YOUR Church has put a DRESS CODE in place!

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

I am glad to know that.  You would never speak out about a man in a dress or a woman in a double breasted suit because you obviously didn't mean what you said.  Is that it? 

I would wonder about them because of my own prejudices, but I would not condemn them, that is not really in my job description.   But I have also traveled enough in the world to know just how biased my views on this are.  You should get out of the country more, go see how the rest of the world lives.   When I read your post I am reminded of the missionaries that went to the tropical islands and tried to force their view of what was appropriate to wear on the local population,  even to the point of "seasonal appropriate clothing" based on the seasons back in New England.

[RustyAngeL]

25 minutes ago, Davida said:

Most would not condemn you Rusty, I'd think,   but they would just not share in your opinion on this. 

 

Thanks Divida, your right of course.

[Running Gator]

7 minutes ago, Butero said:

I have heard people defend "Christian nudists" based on that argument because in some parts of the world, people don't wear clothes.  We either believe the Bible or we don't.  We either uphold Biblical standards or we don't. 

I do believe the bible and uphold biblical standards,  what I do not believe is Butero's version of the bible and what I do not uphold are Butero's standards.   Do you believe it is against Biblical standards for the men in Samoa to wear a lavalava (a skirt basically)? 

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Out of the Shadows

[RustyAngeL]

8 minutes ago, Butero said:

I have heard people defend "Christian nudists" based on that argument because in some parts of the world, people don't wear clothes.  We either believe the Bible or we don't.  We either uphold Biblical standards or we don't. 

Thanks for your latest reply, because it reminded me of something else I must address, and that is this "condemning" nonsense.  Calling sin for being sin is not condemning.  It is just saying something is wrong.  I am not condemning all fornicators to hell because I said that fornication is a sin.  I am not condemning everyone that got divorced and re-married for something other than Biblical reasons to hell because I tell them what Jesus said about the subject.  I am not condemning every woman that wears men's style clothing to hell.  I never went out on that kind of a limb.  I am being accused of condemning people for calling sin for what it is. 

Let me show you something here, and this is important.  It speaks of how we personalize things to make our argument stronger, and to be able to dare others to say anything.  Lets suppose that I am in a thread on drunkenness.  Someone comes in here and says it is a sin to get drunk, and I happen to be a falling down drunk on the weekend.  I come in there and say that there is nothing wrong with getting drunk now and then.  We all need a little merriment.  I further state that it doesn't harm my ability to witness for Jesus and we are under grace and not the law.  Then someone comes in and attacks drinking, and I turn around and say they condemned me and hurt my feelings.  Did the person really condemn me, or just speak out against sin?  They spoke out against sin.  They didn't attack me, but I take it personal because I used myself and my behavior as an example. 

I suppose their some "Christian" nudists, but I would never put my OK on that.  As I said there are some that go over the top.

This was my misunderstanding.

As I also said, someday we will be in Heaven and we are not even going to remember this because we are only going to want to do one thing, and that praise and worship our Heavenly Father and think about walking with Jesus.  

I don't drink period.  That is something the Lord put on my heart years ago.  I make no excuses for Christians that drink and get drunk, but that is between them and God.  I also do not have any R rated movies in my home nor will I go to see one, no mater what it is about, again God put that on my heart.

So forgive me about this misunderstanding,  It was my fault.

Blessings, RustyAngeL

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

I will reserve judgment till I see it.  I don't believe in you so-called upholding of Biblical standards, just to make this abundantly clear.  I am separating myself from you too. 

I am good with you being separate from me, I would not want people to read your writings and think that because I am a Christian, I think like you do.   I do like how you believe you hold the place of judgment on what is biblical or not, that must be a heavy burden to carry.  

Edited August 5, 2016 by Out of the Shadows

[RustyAngeL]

10 minutes ago, Butero said:

I have heard people defend "Christian nudists" based on that argument because in some parts of the world, people don't wear clothes.  We either believe the Bible or we don't.  We either uphold Biblical standards or we don't. 

