David333 Posted January 4, 2011 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 47 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/10/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/27/1976 Share Posted January 4, 2011 LOL, i tried snuff when i was about.... 14? very unladylike, i must admit. hey, speaking of jeans, i'd also like to know who determined jeans to be strictly pertaining to men, since jeans (pants) did not exist at the time paul was speaking to the corinthians!! It's all clothesline preaching and that's all it is. Legalism in the guise of "following scripture." Because I don't think anyone is going to be able to give me a specific length that suddenly, an 1/8th of an inch longer and BAM! Your hair is a sin. That concept is so bogus I can't believe anyone would think it credible. I think maybe 'pants' were in existance in Paul's time but as yet, the only people wearing them were barbarian germanic tribes in dark forests of Europe. The whole pants issue is yet more clothesline preaching invented by legalists. It is the intent of the heart with any of these things, just as Jesus Himself said. amen......amen......and AMEN!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'd like to visit Butero's church wearing a kilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 really? i can't think of any reason i'd want to go to that church... i'd rather be in the presence of the Holy Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Has anyone ever used this passage to declare toupees to be a sin? OR justification for women wearing wigs? Unless the toupee is long, I don't see what would be wrong in it? A toupee is a head covering, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I'd like to visit Butero's church wearing a kilt. This is yet another smoke screen argument. It is possible I have been wrong about skirts, as I already stated to Shiloh earlier in this thread. There is no question that dresses pertain exclusively to women and pants to men, but skirts may not? That is another argument entirely. An argument could be made for men wearing skirts, because it could be argued they are not excusive one way or the other, as robes are worn by men and women. I just wonder how it would be handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I'd like to visit Butero's church wearing a kilt. This is yet another smoke screen argument. It is possible I have been wrong about skirts, as I already stated to Shiloh earlier in this thread. There is no question that dresses pertain exclusively to women and pants to men, but skirts may not? That is another argument entirely. An argument could be made for men wearing skirts, because it could be argued they are not excusive one way or the other, as robes are worn by men and women. I just wonder how it would be handled. That is another argument entirely. An argument could be made..... Actually the whole thread is moot. There is no actual basis in the argument at all as what is being discussed is OT law. We live under Grace. I teach in board shorts and a T shirt at times. This is not a sin! Jesus knows my heart and from the prayers and preparation I do beforehand (and the answers to prayer received), the Holy Spirit has put the wings to my words, and settled them on fertile ground. It is arguments like this one that detract from our mission, our commission. It bogs us down in law and semantics, and we are steered off the path Jesus actually wants us to walk. The law does that....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exrockstar Posted January 5, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,673 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 111 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2011 I am not denying the immorality of the Corinthian Church. I am saying that there is no proof that the sole reason for the passage about hair length is the reason you gave. I am also saying that since it is a simple thing to keep my hair short, I am smart to do so, rather than trying to find reasons to disobey scripture. Just exactly how short is short, and how long is long? Exactly when does it become a sin? At what measurement? 1 inch? 2 inches? 4 3/4 inches? 8 inches? At what exact length does the hair become a sin? Since it is simply the length of the hair that is the problem and the sin, not the intent of the heart, there must be an exact length at which point it becomes not simply normal, correct-length hair and becomes a sin. What length is that? This argument has been repeated over and over, and I have already given you an answer. Everyone knows in their mind what short and long is. This is not a sin issue, but one to show our submission to authority. If a person is too stupid to know long from short, then that man should go bald and the woman should never cut her hair. Problem solved. For the rest of us, we will use our own common sense. Butero, the attitude you receive is the same attitude that is read many times in scripture. People demand clarification from scripture and if it's not found then it's God's issue. You read many times in the Old Testament how people tend to fall away then God comes in and cleans things up. It's not like people woke up and decided to go astray. It starts with a view, then grows into a movement, people chat and support each other, then lastly go into their own route. The stance you took is the difficult one because this would require you to take a more conservative (some would say traditional) lifestyle. To go against you would be more "free-spirited" which is what some believers believe God want us to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 no ex, nobody would call it conservative or traditional. we'd call it unbiblical. but, that's ok, it's nice that butero has buddies like you who are deluded enough, and willing enough to butcher scriptural context, to support him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exrockstar Posted January 5, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,673 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 111 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2011 no ex, nobody would call it conservative or traditional. we'd call it unbiblical. but, that's ok, it's nice that butero has buddies like you who are deluded enough, and willing enough to butcher scriptural context, to support him. 1 Cor 11 start with: 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions), as I delivered them to you. 3 But(nevertheless)...... as i've said....people will cling to others to support their own beliefs. The above scripture I posted is what Paul said before the hair discussion. Seems as though this topic has been discussed between the Corinthians and Paul in the past. I know it will be dismissed and others will stand with others that dismiss it. That's OK. Funny because I never called you a name yet you call me "deluded...." That's alright. All I can do is post what is written. You're issue is that it's not specific enough on how long the hair should be, how genders should appear, etc. The issue isn't really with me. Is the following scripture unbiblical?: 1 Cor 11:"14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? " you're interpretation can conclude whatvere it wants. Sounds pretty clear. Problem is that Paul never specified how many inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted January 5, 2011 no ex, nobody would call it conservative or traditional. we'd call it unbiblical. but, that's ok, it's nice that butero has buddies like you who are deluded enough, and willing enough to butcher scriptural context, to support him. 1 Cor 11 start with: 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions), as I delivered them to you. 3 But(nevertheless)...... as i've said....people will cling to others to support their own beliefs. The above scripture I posted is what Paul said before the hair discussion. Seems as though this topic has been discussed between the Corinthians and Paul in the past. I know it will be dismissed and others will stand with others that dismiss it. That's OK. Funny because I never called you a name yet you call me "deluded...." That's alright. All I can do is post what is written. You're issue is that it's not specific enough on how long the hair should be, how genders should appear, etc. The issue isn't really with me. Is the following scripture unbiblical?: 1 Cor 14:"14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? " you're interpretation can conclude whatvere it wants. Sounds pretty clear. Problem is that Paul never specified how many inches. 1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts