Women’s Ordination: The Truth about the Real Position of the 13 Divisions in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

(reliquum) #109

Just like “the Holy Father” is not a Romish tradition, either…

I’ve often wondered if the real etiology of MH is not the prodigals “elder brother” enraged that the hierarchically subservient younger (and detestable pig-sleeping) undeserving prodigal (who was wrongly GIVEN a double inheritance at his “own expense”) would have the “Headship-Father” waiting down there at the end of the driveway yearning to, servant-like, remove his sandals, give his robe and ring, and kill the Fatted Calf (reserved for the Hierarchical Superiors, like Himself, Proud Elder) in order to reinstate the younger as equal member of family. The Elder seems to have a real problem that the younger is due exactly the same rights that he has (as daddy says, “you have always”) had.

(dale) #110

Let’s just be crystal clear on this issue. When a man claims to be the holy father, that is called blasphemy.

Jesus calls his father Holy Father in John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

So when Rome uses a term that is designated for God, that makes it a Romish blasphemy; because a man is claiming something that clearly belongs to God.

(dale) #111

1 A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

This is the definition of conspiracy. When the Pharisees and the Sadducees plotted to kill Jesus, that was a conspiracy. When more than one person plots to do something evil together that is a conspiracy. When the Roman church ran the inquisition, that too was a conspiracy. When the Roman church plotted against, persecuted and killed all those who wanted to do nothing more than to read their bibles for themselves, that too falls under the definition of a conspiracy. When the devil and his angels plot the demise of mankind (maybe I’ll be condemned for the use of this word as being discriminatory) that too falls under the term conspiracy. When Ahab, and jezebel plotted to kill Elijah that was a conspiracy.

Conspiracies are a part of life. Where ever good and evil exist, evil will unite for the destruction of the good. This happens everywhere. People are conditioned to think that a conspiracy is some whacked out, far fetched ideas, because a few wing nuts so that when any genuine conspiracy is presented people automatically think it is false. In fact I’m sure everyone has taken part in a conspiracy of some sort. Two people planning to get even with someone that too constitutes a conspiracy.

The nazi’s persecuting and murdering 6 million Jews was also because of a conspiracy. The kkk, and all the racist far right wing groups are all part of a conspiracy as well. Should we dismiss the Nazi’s or the kkk as doing something wrong because it is a conspiracy? Holocaust deniers say that it is a conspiracy theory.

So which one of the conspiracies that I have presented are just a conspiracy theory? The crucifixion? The holocaust? or the lynching of thousands of black people by the KKK?

Anyone can say anything is a conspiracy theory in an attempt to discredit it. Every thing that I have listed is well documented in the bible, history or both. Almost all of them have been presented as a conspiracy theory in an attempt to make them appear false.


Ian… see this recent article citing alleged 19k baptisms in Tanzania…

(Ian m fraser) #113

Was Mark Finley emphazinig MH in his preaching and the baptisms were related to this? Has he had a similar result in thre NAD?

(Steve Mga) #114

Healing of Incurable Diseases. – Doesn’t say what they were.
Demon possession.
We DONT hear of these happening in the U.S. Or in our SDA
Hospitals in our Evangelistic services or
Health Expos that have been put on various places.


When we deny the divinity of Jesus Christ as an equal God of the Trinity, are we not also committing blasphemy?

Male Headship is a “new” doctrine/heresy in the church.

(Denny) #116

Male headship is not a “new doctrine” adopted by the church in the 29th century but is an ongoing teaching that had started in the Eden in verity. Its is a fact that Adam was the head of the family in Eden because even though Eve was the one who engaged with the serpent, God asked Adam “whats the story?” Romans 5 also speaks to hte fact that Jesus became the 2nd Adam to redeem the world and not a 2nd Eve who in essence was the initiator of the whole collapse.

Male headship does not equate to male domineering or patriarchy of male abuse of women. No. But it simply acknowledges the roles God had and has given in order for the basic unit of society i.e. family, to function properly.

(Robert Lindbeck) #117

Pre-dating sin there was no MH. Man was placed as the “head” only AFTER (not shouting, only emphasis) sin entered the earth. Prior to that there is no mention of heads hip. Both male and female were equal before that. To persist with MH is to perpetuate a system brought about because of sin. Surely we should be aiming higher than that?

(Denny) #118

…Then why was Adam created first and Eve second? How could God have “made a miscalculation” in not creating them at the same time?

And why did God deliberately create Adam from the clay, but He created Eve from the rib/body of Adam?

These are questions we must ask ourselves and not be swayed by the 21st century sentiments and political discourses on feminism etc.

We must set the agenda for the world’s moral ethic and not vice versa.

(Robert Lindbeck) #119

No. These are questions to ask God. If you “ask yourself”, you apply your reasoning. Let God give His reason why He chose that order of creation. Nowhere in scripture is it explained. MH is applying male reasoning to God’s actions and not allowing God’s action to speak for themselves.

So, subjugation a group of people, for no other reason than they are female, a characteristic they can’t change, is moral? If that is moral, then why is there so much angst about subjugation (also read discrimination) because of other characteristics people can’t change - colour, height, etc. If it is moral for one class, why not the other?

(George Tichy) #120

At this point there are many parts of society in “the world” that are ahead of us SDAs in terms of moral ethic in regards to discrimination.