Thanks for your latest reply, because it reminded me of something else I must address, and that is this "condemning" nonsense.  Calling sin for being sin is not condemning.  It is just saying something is wrong.  I am not condemning all fornicators to hell because I said that fornication is a sin.  I am not condemning everyone that got divorced and re-married for something other than Biblical reasons to hell because I tell them what Jesus said about the subject.  I am not condemning every woman that wears men's style clothing to hell.  I never went out on that kind of a limb.  I am being accused of condemning people for calling sin for what it is. 

Let me show you something here, and this is important.  It speaks of how we personalize things to make our argument stronger, and to be able to dare others to say anything.  Lets suppose that I am in a thread on drunkenness.  Someone comes in here and says it is a sin to get drunk, and I happen to be a falling down drunk on the weekend.  I come in there and say that there is nothing wrong with getting drunk now and then.  We all need a little merriment.  I further state that it doesn't harm my ability to witness for Jesus and we are under grace and not the law.  Then someone comes in and attacks drinking, and I turn around and say they condemned me and hurt my feelings.  Did the person really condemn me, or just speak out against sin?  They spoke out against sin.  They didn't attack me, but I take it personal because I used myself and my behavior as an example. 

I suppose their some "Christian" nudists, but I would never put my OK on that.  As I said there are some that go over the top.

This was my misunderstanding.

As I also said, someday we will be in Heaven and we are not even going to remember this because we are only going to want to do one thing, and that praise and worship our Heavenly Father and think about walking with Jesus.  

So forgive me about this misunderstanding,  It was my fault.

Blessings, RustyAngeL

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

Thank you for saying that.  I don't want anyone to think that Out of the Shadows speaks for me or represents what I consider to be true Christianity.  Also, while we are at it, he doesn't speak for me when it comes to politics either. 

My burden can't be any more heavy than the next person.  Any minister that preaches from the Bible is making judgments on what is right and wrong and how to interpret things.  I don't care if it is a Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, whatever.  They all do that, and if you find someone who is not, they aren't standing for anything. 

To me, true Christianity, is not tied to a pair of jeans, just one more way we disagree I suppose.   Do you travel much?

[Running Gator]

4 minutes ago, Butero said:

I am a truck driver.  I am travelling all the time around the U.S. and Canada.  I haven't been a world traveler if that is what you mean. 

To me, it is not about Christianity being tied to a pair of jeans anymore than to "Jessie's Dream Skirt."  It is about standing against what God says is an abomination. 

I have no issue standing against what God says in an abomination, but can you not see how in the case of clothing, what you think God views as an abomination is based purely on where and when you have lived?   If you were born today, 20 years from now it would never occur to you that jeans were a man's clothing item.  Can you trly now see how wrong it would be to declare something like the lavalava to be an abomination based upon your own cultural values?  I believe there was a reason that God was vague when it came to clothing, and when God is vague, it is best for us to be also.

[Running Gator]

9 minutes ago, Butero said:

A person born 20 years from now may see two men kissing as normal and have no problem with it.  What you are talking about is a society getting desensitized to sin.  When I first started going to church, women wearing pants to church were looked down upon as doing something wrong.  Everyone came to church like you see on Andy Griffith reruns.  They even dressed up for gospel singings.  This all seemed to change in the 90s, and it seemed to happen almost overnight.  Even the tattoo epidemic is a fairly recent thing.  People have always had them, but it would be mostly men and a single tattoo that meant something special, like an eagle or something to show a branch of the military they served in.  Now men and women are covering their entire bodies with ink.  I think all of this is demon inspired.  Of course, the more you see of evil, the more it will be accepted.  That doesn't mean it was ever right. 

And a person born 200 years ago would look at what you wear to church and have a problem with it, maybe they are right and you are the one against biblical standards.  Are you really not capable of seeing how something like clothing is 100% based upon the society you are living in?   And again you keep comparing something God was very specific about to something He was vague about.  

ETA:  perhaps the Amish are correct and anything that does not match their clothing is against God's standards.  Do you wear things that would not be acceptable to the Amish?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Out of the Shadows

[Ezra]

8 minutes ago, Butero said:

Lets look at something that is not mentioned by name, pornography. 

That term may not be in Scripture, but the concept certainly is. So you are right.  Things do not have to be specifically mentioned to make them right or wrong. The problem is that even when things are specifically mentioned, they are either dodged by some, or simply ignored.