guided by negative images

Could you give us some examples please?

 

Hello Murph,

I tend to disagree with you slightly here. Let’s look back at church history for a bit. Way back when not too many people sitting in the pews talked much about justification by faith alone vs. justification by faith and works as was being taught by the Catholic Church. It was not until Luther started to look solely to the Bible for his theology and to make his findings known that people started to talk about the issue. Likewise, it was not until the Swiss Brethern started to call for a “believer’s baptistism,” based upon their understanding of the biblical text alone, that folks in the pews started to talk about it and to reject infant baptism on a massive scale. More recently the average folks sitting in the pews in SBC churches did not talk much about the liberal heresies that our young pastors were being taught in our seminaries until Judge Pressler, Dr. Patterson, and others started to speak publicly about it. Each of these examples served to expose bad theology.

Bad theology is bad theology whether it is held by the Pope, liberal theologians, or conservatives. Likewise, just because we have a tradition in our churches does not make the tradition sound theologically nor a sound biblical doctrine. As long as we are seeking sound biblical theology and solid biblical doctrine I see no problem with any discussion. Some of the “out of order pastors” act the way they do because they embrace bad theology and/or poor doctrine. Rather than “kickin em out” I say let’s get our theology in line with the Bible and make sure that folks in the pews can spot bad theology and poor doctrine. Then the people in the pews can address their concerns to their pastors. If the pastor is the man of God that he is supposed to be he will listen to their concerns and turn from bad theology and poor doctrine. If he refuses then the folks in the church can send him packing. This is a great forum for publicly discussing what makes sound biblical theology.

[ February 26, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Weird! My screen shows Bob's 26 Feb 12:05 p.m.
post before Murphy's 26 Feb 11:01 p.m. post.

I have also noticed that many times, my name
appears on posts I Never Wrote, when I am looking
through the "Today's Active" section. It always
happens that I did write the post BEFORE the one
that sows my name, tough.

This morning, StubbornKelly wrote the note
preceding mine, but when I saw my note listed
in the "Today's Active"' section, my note had
StubbornKelly's name on it!

 

I hate to state the obvious, but 12:05 PM comes before 11:01 PM everyday. What is so weird about that? Dr. Bob posted five minutes after noon and Murph posted at 11:01 that night.

 

Oh, gimme a break! I must be tired! But believe
me, my name is appearing on othe people's
posts, and other people's names are appearing
on mine. Really.

Not kidding.

I'm serious.

Who's that at the door? Would you get it? I'm busy
on the Internet.

White jackets? Who's all wearing white jackets?

Shock treatemnts?

I am not insane. I am not insane. I am not insane. I
am not insane.

.

.

help?

 

SUUUUUUUUURE it is, Abiyah!!!

 

Murph,

Still not too clear. Are you saying you would like to see pastors thrown out because of the things, such as what kind of hymnal should be used?

 

I think, Murph, that there is too much contention
regarding what is really biblical. For example,
there are those who claim absolute biblical
backing for women wearing skirts; it is not there
as far as others are concerned. The same goes
for wearing jewelry, makeup, etc., yet these items'
opponents will quote verses and claim them for
backing.

When it comes to dressing modestly, however,
the Scriptures are clear, yet many churches are
afraid to bring them up!

I find that many churches which will not follow the
clear biblical statements or which refuse to read
them for their original intentions, are the ones who
add their own little rules, attempting to make their
own righteousness and ignoring our God's.

 

I don't remenber the verses, but I was taught that pants were wrong because the bible says women should not wear a man's garment.
Basically, everything else (make-up, jewelry, secondary music, movies)was the preacher's conviction, and it fell under "obstain from worldliness". If someone could provide some verses for me, I would be greatful also.

 

Abiyah, I' ve seen that happen before too where someone elses name will appear on my post and vice versa...must be some sort of glitch meant to drive us all mad.

Laurenda

Sorry to go off topic.

 

Deut 22:5 and I Peter 3 is what you are looking for.

Psalm 101:3 might cover TV and movies

Music is a tougher one. That one requires a lot of study of music and just discernment. There is a lot of music that I know is not spiritual, but off the top of my head I cannot think of a verse that would give the principle to help you discern. That just may come with exercise as Heb 5:13,14 says.

 

And that is just my point: when Scriptures must
be stretched or manipulated to cover a meaning
they were not intended to cover, we have gone too
far. The Scriptures mean only what they were
written to mean, no more.

If a Scripture was written to cover the area of
crossdressing or dressing to disguuise gender,
don't stretch them to also cover another area of
dress for which they were never intended.

The description of Jezebel wearing her makeup is
intended to show her pretense and flippant attitude
in te face of very serious sin and situation; don't
stretch it to claim, then, that women should not
wear makeup.

How ludicrous, how presumptious! that we
humans take the Bible and stretch it to create all
these rules our God never intended! When we do
this, we are telling our God that we can improve
upon His work -- that it just wasn't quite up to par.

Then, there are actual Scriptures which are totally
ignored because they do not fit with the churches'
agenda and tradition. Sad.

I think that when the Lord returns, we will all be
amazed at our errors, when we see things run as
He had intended them to be run.

- - - - -

Thank you, Laurenda. 8oD

 

I hear what you are saying, but actually, you might find with some study that cross dressing is not what Deut 22:5 is speaking about entirely.

However, we do see a reversal of sexual roles in dress and even more androgony breaking down the sexual distinctives entirely. How do you tell a cross dresser since so much is unisex in design?
Unless he is in a dress nothing else may stand out. Is it not odd that a man in a dress is weird, but women in a tux is not?

In my younger days, a lad in a pink shirt would be considered gay now women buy their husbands pink and other pastel colors. We have ear rings and neck laces on men and women wear masculine hair styles and even wearing men's clothes and I mean stuff out of the men's department. Most women are immodest in "men's" clothing. Interesting is the fact that most women are concerned about their thighs and butts being "super sized" and then wear skin tight clothing that highlights their problem areas. Logic is a bit lacking in that one.

It was a sad thing when I had to point to a bra strap so that my 7 year old son could know that the person he was looking at was female and not a male.

My wife does very little make up. Actually, though when you think about it are you not telling God that you are unhappy with the way He made you when you change hair color, eye lid color, etc, etc. Most women that I have seen look much better with no make up, but they have been brain washed by society to think it makes them look better. Most men would never say anything contrary to his wife's habits because he is not going to sleep on the couch or go through the silent treatment over it. Indeed, more men lie about their wive's look and clothing than anything else to avoid wrath.

I have seen old pictures of prostitutes that used less makeup some of the 10 year olds today.

Jezebel wore her makeup to be seductive not to be flippant. She may have hoped her beauty would save her from Jehu.

Remember that Jesus chastised the Pharisees because they tithed mint and rue and left off judgment and mercy. He did not chastise them for tithing the mint, but for the lack of exercising judgment. He said that they should have done both. Most would teach that Jesus was not concerned about small things like mint but only "essential" doctrine. That is not what the passage states.

I agree that many weighter doctrines are left untaught and unpracticed but these we ough to do and not leave the other undone.

While I agree that some have abused passages and called for stricter applications than necessary and have been unkind that does not mean toss the passage or throw the baby out with the bath water as they say.

 

No, but I believe that we sould, as much as
possible and as much as our limited knowledge
allows, use the Scriptures as they were intended,
not adding to them nor detracting from them.

Oh, and I did not indicate that the Scripture was
abou cross-dressng alone. 8o)

 

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. That can happen from time to time when you are not face-face.

 

8o) NO problem!

Nice to see you back online.

(Now, if we could only get Russell back. Has
anyone heard how she is? Anyone in touch
with her?)