No sir ... you piggybacked w/ the slippery slope comparisons ... See your TD Jakes quote and your laying down w/ another man post.
Want me to quote you?
NO Dan, Did I Bring that comment up or did Amos???
I'm by no means saying that Everyone who has changed their standards
have changed on that issue, but I am seeing more and more who came from traditional Pentecostal background which I will admit is disturbing to me.
The comparison of those 2 scriptures was strictly a question, not a putdown
NO Dan, Did I Bring that comment up or did Amos???
I'm by no means saying that Everyone who has changed their standards
have changed on that issue, but I am seeing more and more who came from traditional Pentecostal background which I will admit is disturbing to me.
The comparison of those 2 scriptures was strictly a question, not a putdown
But one is not related to the other ... both are extrabiblical positions ... rejected by most of the Body of Christ.
to make the linkage is faulty reasoning ... and simply hysterics used to maintain a fictional paradigm of God's Holiness. Manipulation at it's best ...
Just how the term charismatic is used to marginalize those who diverge.
If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???
Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??
.
Mark, you have to do away with the belief that Deut 22:5 is about women wearing pants. It's not. Not even close. Nobody is doing away with that scripture because it still applies to everyone today.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Mark, you have to do away with the belief that Deut 22:5 is about women wearing pants. It's not. Not even close. Nobody is doing away with that scripture because it still applies to everyone today.
Okay, now we are making a little progress.
If a man wore a dress made ONLY for women, say the fabric is made from burlap and has litte spikes coming out of it to make it more masculine, wouldn't it still "PERTAIN" to a female's garment since it's a Dress ???
HO, when did pants AND a dress both become a woman's garment but only pants are for men ??
It's more than that. It's finding our place and following the convictions we feel that God has placed in our own individual lives.
We can't even look back at the OT for this.
The world is in chaos, the church world is in chaos.
We just need to find where God wants us. I will also say when a person finds that place, for them, and it happens to be the UPC, we need to leave them and their convictions alone.
It's one thing to debate here, as we often do, but if someone feels that is what they need in their life to stand before God, we need to leave that alone.
Not everyone can live the same way. Not every person will have the same convictions. Some are stronger by personal choice.
We need to respect each person's decision and consecration.
If a man wore a dress made ONLY for women, say the fabric is made from burlap and has litte spikes coming out of it to make it more masculine, wouldn't it still "PERTAIN" to a female's garment since it's a Dress ???
HO, when did pants AND a dress both become a woman's garment but only pants are for men ??
What about Scottland's kilts or even Greece? those are not dresses but are a man's garment, and looks very much like a skirt. Grant it many do not wear them now days but still was made for men.
Linear Mode