It’s preposterous to say that a Church that supports discrimination should set the standard for those who do not support discrimination. What kind of statement is that??? Just ridiculous and worthless of any further consideration.

(Denny) #121

What parts of the world are “ahead” of us in terms of moral ethic? What is the basis of morality you might ask yourself? The basis of morality and even the worlds legal systems is the 10 commandments. Fact. Yes laws continue to develop with society but the foundation of law was the bible and the 10 commandments. So which ever grouping that teaches you must keep and return to the Law of God is the society with the highest moral fibre…Though yes we will all sin from time to time, but that does not take away our calling and Gods mercy in forgiving us when we repent.

What is worthless and ridiculous George is that then you remain in a church that then propagates this so called discrimination…yes?

But it is a fact that in the OT and NT the church was the one that set the moral tone for life and society. The Lord in the sermon on the mount debunked the wrongs that had accumulated over time and reset the course of the church to be a pillar of light in the world. If then the church has lost its saltiness or its light, then maybe there are some among us who are bringing in the heresies of the world and diluting the plain teachings of the Word?

How readest though.

(Denny) #122

Why ask God for what He has revealed already through His Word? The order of Creation is undeniable and Paul goes on to reiterate some of those aspects. 1Co_11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Discrimination comes in many forms…You may say people like me are discriminators against women but it is also clear that in your conclusions you reveal yourselves to also be discriminators in that you do not accept what i propagate both personally and on this forum…It is a fact that those who have been removed, suspended or flagged on Spectrum are those who are generally seen as being extremist of fundamentalist or conservative… Only those who are progressive or liberal continue to rule the roost. Some have even called us trolls when they themselves joined this year and some of us were following Spectrum 3 years ago.

So welcome to the camp of discriminators.

(Robert Lindbeck) #123

@BroDenny, discrimination does indeed come in many forms. At the core it has one thing in common…treating someone different because of a characteristic they cannot change. Beliefs, opinions and convictions can all change. Height, colour, gender cannot. Accepting or not accepting what you propagate is not discrimination. The fact you can propagate your views here negates your argument about discrimination. I would suggest that people are banned not for what they say, but the way they say it.

The text you quote (1 Co 11:3) is referring to a post fall state. Prior to the fall there is no mention of headship. If I follow your logic, I have to conclude that women were not created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). If women are not made in the image of God, whose image are they made in?

(Denny) #124

Before the fall or after the fall is not the issue Robert. But if you bring it up as a point to note then you cannot ignore that we are indeed in the post fall period in which Paul has emphasised headship matters in Corinthians. There is nowhere in the bible where that role is reversed in spite of different women doing certain acts like Deborah etc. Fact.

Male headship does not equate to discrimination. It how the issue has been abused by some men and some women that has created that bitter taste in peoples mouths . But we should fix the problem and not claim the whole topic is flawed. It is not. God is Our Father, not mother, aunt or anything else. Christ came as the Son of God not as His daughter…why? Couldnt God have been gender sensitive in the plan of salvation? Even the angel Gabriel in Rev 19v10 is given the male/masclin form (whatever his biology is not the issue). SO we cannot ignore the male terms used in the bible.

(Robert Lindbeck) #125

Male terms in a patriarchal culture. The Bible was written in culturally appropriate terms. If it was written 2000 years ago in terms that were culturally now, it would not have made sense to the culture in which it was written.

God talks to us in terms and concepts that are appropriate to the audience. God is not limited by our concepts or language, but to help us understand God uses language that we can comprehend. Terms and concepts that are both geographically and culturally appropriate to the audience.

(Denny) #126

…Really now…

Why does God not simply raise up holy men once again to write a Bible in our current context then? Why has God so much defended the Word from being destroyed and being changed all these 4000 years of its existence? I dont buy that rationale, it has no senses nor merit.

God wrote the way He wanted and He knew it would remain relevant even till he comes. Even if Jesus comes in the year 3000.

If you say it was written in that context and to remain in that time bound period, whats to say things like the condemnation of sodomy, fornication or adultery were also contextual to that time? Is it also now ok to steal, kill or lie because times have changed? How do you pick and choose what was for that era what remains relevant except in case like ceremonial laws which the bible clearly explained them being shadows of Christ to come.

(Robert Lindbeck) #127

The message is infinite. The words are finite and contextual. The simple fact that the Bible was written in languages other than those in common use today tells you the words are finite. The Bible we have today (whatever version you use) is an interpretation, not translation, of the original text. Can you say unequivocally that the interpreters have not interpreted idomatic language, literally? That the intent of the author has been faithfully retold, in a language that must have punctuation, from a language that doesn’t have punctuation?

(Denny) #128

If you are in doubt of the meaning of the Word today and say that perhaps there are many ambiguous issues it teaches us today, then why on earth are we wasting our time over it and many issues? Why are you guys clamouring to have ordination in the SDA church, why not simply leave and form your own church based on your own ideologies? Why waste time and energy fighting a system which in your eyes does not have a correct knowledge of the Word…God would not condemn you would He, after all one may even ask from your understanding of the ancient texts whether God even exists then? And lastly, why would people like Jerome, Huss and many others choose to die for this same Word if it was in verity on par with fiction and thriller novels?