Ah Cassie, the P&C Wheel!!!
I used it a lot when I did treatment of DV. Actually, I can say that I explained that to people hundreds of times. Very important tool, but one that perpetrators often challenged in some way, un til they finally started “getting it.”
Pacific Union Officials Decline Inclusion in SDA Yearbook; Stand in Solidarity with President Sandra Roberts
Ah Cassie, the P&C Wheel!!!
Timo, there is much commentary from the posts here. If it is editorial, so what. If it is scripture, then it is axiom. The fact remains, we have no scripture providing principle on female spiritual headship - none. We have reports of women prophets and civic rulers and deacons and so forth. If we as a collective body choose write scripture in our image then all sorts of ridiculous theories are born. No thanks, I’ll pass on that.
Ah, your list of biblical evidence doesn’t count for their dialogue. @elmer_cupino is required to provide HIS list, otherwise. “no money, no honey.”…
It really sounds crazy, but… hmmm, it really is!!!
the unions and conferences do NOT have the right to deviate from the plan, this is solid. They are not individuals that “feel” their way through life with ambiguous policy. They are beholden to operate within set standards - this is clear.
That is not accurate. a) I am not your brother, and b) I quoted scripture at length and added my understanding of it beneath each quote.
RE: Deborah: she was not over the priests, was she.
Yes, she was. The priests reported to the ruler. She was the ruler.
RE Huldah: she was not over the priests, was she.
Yes, she was consulted as the authority by the priests on behest of the king who wanted to know if the scriptures were authentic. She determined that they were, which they accepted.
RE: NT: there are 6 examples of females being called “deacon” by Paul, but none of them was head over a church or spiritual community. And you know this.
And what of it? Lack of an example of something in the bible is not prohibition of that thing. If it were, many of the things we teach could not be taught for that reason.
RE: You are trying to draw examples of these holy women’s actions that simply is not there. There has NEVER been a female spiritual headship position in ancient israel or the early church.
I am not doing that. I gave several examples of female spiritual leadership, including a female head of state, when the head of state was also the head of the religion and an example of a female Apostle who was a leader in the church called out by Paul as extraordinary.
ok, you have spoken your witness.
I have no idea what that means.
Maybe you are not supposed to have an idea…
And I believe I won’t be able to help you with this one, so do not make an appointment.
Find a good palmist, this could be more elucidative…
I’ll bet you did use it a lot in domestic violence situations, George! It is a powerful tool.
And the reason I’m stressing the sinister Adventist Orwellian Dictionary is because these people are using Scriptural language in very devious, manipulating ways to exert power and control, and I do mean Mind Control.
This language makes deep cognitive impressions, and over time, it creates a person’s cognitive and social environments, and becomes as unremarkable as water is to a fish.
Finding the way out is devastating, and can be fatal, because everyone around you tells you you’re being evil, that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,” etc.
The fact that this Adventist mind control will be reinforced by large factions of Evangelicals only deepens the deception.
Ironically, very ironically, this is what Adventists have been teaching about the end times all along:
An abusive, authoritarian religio-political power will seek to coerce people’s consciences.
This will sink the “unsinkable” Seventh-day Adventist Church, beyond all doubt.
Wouldn’t you agree the best way out of this dilemma is to change the Working Policy then enforce it? Do you know why it hasn’t been done? Because it can never be done without destroying the church.
Which of the two harlots wanted to cut the baby in half?
And that’s not even factoring in the other things that could unilaterally sink Adventism, I believe:
- Racism: systemic and implicit
- Systematic spiritual, sexual, emotional, cognitive abuse
- Cultural amnesia
…and God knows what else.
Only a miracle can save this church.
If the experience of Sabbath could be moved from the busy, busy prefrontal cortex to the more core areas of the brain, there would be hope, I believe.
We are a very top-heavy, intellectual-religion people. Intellectual religion will not save us.
Ironically, the Sabbath-keeping Church operates largely, I argue, out of sympathetic nervous system dominance, and so can’t even find the Sabbath rest in Christ, because it is so busy unnecessarily defending it.
And, interestingly, finding the Sabbath rest in Christ is an activity of the whole hermeneutical community, because of the profound psychosocial impact we have on one another.
Let us help one another achieve balance in our autonomic nervous systems, and so find our Sabbath, our Lord, together.
The Sabbath is a state of mind—we have the Mind of Christ—and states of mind are physiological states.
If we don’t have the Mind of Christ, there is no Sabbath, no doctrine, no Edifice of Classic Adventism, to defend.
Let us stand in solidarity with Sandra Roberts and every other brother and sister—black, brown, white, born, and unborn—in the Body of Christ, for that is where Christ stands, and that is the place of Rest.
Maybe I should ask the Medium of Endor, following King Saul’s example.
yes, you do Tim. You have made it clear that I am not your brother in the body of Christ. You stated that yourself.
so you have answered your own question.
Please to not accuse me of lying. When I write that I don’t know what you mean it is because I don’t know what you mean.
When you called me brother, I stated that I’m not your brother. I did not write anything about the body of Christ, another mystery amongst your several mysterious statements.
Post withdrawn by ECupino.
Here is what you wrote; “That is not accurate. a) I am not your brother, and b) I quoted scripture at length and added my understanding of it beneath each quote.”
That is your quote from your post - you stated that I am not your brother. I am of the Body of Christ and yet you have refused me because I do not agree with you. This is not a lie or accusation, these are your words. Did I misunderstand that?
I asked for your commitment. Can’t you answer my question? My question was “Wouldn’t you agree the best way out of this dilemma is to change the Working Policy then enforce it?“ or is this how you engage in conversation?
May I inquire what specific profession you are in?
you may not as my occupation is non sequitur. Since I’m not in leadership I would suggest you posit your question to someone in authority. oh, wait - that was already voted on, twice.