News stories for the past several days have told about a dispute within Southern Baptist churches about whether women can be pastors. The stories said those who oppose having women as pastors cite the Bible as the source of the belief that women should not be pastors. Does anybody here know what specific part of the Bible they're relying on?
The foundation of the ABC is the conservation Power economically, socially, and politically and they can and will cite bible verses to support anything that supports their goals.
If they ever gained enough power they would be as bad a Middle Eastern fundamentalist.
Their child grooming tactics rival the Catholic church.
My opinion is based on long personal association with them which resulted in my renouncing them and all their stated beliefs.
Sorry for the rant. The subject just hit a very raw spot.
Gary
You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
I was using a simple text editor to write that before posting and hit the wrong button when it questioned the entry.
Gary
Related note. I heard on the radio yesterday, that they have voted to condemn in-vitro fertilization.
That's so dumb of course, but I have to say makes sense if you count life from inception. Every such procedure is a mass murder in such a paradigm.
But it helps to so many couples have children who otherwise couldn't for all sorts of reasons.
Like I know a couple who tried for a child for years without success although both were healthy. Then they discovered her irregular, painful and heavy menstruations weren't menstruations, those were miscarriages. Dozens by then, possibly. Rhesus factor mismatch, she was negative, he positive, and their chance to randomly get a negative child was somehow very small, but she would drop out a positive fetus. So they did in-vitro with sorting. Two very beautiful fraternal twin girls are doing their master's degrees now. And guess what, they get two more completely natural children afterwards. Because after first successful pregnancy she now can have rhesus positive children too.
And guess what, they get two more completely natural children afterwards. Because after first successful pregnancy she now can have rhesus positive children too.
That makes no sense. I am very aware of this from personal experience.
To start with, the chance of the baby being RH- or RH+ is 50/50.
A first pregnancy is normally always safe in that situation. It's later pregnancies where the problem arises. There are also medical treatments that prevent the RH antibodies from developing putting the child at risk.
What you say rings true to me too. I have to concede I don't know what their actual problem was. RH was certainly mentioned but may have been just a cherry on top. It was over two decades ago. But I can reiterate the know facts:
- they were unable to have a child for 5+ years and received prognosis they would not because she was having early spontaneous abortions routinely;
- they were offered a complex of measures that involved in-vitro without outside genetic material as a core (btw, on state insurance, they're both teachers, so nowhere wealthy);
- it resulted in fraternal in-vitro twins;
- while still nursing, she had another, completely natural child that surprised everyone;
- fifteen years later when she went off birth control (in context of other health issues) they had another child. That resulted in a major furor again, since she was well over 40 by then, and there supposedly was Down syndrome risk and she was aggressively offered abortion and had to fight that and sign documents that she knows the risks of keeping it. (A healthy child is in elementary school now)
Allegedly -- as far I know they themselves believe so -- without said procedures that resulted in their twins they had none at all. They can be wrong of course.
God Bless them and their Children.
Life is precious, and I am glad they got the family they hoped for.
