As far as I can see you did say, God cursed Adam and Eve and sanctioned what you refer to as the curse placed upon them. (Sanction=official permission or approval for an action. Sanctify = to make holy).

I disagree, God neither cursed nor sanctioned as in commanded and approved the consequences of sin on Adam and Eve.

The verse says the serpent (which includes both the snake and the one who used the most brilliant and flashy creature as his symbol and medium) was cursed.
It says the ground was cursed.

It does not say Adam and Eve were cursed.
In fact Eve was promised God would give her enmity against the serpent -- (give her protection from his deceptions)
Nor does it say God sanctioned or approved the consequences of sin. He would allow it to show what sin does to human nature and existence, but never commanded and approved it, His mission is to save and to lift people out of sin and restore them into His ways.

The consequences of sin are the result of sin. Once sin takes hold the physically stronger takes advantage of the physically weaker. That was not sanctioned or approved by God! It was a prediction that men, given superior physical strength to protect and provide for his family, would use that physical strength to rule and abuse those who are physically weaker.

The Bible is pretty clear that men (and women) are NOT to rule over others but to be submissive TO EACH OTHER.

Mark 10:42-45 Jesus called them together and said, ?You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.?

Eph. 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your OWN husbands, as UNTO THE LORD.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it,

Mark 5:5-9?It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,? Jesus replied. ?But at the beginning of creation God ?made them male and female.?For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.?

So when we read this from Christ's point view.
-- The hardness of sin in the heart has caused the true relationship between husband and wife to be distorted and abused, with the stronger thinking they could subject or reject their wives according to their inclinations.
In the beginning it was not so, and when the heart is in tune with Christ the original can be restored. And Christ came to restore the true not to sanction the distortions.

Ruling over and subjecting others is a result of sin. Not a virtue of Christianity.

interestingly God's command was for a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife!
What do we see in history? Did the man leave father and mother and cling to his wife? No, they developed the patriarchal system where the eldest man ruled over sons and grandsons, and the sons brought their wives to basically be servants in their father's household. That was not God's command.

God didn't even want kings to rule over the people. It was a sad day when God, out of the hardness of Israel's hearts allowed them to have a king (to be like the nations around them). See 1 Samuel 8.

Satan's best offer of his throne:

Rev. 13:2 "...and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat [throne], and great authority"

Jesus' best offer of His throne:

Rev. 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne"

The four beasts are closest to the throne of God and positioned in higher rank than the angels. However, they do not sit on the throne, neither the angels.

The unfallen beings of heaven gathered around the concentric place of the throne, but they also do not sit on the throne. See Rev. 5:13 and Job 38:32.

We find no thrones for these three groups: the four beasts, the angels and unfallen beings (= sons of God. See Job.1:6, 38:7 and Rev. 5:13).

24 Elders sit on the throne of God, which clearly indicate that they are the redeemed saints from the earth.

1 Pet. 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood [kingly priesthood], an holy nation [throne], a peculiar people..."

The heaven's ranks have seven teams:

1) the throne of God (Trinity of Godheads)
2) the four beasts
3) the 24 Elders-------------------------------
4) 144,000 l - these 3 teams are the redeemed saints (#3, 4, 5).
5) the Great Multitude-----------------------
6) the angels
7) the unfallen beings

Jesus' shedding of His blood made the throne possible for the saints to occupy and rule with Christ Jesus in the eternity kingdom of God (See Rev. 1:5-6 and Rev. 5:9-10).
The redeemed shall learn and be equipped to be kings and priests during the millennium (See Rev 20:4-6).
Then, the saints shall inherit the kingdoms as rewards and shall reign for ever and ever (See Rev. 22:5).

The only thing that was cursed in those verses was the ground and the serpent.

Adam and Eve were not cursed. Consequences of their failed trust in God, and yielding to Satan however were predicted. Indeed people are suffering from sin, but perpetuating the consequences is not going to make it better.

I don't believe God "sanctioned" (made holy) a painful and terrible existence for women.

There are actually people who say it's wrong to give women medication to relieve child birth pain because God sanction that. No --

The relationship God ordained between husband and wife of love and respect -- one to protect, love and care for his family, the other to work with him as his companion to make home a happy, peaceful place, does NOT mean only men can be leaders in church and nor does it mean that it is sin for women to be recognized as leaders in sharing the gospel as well.

That is a good question!
Why ordain anyone since the important thing is that God is the one who calls, qualifies and anoints His workers? Christ calls and spiritually ordains every Christian for ministry.

I think there are two legitimate reasons for the church to ordain (officially recognize people in leadership):

1. Recognition that the person represents the church
Adventists basically began ordaining ministers to bring some order into confusion. Back in those early days all kinds of people were preaching and teaching claiming to belong to the movement, but they were off on different theological roads. There was a need to verify who actually was a recognized Seventh-day Adventist preacher.

2. Government legalities
Secondly, the government sort of demands a person to be legally set in place by ordination before they can perform marriage and act in other legal capacities representing the church.


WHAT IT SHOULD NOT BE

1. It is not to be a sacramental view of ordination. Investing the person with some holy power. Convey some change in the character and innate abilities of the person.

