Post UPCI Gen Supt. Election Questions

A_PoMo · #1 10-08-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Look, I think things are open for speculation and theorizing until a person gives an explanation. Then we need to give them the benefit of the doubt and take their explanation.

Maybe God DID try to talk to PM wayyyy before GC, and he wasn't paying attention.

I agree that God gets blamed for a lot of things--but, again, if a fellow Christian says, "I can't do that because God told me not to", I have no real good reason to doubt them. Frankly, since this is something PM was obviously interested in, I would think this would be the only logical explanation to him withdrawing his name.

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.

mizpeh · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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!

mizpeh · #6 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.

*AQuietPlace* · #7 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.

mizpeh · #8 10-08-2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

It all has to do with what is considered male and female attire in whatever country you are in.

You'll have to listen to the message. I'm probably doing a horrible job of expressing my thoughts.

*AQuietPlace* · #9 10-08-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It all has to do with what is considered male and female attire in whatever country you are in.

You'll have to listen to the message. I'm probably doing a horrible job of expressing my thoughts.

I understood you, but I think that point is pretty weak, since in our culture women now wear pants, just as in India.