in fact this is entirely incorrect…i wish MH advocates would pause long enough to consider the actual facts…

but i must tell you that the past few yrs have convinced me that this will never happen…MH advocates are identical in their hysteria and non-logic as racists…in fact MH and racism are identical forms of discrimination…both are a blatant attack on civil rights…more importantly, both are contrary to the tenor of the non-respecter of persons ethos that god is known for in both testaments of the bible and egw…

of course LGBT does have a civil rights component outside the context of a church setting…but within a church setting, and assuming the bible and egw are accepted as authoritative, we can see that LGBT is simply a prominent example of a biological condition that can be overcome, although not necessarily changed…for this reason, it cannot compare to gender or race, which cannot be overcome in any sense…but i don’t expect the average MH advocate to be able to see any of this…actually, i don’t expect the average LGBT supporter to be able to see any of this, either…

we have too many mediocre minds handling this discussion…i see no probability that constructive movement towards an understanding of these issues is in any way forthcoming…

(Dan Springer) #117

perhaps it’s the ‘thought police’ in action…

(Steve Mga) #118

Sam –
LG’s can love and serve God as Intensely as Heteros.
I know quite a number who do. Even Trans persons.
I know several G’s who are pastors and lead their congregations to focus on God
and His will in their lives.
Several of my LG couples that I know are married, 2 of them have adopted children
and are bringing them up to love God and to be members of His church family.

The PROBLEM with the SDA church [by it’s 28], indicates that God DOES NOT LOVE
GLT’s because they are unrepentant SINNERS. And All Sinners [except GLT’s] can be loved by God. Therefore GLT singles or couples are NOT welcome in the SDA community. Since they
are SINNERS they will INFECT the SDA community, unless they RENOUNCE GLT and
present themselves as single Hetero’s [as some have, and gotten away with it].
It is unspoken, but the majority of SDAs have been programmed to consider GLTs
being and living in Unpardonable Sin.
However there ARE SDA congregations who DO find that God DOES LOVE GLT’s
Brains the way they were made from conception. That God DOES NOT see them as
unrepentant sinners any more than Hetero SDAs. And invite them to fellowship and
serve in all aspects of the church community.
And these GLT’s find joy and satisfaction in loving and serving God in a loving community.

What is VERY SAD is that the Majority of SDA couples who have conceived GLT children
find that their children when they get up in years, are NOT accepted by their church
family any more. And to find Mental Health and Happiness, have to 1. STOP being a
part of God’s SDA family. or 2. LEAVE their SDA family. Join a loving, warm, welcoming
Sunday church family where they are allowed to freely love and serve God.

(George Tichy) #119

I bet you made a mistake and let them notice that you are an open minded, smart person. BAM!!! Door slammed on your face.
I have been hiding my open mildness successfully so far, therefore, they still think I am dumb and gladly allow me to participate with them… :wink:

(George Tichy) #120

There was the KGB.
Now we have the KGC (Kompliance Komrades).
And the KGF at F7…

(Allen Shepherd) #121

I believe I have heard folk here on Spectrum call for tithe to be withheld as well. is that not so? Has the NAD addressed that idea?

Spectrum is not guilty of the same?? Certainly some “rift” rhetoric.