2. Nor a clericalization (i.e., separation between clergy and members, instead of facilitators to get everyone working together to further God's work.

If we went back to the original reasons for ordinations there won't be all this conflict over ordaining women to ministries
-- to designate, officially recognize and bless people to ministries which they feel called to do, instead of having just one "ordination" which covers basically ALL ministries and simply elevates the initiates to a higher status of holy power, --

I put it into the context of Ephesians 2 about loving our wives and 1 Corinthians.



1 Corinthians 11 has quite a bit to say about men and women in church and Paul points out that woman comes from man, not the other way around. It seems very important to him so I think it should be taken into consideration in all church offices.

Also in 1 Titus 2 Paul points out that it is the woman who first sinned and then was the cause of Adam's fall. It is for that reason he e says women are not to usurp authority over a man. His words not mine, but scripture is the authority.

So why do you do it with 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ????

In fact 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6 can easily be explained WITHOUT changing anything.
But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the one you as well as the pioneers push aside.
How do you explain that inconsistancy?

So, we should interpret the Bible according to the culture of the time. I disagree. It means anything in the Bible is open for reinterpretation according to cultural issues. We could say the same with Ellen White's writings and just say times have changed so she's out of date. This is exactly what Sunday keepers do with the fourth commandment. There's a new covenant because the old was outdated.

No, thanks. You want to do that and use that excuse, you're welcome to it, but I will never agree with you.

\
You're conflating two separate issues. Speaking in church is not the same thing as being a minister ordained by the church. That is not scriptural, but the leadership of women is. God has never shied away from woman leaders. Ellen White was not the first woman prophet by a long shot.

We also see the fruits of women being ordained today as many of the women pastors are leading out in putting homosexuals in leadership positions in the church. This is an extension of the women's lib movement and we know what that has brought about in the world. Nothing good. Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruit of ordaining women as ministers movement is becoming very clear as is its source.

Ellen White understood that the work of the church was to spread the gospel message. She was cautious of anything that would excite unnecessary prejudice. Encouraging women to engage in the work was a step by step process.

I found the full copy of Denis Foutin's paper.
Ellen White, Women in Ministry and Ordination

His study is quite comprehensive.
He gives a history of her own "battles" against people who felt women had no place in preaching and doing the things she was doing.
Many times she was denounced as being out of place, for women were to be silent in church
1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The general understanding of that Bible text was enough for her to deal with. Ordination for women at that point in time was simply not a practical idea, they had a battle simply to get people to believe women could speak in church.



We find men like J,N,Andrews, James White and Stephen Haskell writing articles in the Review and Herald and Signs of the Times, on women speaking in church. These articles seek to explain the two
main texts used to prohibit women from speaking in church. Their purpose was to show that a careful study of these texts cannot support this conclusion.

J. N. Andrews, ?May Women Speak in Meeting?? Review and Herald, January 2, 1879, p.
324 (emphasis added).
J. N. Andrews, ?Women in the Bible,? Signs of the Times, October 30, 1879, p. 324.
James White, ?Women in the Church,? Review and Herald, May 29, 1879, p. 172.

So instead of answering questions and discussing the topic you turn to accusation.

You imply I do not accept the Bible as God's Word???

he Bible is the authority! But people interpret the Bible and impose their interpretation. That's what the Jews did and came up with all sorts of rules as to God's requirements. Are you so sure you are not doing the same? May the anti-ordination for women be like the Pharisees at the pool of Bethsada -- all they could see was a man carrying his bed. They had their proof text from the book of Nehemiah, and they stepped right up to vindicate the authority of the law.
They couldn't see that God had empowered this man, and that they only vindicating their own interpretations and rules.



So women can't be pastors you say, they are just females to be paid but not blessed and the church dare not set them apart and bless them and officially recognized them as workers for the Lord?
Why?
Sorry, but according to Ellen White they are to be paid and blessed by the laying on of hands (which means ordained for the task). Go back and read Fortin's paper.

When the Bible says "man" or "men" 90% of the time it does NOT mean the male.

People will point to texts and EGW quotes and say -- it says "man" here, and here and here and here. Man means male.

Wait a minute, for years I have read the bible and when reading "man" I understood "human". The word man has that generic meaning.
Oh, some will say, but the context will tell you.

See, some people say, The Bible says, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, therefore we know all those qualifications for a bishop are only pointing to a male.

Really?

I guess the ten commandments are pointing only for males as well.
It says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". See it's the male that has the wife, so these commandments are addressed to males. Do we therefore know all those commandments are only pointing to a male?

Of course not, but why would it be ridiculous to say the commandments are only for males, but its considered defending biblical authority to take the qualifications for a church leader and say they are only for males?
Or is the Word just saying any man selected must not be a polygamist.

Do you have any idea why I disagreed with your stance? Because the push comes from those who do not accept the Bible as the word of authority.

And you just confirmed what I said. You think there should be women pastors, not female Bible workers who are paid.

I guess you don't know what castigating is. You might want to look it up in a dictionary.

And now you're for church ordaining women as ministers. First you deny it, and say it's the same idea as Catholic ordination, and now you're full on for it. Would you like me to quote your posts from the other threads?