Acts20.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk5bhq7q2xA

Ummmm.. did you notice the name of the YouTube poster of that?

SHAMEFUL!!!

The person who posted that did a disservice to the man from Soddy Daisy.Now, it might have been posted to humiliate, intimidate, and give a FALSE impression of a particular side of the debate. Or, if not, certainly to mock. But I have no doubt that that man was a good and decent man who spoke from sincerity and a place that is not as sophisticated as most of us today. There's plenty of preachers in the COG who still say colored too. Who still have a thing about Japan, remembering perhaps what their fathers who served in WWII said.We all likely hold some cringe-worthy positions that would make us look dated and out of step in certain settings. But it is hurtful to see someone purposely posted to--what?--humiliate the COG? Humiliate his take on things?

Aaron, I don't know why you defend him. He wasn't just out of date, he was vulgar and bad tempered as well. The next day, he spoke at the mic again and portrayed an ugly attitude.

There is no way to frame what he said and give him a pass!I am talking about ALL he said. Not just about the panties, but the rest. He was truly disrespectful and should have been escorted out.

and those who make excuses for them.

Folks...

No one is DEFENDING the man's position. He obviously is years behind the curve in how we should respond to women. However, my point was that this video was posted to humiliate someone. It served NO PURPOSE but to humiliate...AND, perhaps by proxy, to try to intimidate those of us who have some scriptural basis for questioning the General Assembly after General Assembly after General Assembly PUSH to place women in leadership.I've said it before: I won't lose any sleep if we vote in a women General Overseer. But I DO see some issues. I see people blatantly IGNORE the scriptures--or try to explain away--that relate to the headship of the man in the home, or of--gasp!--the woman being subject to her husband. EGADS!!! The people who wrote the Bible were the most pitiful, misogynistic, backward group of folks, weren't they?When the General Assembly turns something down, it shouldn't be allowed to come back for the next General Assembly dressed up in new clothes. That is DISRESPECT for the General Assembly. It says, in so many words, We are going to keep on disregarding the GA until we win. No, I'm not justifying this man. But I'm not going to try to humiliate him, either. Some, like OTCP, can't seem to get enough of the humiliation. Do we think this man hasn't heard it left and right for a long time now? Do we need to really keep on doing this?

I don't think he meant to be vulgar at all, and would likely be appalled that anyone thought so. Yes, he was a bit upset. AND WE ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Not because of whatever side we are on when it comes to women in leadership, but because the Council of 18 (or some body or another) keeps making sure that we keep having to address what has ALREADY been addressed! If there was a motion every GA to, say, go back to the old-time apparel standards, you would hear an uproar! Someone would likely say, Hey, we voted that down last time--why are we seeing it again so soon?Exactly. It seems to me disrespectful of the GA to pretty much say, We could care less about how you voted. We will bring it back until we finally squeak it through.