Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 68

Jeffrey · #**671** 08-14-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

And are also referenced in connection w/ his fall. Honestly, it's beyond me how we can argue about the devil as support of jewelry!

*rolls eyes*

We aren't "arguing about the devil in support of jewelry." Quit with your STRAW MAN arguments (ahem LOGICAL FALLACIES hahah).

We are arguing that Lucifer, the chiefest angel of the Lord, was decked, we presume by the Creator of all things, with gold and jewels, which tells us that God doesn't have a axe to grind with jewelry in itself. Because Lucifer later fell doesn't mean anything to the price of tea in China. Just as it didn't that he was beautiful, musical, etc.... You make absolutely no sense.

Sam · #**672** 08-14-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

*rolls eyes*

We aren't "arguing about the devil in support of jewelry." Quit with your STRAW MAN arguments (ahem LOGICAL FALLACIES hahah).

We are arguing that Lucifer, the chiefest angel of the Lord, was decked, we presume by the Creator of all things, with gold and jewels, which tells us that God doesn't have a axe to grind with jewelry in itself. Because Lucifer later fell doesn't mean anything to the price of tea in China. Just as it didn't that he was beautiful, musical, etc.... You make absolutely no sense.

I think that what we are trying to say is:

God decked Lucifer in jewels because God thought that wearing jewels was beautiful and He had no problem with it.

Lucifer fell but he did not fall because he wore jewelry

Lucifer did not start wearing jewels after he fell

Truthseeker · #**673** 08-14-2010, 04:44 PM

RDP seems to be dancing around the point about the lucficer decked out with God given jewels and such..

RandyWayne · #**674** 08-14-2010, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Equivocation Fallacy alert! You really need to study a bit on logical fallacies...you commit them all of the time, as demonstrated above.

Honestly RDP, were you once a cast member of Monty Python? Some of your "logic" you continually either use (or avoid) would make a great skit.

I am glad that none of us weigh the same as a duck around you.....

rdp · #**675** 08-16-2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

yes, I am serious.
I honestly cannot see that the Bible teaches that a Christian cannot wear jewelry (including nose rings and tongue rings if they wish), and cannot wear clothes made from linen, or cannot spike their hair. I am not saying this for shock value or to be argumentative. I am saying it honestly. I do not believe that the New Testament teaches against the wearing of jewelry or the wearing of apparel/clothes or the combing and styling of hair. That is a conclusion based on over half a century of reading the Bible (mostly King James but several other versions too) and praying in the Holy Spirit on a regular basis.

Well Sam, I appreciate your honesty...sincerely [It's quite a refreshing change from the others on here]. BUT, I, too have been studying this subject for many years, as well as prayed about it repeatedly....& I see very plain Scripture in the NT as per I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3. It's very clear to me & many others. Regarding the spiky hair issue, Sam, we need spiritual discernment & to have a man [since women are biblically unqualified] decked out in jewels, spiked up hair, extravagant apparel, etc. "instructing" me how to live for Jesus is just plain absurd. Clearly, said individual does not communicate Christ....remember WWJD? He didn't wear jewelry!

rdp · #**676** 08-16-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

A man with your logic should not accuse others of logical fallacies. It's a fallacy in itself! lol

Created who LATER fell. Your point? To say all about mankind was evil because he later fell is a FALLACY.

To say what God created was flawed because he LATER failed is a FALLACY.

In fact, out of all your arguments on this subject, this is the most entertaining.

Speaking of "entertaining," you show your typical ignorance here by not comprehending that I was pointing out that God also created mankind, who sinned.

So, according to the liberal agenda/logic, we should also partake of man's sins because God is the One who created humanity? God put jewels on Lucifer, which later has a "Not with gold, pearls,..." tied to it. God created humanity, who later sinned. You partake of the former [in the face of clear instructions otherwise], & yet reject the latter...then wanna' talk to ME about "fallacies"

???????????????

rdp · #**677** 08-16-2010, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

*rolls eyes*

We aren't "arguing about the devil in support of jewelry." Quit with your STRAW MAN arguments (ahem LOGICAL FALLACIES hahah).

We are arguing that Lucifer, the chiefest angel of the Lord, was decked, we presume by the Creator of all things, with gold and jewels, which tells us that God doesn't have a axe to grind with jewelry in itself. Because Lucifer later fell doesn't mean anything to the price of tea in China. Just as it didn't that he was beautiful, musical, etc.... You make absolutely no sense.

Yes, I make "no sense" to you because "the carnal mind is enmity with God." I'm trying to pour water [spiritual things] on a rock [Jeffrey's carnal mind]. Now, to your silly arguments above......

In the first place, I like your "presumption" concession! Hey, Jeffrey, little lesson here: We do not make our doctrinal stances on "Presumptions"

!

Secondly, & for about the 3rd time now, Lucifer was not the temple of God, as we are in the NT. Thirdly [man, you're too easy], beauty is not condemned elsewhere in Scripture as decorative ornamentation is [Deut. 7:25, Is. 3, Ex. 33, I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc.].

Put your eraser down Jeffrey, I Tim. 2 will still be there in eternity...which you'll be judged by.

rdp · #**678** 08-16-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I think that what we are trying to say is:

God decked Lucifer in jewels because God thought that wearing jewels was beautiful and He had no problem with it.

Lucifer fell but he did not fall because he wore jewelry

Lucifer did not start wearing jewels after he fell

Lucifer was not the temple of God, as NT church members are today. You cannot take your liberties w/ God's place of dwelling. Let Solomon, or Moses try it & see what would've happened. Sad, very sad...seriously.

rdp · #**679** 08-16-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

RDP seems to be dancing around the point about the lucficer decked out with God given jewels and such..

Not at all...[for about 3 pages now!].

Was Lucifer the dwelling place/temple of God:___________? Therein lies your inconsistent dilemma.

C'mon, surely at least ONE of you can fill in this blank! I just know you can..................

rdp · #**680** 08-16-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Honestly RDP, were you once a cast member of Monty Python? Some of your "logic" you continually either use (or avoid) would make a great skit.

I am glad that none of us weigh the same as a duck around you.....

Ahhh, yes, the typical "substance" from the RandyWayne dugout! All of the "evidence" is so overwheling that I'm speechless

!