Wading through the wedding rings

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

I didn't ask you.

Here's a slippery slap:

Ha!

OP_C, let me say that on this subject I fall very much in the middle. (how is that???)

I do not wear a ring, watch, pin in the pocket. I dont have a money clip or any other object that men might carry. I dont even have a tie tack.

my wife wears both a wedding ring and a watch. we did not have rings in our wedding or any other token. when we moved to this location our new pastor told me to get my wife a ring. he said it was something she needed for protection and to aviod being hit on.

I obeyed his wish. My wife did see guys hitting on her stop.

im not trying to argue any scripture listed here. but that notion of a slippery sloap is nonsense. My wife as 1 ring and 1 watch. she has never wanted any other form of jewlery. there is no slippery sloap.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

There is an interesting observation to be made here. The subject is wedding rings but it can really apply to any "standard" or conviction.

And that is that one side is usually able to say "Lets agree to disagree" and let it be while the other is not. Guess which side is what?
I very proudly wear my ring, as does my wife. They are not ubber expensive, but just nice enough as to not appear cheap. I think she paid about 500 for mine and I paid 650 for hers.
Now, when I meet someone or someone came into our church who did NOT wear wedding rings and was opposed to it, it would not offend me or anyone else in the building. However, is the reverse true? Would I not offend the living daylights out of the whole congregation if I we walked into a church that preached against rings?
If someone had a conviction against TVs and walked into a church that did not actively preach against them, I doubt they would offend anyone by not having one. Yet, let someone who HAS one walk into a church that actively preaches against them and it is a whole nudder ball game! (Assuming it was made known that they DID have one.)

The point is do you hold to you own convictions and beliefs or are you busy being offended by others?

You make it seem rather shallow. I daresay there is much more to it than simply offense and shunning. There is belief, belief in principle, belief in following the man of God, and God-given personal convictions. I further daresay that the majority of the 'no-rings' people would not be offended, but that you are far more likely to notice the few that are.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Ferd

OP_C, let me say that on this subject I fall very much in the middle. (how is that???)

That's fine. I suspect that's where I'm landing, too.

im not trying to argue any scripture listed here.

That's too bad. That's what I'm interested in.

but that notion of a slippery sloap is nonsense. My wife as 1 ring and 1 watch. she has never wanted any other form of jewlery. there is no slippery sloap.

All we really know is that a slippery slope is nonsense for you. Have you ever seen a holiness woman about 2 years after she starts experimenting with make-up? It's usually somewhere between "Vegas showgirl" and "raccoon." I say the slippery slope exists for this stuff, and I've seen it!

[RandyWayne]

One of my points is that God-given personal convictions do NOT (generally speaking) cause "offense".
I read someone's signature here that says the difference between tradition and conviction is that the latter can be defended without getting angry. And of course, the FORMER is always going to be what is seen publicaly due to its very nature.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

One of my points is that God-given personal convictions do NOT (generally speaking) cause "offense".

Do you mean, God-given personal convictions are NOT cause for offense?

I read someone's signature here that says the difference between tradition and conviction is that the latter can be defended without getting angry. And of course, the FORMER is always going to be what is seen publicaly due to its very nature.

I like this!

[RandyWayne]

Do you mean, God-given personal convictions are NOT cause for offense?

I mean, if I am convicted to do something or live my life a certain way, I will not be offended (or at least very little) by others who do not have that same conviction.

However, if it is not TRUE conviction than I need the validation of others doing the same thing I am.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I mean, if I am convicted to do something or live my life a certain way, I will not be offended (or at least very little) by others who do not have that same conviction.

That's what I thought you meant. I agree.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

That's fine. I suspect that's where I'm landing, too.

That's too bad. That's what I'm interested in.

All we really know is that a slippery slope is nonsense for you. Have you ever seen a holiness woman about 2 years after she starts experimenting with make-up? It's usually somewhere between "Vegas showgirl" and "raccoon." I say the slippery slope exists for this stuff, and I've seen it!

let me clarify. the wedding ring is NOT a slippery sloap.

there is a slippery sloap. it has to do with those that start rethinking old time holiness standards and then decide the concept is a lie. the go from questioning the rules they were raised with to abandoning seperation in total and that is just sad.
Bro, I suspect we are pretty close on these issues. I just believe that a wedding ring is something covanant related and thus cannot be used to justify anything else.

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

All we really know is that a slippery slope is nonsense for you. Have you ever seen a holiness woman about 2 years after she starts experimenting with make-up? It's usually somewhere between "Vegas showgirl" and "raccoon." I say the slippery slope exists for this stuff, and I've seen it!

Some may have issues like this, but don't broad brush everyone. I experimented with make-up. I still do occasionally. 99% of the time I wear none because it requires too much effort. You only notice the ones that go to the extreme.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Ferd

let me clarify. the wedding ring is NOT a slippery sloap.

there is a slippery sloap. it has to do with those that start rethinking old time holiness standards and then decide the concept is a lie. the go from questioning the rules they were raised with to abandoning seperation in total and that is just sad.
Bro, I suspect we are pretty close on these issues. I just believe that a wedding ring is something covanant related and thus cannot be used to justify anything else.

How about this, instead?

I just believe that a wedding ring is something covanant related and thus cannot be used to logically justify anything else.