Holiness and the Facebook Generation - Page 6

Brother Todd · #51 07-08-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

That symbol argument has always been there. Since Victorian times, this was the major distinction, and since those pictures aren't 3-D, that outline is the most ideal. Men don't wear skirts so it's quite noticeable that both genders are represented.

I worry about that sign changing, as we get into a unisex society.

However, this is a desperate argument to support the idea that pants are a cause for disfellowship.

Where did anyone say pants were a reason for disfellowship? That sentence brings a subtle inference that someone posted in here that a woman should be disfellowshipped for wearing pants.... that's a little intellectually dishonest.

Why can't people just read what's posted and not assume things?

Papabear · #52 07-08-2009, 05:18 PM

final note before leaving for I have things to do.

I am thankful for a wife that is willing to live and submit to these ideals that her pastor and mother taught her. If she was unwilling to follow that in her own devotion, If I were to continue pastoring, I would be to some degree have to figure out a way to ... justify what she is unwilling to do.

I say that because I know some preachers have compromised ... not because they believed it different but sister was unwilling to obey the scripture and had been incited to doubt and refuse for whatever reason and brother pastor must find a loophole in scripture to support his/her disobedience and or compromise.

I recognize the human reality in all this. I believe and hope for the ideal. I believe when perfection ceases to be our goal, we will attain to much less than God intended for us.

Brother Todd · #53 07-08-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nahkoe

You know, this got me thinking. I know the bathrooms where I work don't have pictures. I can't think of a single place I frequent that does. All of the signs I can think of, and know for sure I'm right about, are just words. And having 4 children, I happen to see the bathroom in most places. There are a few I can't picture in my mind to know for sure, I'll have to try to remember to check them next time we visit.

What would such a cultural shift do to this argument?

Well, they still, for the most part, got the pics around here, suppose for the folks that can't read.

But to me, the taking away the pics, is just as bad as the buildings now that are going to unisex restrooms over all. I was in a church a year ago, a large church, for a wedding, it was a methodist church...and all their restrooms were unisex.... was just apalling. It's all part of the loss of gender identity inour society around us, and unfortunately, the church has decided to go along with it. Used to, we were trying to establish our own New Testament culture, but now we want to look like the culture around us.

I gotta run and get ready for church, but I have to say being new to an Apostolic Forum, I'm surprised at how many in this forum seem to abhor doctrines and teachings that have been part of the fabric of the Apostolic movement for years. Just sort of shocking to me.

GrowingPains · #54 07-08-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Case in point that it's okay to adjust your principles... according to the present culture. In our culture, pants are accepted by the dominant culture as feminine.

RandyWayne · #55 07-08-2009, 05:20 PM

The three bathrooms in our house our unisex.

GrowingPains · #56 07-08-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Todd

Where did anyone say pants were a reason for disfellowship? That sentence brings a subtle inference that someone posted in here that a woman should be disfellowshipped for wearing pants.... that's a little intellectually dishonest.

Why can't people just read what's posted and not assume things?

Well, let me ask you: can someone participate with ministry in your church in pants? Do you preach your ideas about pants, enforcing them upon your congregation?

I don't think I'm being dishonest. I'm quite familiar with this culture.

GrowingPains · #57 07-08-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Todd

Well, they still, for the most part, got the pics around here, suppose for the folks that can't read.

But to me, the taking away the pics, is just as bad as the buildings now that are going to unisex restrooms over all. I was in a church a year ago, a large church, for a wedding, it was a methodist church...and all their restrooms were unisex.... was just apalling. It's all part of the loss of gender identity inour society around us, and unfortunately, the church has decided to go along with it. Used to, we were trying to establish our own New Testament culture, but now we want to look like the culture around us.

I gotta run and get ready for church, but I have to say being new to an Apostolic Forum, I'm surprised at how many in this forum seem to abhor doctrines and teachings that have been part of the fabric of the Apostolic movement for years. Just sort of shocking to me.

Don't be so shocked. Stick around and you'll learn many have the same questions. You are being hysterical about gender. We can keep and preach the beauty of gender distinction without being dogmatic.

RandyWayne · #58 07-08-2009, 05:23 PM

And when someone out and out says it is a sin and abomination for a woman to wear pants, what else do you expect?

*AQuietPlace* · #59 07-08-2009, 05:24 PM

In the Biblical culture, both male and female wore dresses (robes).

In our culture, both male and female wear pants.

Culture changes, always has and always will. Who knows what we'll all be wearing (or our descendants) in 500 years? Maybe everyone will be back to robes.

Cultural dress should not really be the issue. Femininity and masculinity should always be an issue. A man should look like a man, a woman should look like a woman. A woman in a pair of flowered capris and a ruffled shirt does not look remotely masculine. And yet she'd be doomed to hell by our rulebooks.

I challenge you to go to your local grocery store and see if you can within 2 seconds (per person) identify the sex of every person in that store. I'll be very surprised if you can't. If you can't, it's probably because there's someone in there who CHOSE deliberately to try to look like the opposite sex. THAT is what's a sin.

And the BIGGEST problem is that the generation that we're trying to lead to God is NOT going to understand our reasoning, for the most part. Yes, our ancestors 100 years ago viewed pants as only a man's garment. The people around us now, don't. They just think we're weird. And we have NO scripture that we can show them that says that women are forbidden to wear split-legged garments.

Was the scripture in Deut. saying that women couldn't wear robes? That's what men wore then.

Theophil · #60 07-08-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papabear

An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

Do you have a long(uncut) beard? That would be the "scriptural" way to distinguish your sex, wouldn't it?