Cosmetics??? - Page 38

coadie · #**371** 03-11-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Yes but one must also love his brother so that you do not help him faulter. Women knowing the weakness of man have a great obligation in this area. As do men as well. Also my point is the early church writings immediately after the bible etc... Today's american society is all about looks and the flesh and the church as been sucked in and justified it's passion and making the term modesty equal moderately fulfilling the desires of the flesh.

Muslims use the burka. Covers the face

Mardi Gras uses masks. Other pagan items

Hollywood likes the convenience of a paint job to cover naked skin. Mask

Yes it is looks and the flesh and the reactions are extremely emotional.

Cosmo magazine features the makeup and alluring hedonist lifestyle.

Since the Israelites were not into it, there is no Hebrew good equivalent to kosmo. It was sometimes referred to the sex goddes Asteroth and a few others.

Most of the Moderne men are too insecure to walk down the street with a partner that is not covered? with paint? So sad they think God was unable to meet their beauty standards.

rgcraig · #**372** 03-11-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

So you still can't support the painting of the flesh can ya?

4An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Hollywood.

You remind us of paris Hilton.

So how do I remind you of Paris Hilton?

I don't have a high look, a proud heart and I don't plow the wicked, drove through Hollywood once, but just what is it?

RandyWayne · #**373** 03-11-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think, in some cases, that could be true. BUT, I just don't see makeup as drawing passion out of a man. At least not across the board.

Perhaps some of the men could comment on that. My husband isn't attracted by it, so I can only speak for him. I thought a woman's breasts and body would be the main attraction.

Ok, my wife doesn't wear any makeup herself and I do not have a problem with that. She just doesn't like taking time to mess with it, which is also the reason she keeps her hair short, which is convenience.
I DO think it can and does look good in small amounts -small being the key word, and yes, many use WAY too much.

(And yes, the boobs, errrrr I mean "breasts", the overall body -but mainly the face, are the main attractions. It is the whole package.)

RandyWayne · #**374** 03-11-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

So how do I remind you of Paris Hilton?

I don't have a high look, a proud heart and I don't plow the wicked, drove through Hollywood once, but just what is it?

Maybe he is referring to your millions and millions of net worth.

TRFrance · #**375** 03-11-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Glorifying the flesh is against biblical principle and something the early church fathers taught against concerning jewelry and makeup etc... If you do not realize what the early curch fathers said which is consistent across the board you need to examine again what they said. Envy is one of the natural sins of women and when they start glorifying their looks they become stumbling blocks for others as it takes hold like a virus and at that draw desire from men. That is not love! Same with men as well.

Well, I must say I saw that coming Luke. I asked for your best scripture references on this, and your reply is "it's against scriptural principle"... which is what people say when they have no scripture for something they're against.

I understand the "scriptual principle" argument, that not every thing is going to be spelled out specifically in scripture, etc. I'm also aware of the catch-all-phrase "glorifying the flesh", which can mean anything to anybody... I've heard that phrase applied to using lip gloss, eye shadow, wedding rings, nice clothes, curling one's hair, high-heels, wearing a goatee, or whatever someone wants to preach against.... (Luke, among those things I just mentioned above, which ones do you consider to be "glorifying the flesh" and which ones are okay?)

Furthermore, the "it's against biblical principle" argument is one that's been used and misused for decades to ban all kinds of things that are not really sins, but someone had it in their minds that it was a sin. I suspect you already know this.

And I would venture to guess that there's something that you do, or approve of, that someone who has a conviction against could condemn you for, and tell you "it's against biblical principle".
----------
The writings of the "early church fathers" are a mixed bag... which is why we cant put it alongside scripture to ascertain NT doctrine.
Some of them had a view of god that we might consider downright heretical today. Others had views on baptism that we would consider unbiblical. So why are they now an infallible authority on consmetics or adornments. There were all kinds of errors and wacky doctrines in existence even before the NT was completed!
So I'm not going to join you in drinking from the well of the so-called "early church fathers". Indeed there are some things in that well that you wouldnt want to drink either.
I'll stick with the inspired scripture as my guide.

I think if people were to refrain from teaching/preaching their personal conviction as doctrine, the church will be much better off.

Pressing-On · #**376** 03-11-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Ok, my wife doesn't wear any makeup herself and I do not have a problem with that. She just doesn't like taking time to mess with it, which is also the reason she keeps her hair short, which is convenience.
I DO think it can and does look good in small amounts -small being the key word, and yes, many use WAY too much.

(And yes, the boobs, errrrr I mean "breasts", the overall body -but mainly the face, are the main attractions. It is the whole package.)

Thanks for your input, Randy. LOL!

TRFrance · #**377** 03-11-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

flawed arguments...

You are trying to justify the error of one because of common use of another. Thus I know X probably wears a tie so if he answers Y I got him in contradiction. Problem is you first need to justify the tie as necessary apparell and does it glorfiy the body uneedfully. Again read what the early church fathers said and you will be amazed that they make the UPC look like a harlot in some cases. What they taqught goes directly in line with the principles of the bible.

PO's arguments are not flawed, they are solid... and I believe you know that if you answered those questions in a straightforward manner, it would reveal some inconsistencies in your own argument.

You know you have no scriptures on this, so you're relying on your own reasoning, and appealing to the "church fathers". Just give us 2 solid scriptures and that will be enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Yes she has many enticements and glorifying her flesh to draw attention isa huge one in which she or he draws forth the passion of others.

The uses of cosmetics was a common practice in biblical times, and was also practiced by the women of Israel. God, through his prophets, condemned the Israelites for many sins, and spelled out many of those sins specifically. Did he ever say anything against their use of adornments or cosmetics? (And if not, have you considered that it didnt matter to him as much as it seems to matter to you?)