Post UPCI Gen Supt. Election Questions - Page 8

mizpeh · #71 10-08-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Idk, this all sounds good in theory, but is this really the way life works? Did you believe Clinton when he said he didn't inhale or said he didn't have sex with 'that woman'? Nobody believed him (except those who wanted to believe him), and it turns out for good reason. If you're truly objective the explanation offered by PM isn't the only logical explanation for his w/drawal.

How can you compare PM with Clinton?

Are you saying PM lied deliberately?

List the reasons PM would withdraw his name without some type of sinful innuendo. Was he knowingly a lame duck to prevent Haney from automatic reelection and then set it up for Bernard to be elected?

rgcraig · #72 10-08-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

How can you compare PM with Clinton?

Are you saying PM lied deliberately?

List the reasons PM would withdraw his name without some type of sinful innuendo. Was he knowingly a lame duck to prevent Haney from automatic reelection and then set it up for Bernard to be elected?

Some are speculating that.

oletime · #73 10-08-2009, 06:10 PM

i have a hard time and i dont accept ,that pm would agree to be a "straw candidate" the mans reputation is way beyond that. he is as close as you can get to having no ego at all.its just not his style period.

rgcraig · #74 10-08-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oletime

i have a hard time and i dont accept ,that pm would agree to be a "straw candidate" the mans reputation is way beyond that. he is as close as you can get to having no ego at all.its just not his style period.

I don't believe that either. I think what they are speculating most is that once he saw the numbers (DB had a chance), he backed away. Had he NOT had the numbers, perhaps he would have stayed in the running.

Or - - it could be like he said - - God checked him and he withdrew!

MissBrattified · #75 10-08-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Idk, this all sounds good in theory, but is this really the way life works? Did you believe Clinton when he said he didn't inhale or said he didn't have sex with 'that woman'? Nobody believed him (except those who wanted to believe him), and it turns out for good reason. If you're truly objective the explanation offered by PM isn't the only logical explanation for his w/drawal.

A_PoMo,

I TRY not to let myself speculate about other people's motives, once they've given an explanation personally.

I just don't see the productivity in accusing PM of nefarious motives for withdrawing his name once he's stated his reason for doing so.

And quite frankly, life DOES work that way, quite often. I have made several decisions based on God speaking to me--so has my husband. I'm sure we're not the only Christians who live that way.

What on EARTH does Clinton have to do with anything? I would never apply the same logic or judgment to a non-Christian like Bill Clinton that I would to a fellow brother in Christ like PM. That's a ridiculous analogy.

mizpeh · #76 10-08-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Some are speculating that.

I choose to believe the reason PM gave for removing his name. If he lied to his fellow ministers then God knows his heart and will judge him.

I just listened to a recent teaching of Bernard's on his church's website called Male and Female. His major teaching points are pants on men and dresses on women and that women should not cut their hair/ men should not grow their hair out like women, i.e.: Gender distinctions. His arguments on women wearing pants are very weak but his dispute is with women wearing pants in public only. He uses the Deut 22:5 verse. He also talks about the differences in men and women's robes in prior centuries. It may be okay for an Indian woman to wear pants because that is the cultural norm for women in that country but not in the USA.

His arguments on hair are a little stronger. I think he could argue gender distinctions without having to stipulate a woman cannot trim (cut) her hair.

http://www.newlifeupc.org/male-and-female

These, I believe, will be sticking points for him when it comes to holiness "standards" as the new GS. I'm surprised he didn't sign the WeDeclare statement.

A_PoMo · #77 10-08-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

A_PoMo,

I TRY not to let myself speculate about other people's motives, once they've given an explanation personally.

I just don't see the productivity in accusing PM of nefarious motives for withdrawing his name once he's stated his reason for doing so.

And quite frankly, life DOES work that way, quite often. I have made several decisions based on God speaking to me--so has my husband. I'm sure we're not the only Christians who live that way.

What on EARTH does Clinton have to do with anything? I would never apply the same logic or judgment to a non-Christian like Bill Clinton that I would to a fellow brother in Christ like PM. That's a ridiculous analogy.

Not if you're appealing to logic, as you did. Perhaps yours is the most REASONABLE option, but it's not the only LOGICAL one.

I'm not accusing PM of anything and I didn't compare him to Clinton. I only used Clinton's issue as an illustration that we, and most likely probably you, didn't accept his 'explanation'. But somehow this discernment doesn't seem to translate to our brethren. I am not so quick to accept his explanation fully at face value just because he's a brother in the Lord and a minister. Jesus and Paul told us to judge leaders, to use discernment, etc....

If you believe him then you're doing as mizpeh says she's doing, you're CHOOSING to believe him. And that's totally ok with me. Perhaps you have no reason to disbelieve him. Others may. Unlike the other poster I am not one who believes PM is anywhere near an ego-less man, based on very recent things that have happened between him and someone very close to me. Again, I'm not making any sort of accusation or innuendo, I'm only saying that I have doubts.

pelathais · #78 10-08-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oletime

ok ill ask the stupid question, what or who is an "emergent" ?

Where a crew neck type of shirt with a sport coat and blue jeans and you'll be an "emergent." Don't stand behind a traditional pulpit and you're an "emergent." Turn the electric guitars up loud enough that they can actually be heard and you'll be "emergent."

Abstain from denominational style hierarchies and you'll be "emergent."

Become frustrated that you aren't reaching your community and you'll probably end up being "emergent" whether you like it or not.

rgcraig · #79 10-08-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Where a crew neck type of shirt with a sport coat and blue jeans and you'll be an "emergent." Don't stand behind a traditional pulpit and you're an "emergent." Turn the electric guitars up loud enough that they can actually be heard and you'll be "emergent."

Abstain from denominational style hierarchies and you'll be "emergent."

Become frustrated that you aren't reaching your community and you'll probably end up being "emergent" whether you like it or not.

*AQuietPlace* · #80 10-08-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It may be okay for an Indian woman to wear pants because that is the cultural norm for women in that country but not in the USA.