Quote:
Originally Posted by rgcraig
I was talking about you! 
It's easy to say what you would or would not allow since your kids are only knee high.
I'd rather them write with crayons on themselves than on the walls! |
Really? On what do you base your judgement?
Are you saying no minister is qualified to comment until his own children have passed the age of 20?
MOW's covenant of earrings and NO tattoos is unbiblical, and unwise.
Since you reason MOW's sons are grown, older than mine, do you suggest I follow MOW's lead? It seems whatever he tried to do failed. If you go back and re-read MOW's post, MOW tells us his boys BROKE said covenant with their pastor and father. In view of this, I should still follow his lead? Again, because his children reached the age of 20 before mine?
I don't understand how a failed compromise of a contract (which carried no dire consequences that we know of) can be a template we all should rally behind. MOW "the boys' father" thought tattoos were unacceptable to him. MOW makes a covenant with the boys. This covenant states earrings may be worn at the committing to the contract only if tattoos are not worn.
This is a compromise which failed to deter the boys from breaking a contract with their father and pastor.
I don't need 20 year old children to understand a flawed premise.
I was raised around individuals who had parents who smoked reefers with them in attempts to deter them from doing harder substances with other people. It didn't work with any of them.
If the father didn't wear earrings himself, to allow his children to wear them to deter the wearing of a more permanent item, (that he doesn't wear), sends a message the father's laws are subject to change through pressure.
So, do you believe all ministers and councilors must have raised their children to adulthood to be able to judge between a right and a wrong concerning their own children?
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
Linear Mode
