Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by Felicity

56 pages of discussion on this topic which I haven't read but I'll just make a comment in connection with the thread title.

Old way holiness standards we need to keep:

• Separation from the world and unto God.
  
  
• Consecration.
  
  
• Modesty.
  
  
• Submission to God, His will, plan and purpose and to those who are in positions of leadership over us.
  
  
• Prayer & fasting.

These things should just about keep a person living straight enough, I think.

agreed...how all is well with you, my friend...we are melting it is so hot here guess your part of the woorld is quite cold right now...

[Sister Alvear]

and now my question...do any two churches or any two people believe alike?

[Sister Alvear]

We all know some things never change...however personal convictions are one thing doctrine is another thing...

[SiblingRevelry]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

and now my question...do any two churches or any two people believe alike?

Nope. But you know, Sister A., it took me a LONG time to figure that out.

[tweedledee500]

Originally Posted by tdc

Hi Nahkoe

Reading the thread backwards could cause some confusion lol.

I was replying to a post by Isolatedsaint. The general idea of the reply was simply a pointer to the fact that men's and woman's pants are very distinct in design, but you can also purchase pants for both genders that have a mix of the "society allotted" male/female styles interwoven in them, thus confusing the ability for onlookers to easily define the pant's intended target gender. (i.e. Men's pants with a female twist.)

In short, my saying that it is extremely easy to identify female pants from male pants, is not negated by the fact that some designers skew the lines between male and female clothing design. Since we are talking about modesty in the church, we are not dealing with those "skewed" designs. We are dealing with a scenario in which a woman in the church decides to wear pants and we are pointing out that there are many, many pants designed strictly for women. If a woman were to wear pants that distinctly depicted the feminine, she would not be wearing dress that pertains to a man.

I am jumping into the conversation without having the benefit of reading every single previous post. Maybe someone has already addressed this... In fact, someone alluded to this in the first few pages.
Do we go back 100 years or 2000 years? If it is about gender distinction between mens and womens styles, then what about all the style changes over the centuries? What about the fact that in China a few centuries ago, men wore the robe-like garments and women often wore the pant-like garment? Or what about kilts? What about the leotard and tutu style of men's clothing during Shakespear's time? And what about the robes of the Biblical times? How was the "standard" defined over the centuries? In fact, the styles from both in the OT and NT times should be examined since the SINGLE scripture regarding gender specific clothing used by UPC is actually in the OT. There were distinctions between mens and womens robes, but they were still robes! Thus we could equally say that there are distinctions between mens and womens pants but they are still pants! And pants can often be much more modest than dresses and skirts for women!

My point is - styles change.
And by the way, Jesus said (as well as several others in the Bible) that there should be two or three witnesses before any word is established. Why take one scripture and make a heaven-or-hell issue out of it? That is dangerous.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by tweedledee500

In fact, the styles from both in the OT and NT times should be examined since the SINGLE scripture regarding gender specific clothing used by UPC is actually in the OT.
.

I believe it also stems from the NT scripture where Peter used Abraham's wife, Sarah, as an example when he was teaching womens conduct.

[Sister Alvear]

A RESEARCHER FOR A PUBLISHING COMPANY WAS INTERVIEWING PEOPLE TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF BOOKS THEY LIKED TO READ. THE BIBLE, SHAKESPEARE, AND THE CLASSICS WERE HIGH ON EVERYONE'S LIST! IN RETURN FOR THEIR COOPERATION HE OFFERED EACH PERSON A CHOICE OF A FREE BOOK FROM A LIST. TO HIS SURPRISE, THOUGH THEY HAD ALL SAID THE BIBLE, SHAKESPEARE, AND THE CLASSICS WERE THEIR FAVORITE READING, THE NUMBER ONE REQUESTED BOOK WAS, "MURDER OF A BURLESQUE QUEEN!" THEIR STATED DESIRES DIDN'T MATCH THEIR ACTION! SOMETIMES IN CHURCH WE LEARN WHAT WE SHOULD LIKE AND EVEN PRAISE THOSE THINGS, BUT IN OUR REAL LIVES THERE MAY BE LITTLE PRACTICE TO THEM! -- Source Unknown

[Sister Alvear]

Holiness is not just what we DON'T DO; it is very much what we POSITIVELY DO!