Question for conservatives and ultracons

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

Yet, you must have some basis for the stands you have decided to take or not take -- the standards you deem necessary or unnecessary. I think some just want to know how you reached your current set of standards. Not to judge, just to understand.

Which was the point of scripture and....

Originally Posted by LUKE2447
What I am does not matter as it proves nothing. One must understand "perfect" in it's context. I can be perfect/complete or imperfect does it change the meaning of scripture? I only claim what he says. I claim nothing in regards to judgment of myself. He is my judge, not myself and not you. You obviously have not read the scriptures as you think asking a question of me = destroying the scriptural argument. Sorry but you need to deal with scripture first before you start questioning people.

The question of whether I am perfect is not relevant to how I came to my current standards especially when he is the judge of faithfulness and our standard are to be based on his holiness not some philosophical excuse of why we can't, which is usually what the counter point is and it diminishes the work of the Spirit in our lives.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Which was the point of scripture and....

Originally Posted by LUKE2447
What I am does not matter as it proves nothing. One must understand "perfect" in it's context. I can be perfect/complete or imperfect does it change the meaning of scripture? I only claim what he says. I claim nothing in regards to judgment of myself. He is my judge, not myself and not you. You obviously have not read the scriptures as you think asking a question of me = destroying the scriptural argument. Sorry but you need to deal with scripture first before you start questioning people.

The question of whether I am perfect is not relevant to how I came to my current standards especially when he is the judge of faithfulness and our standard are to be based on his holiness not some philosophical excuse of why we can't, which is usually what the counter point is and it diminishes the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Then why did you bring it up? You offered those scriptures as the "simple answer" to the question of how conservative is conservative enough. Sorry, but it wasn't simple enough for me to get it.

But I guess you're right, technically -- it is irrelevant whether you are perfect (or conservative enough), but I was just wondering. It's a discussion forum, after all.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Then why did you bring it up? You offered those scriptures as the "simple answer" to the question of how conservative is conservative enough. Sorry, but it wasn't simple enough for me to get it.

But I guess you're right, technically -- it is irrelevant whether you are perfect (or conservative enough), but I was just wondering. It's a discussion forum, after all.

You asked how conservative is enough. My reply was simple as was the scripture. Conservative and liberal as our Father! Many think of "perfect" incorrectly. It's not about did you get a math problem wrong, or accidently mix a red with the white in the laundry. It is about pureness of heart. People make imperfection a sin in the modern context and that is not the case. Mistakes and error happen does not mean we are in sin or it was sin. Two different things. You can't be judged on how you are made as he made you. We are imperfect people but we are to seek his perfection of heart by the leading of the Spirit, thus faithfulness. You either live according to the flesh or the Spirit. We are to be like Jesus not our own will but HIS will that we may abide in his love as he did the Father's and we in his.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Then why did you bring it up? You offered those scriptures as the "simple answer" to the question of how conservative is conservative enough. Sorry, but it wasn't simple enough for me to get it.

But I guess you're right, technically -- it is irrelevant whether you are perfect (or conservative enough), but I was just wondering. It's a discussion forum, after all.

I did not bring my "perfection" up! I simply stated we are to be perfect as he is and the following verses gave depth to what he meant. Then I gave biblical example of it with Zech and Eliz as they walked the way they should walk.....faithfully and perfect in the law.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I did not bring my "perfection" up! I simply stated we are to be perfect as he is and the following verses gave depth to what he meant. Then I gave biblical example of it with Zech and Eliz as they walked the way they should walk.....faithfully and perfect in the law.

Point taken!

I guess a follow-up question would be this: does faithfully and perfectly "walking" equal being conservative? It seems like cons and UCs on this board think so. They like to point out this or that scripture, interpret it as literally as they can, and (in effect) say, "See? I'm following this to the letter, and you libs are not!" They also tend to go farther than the minimum requirements, with the idea of driving as far from the guard rail as they can (as mentioned in this thread a while back). If the Bible says stay a foot away from the edge, they'll say stay 20 feet away.

Thoughts?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Point taken!

I guess a follow-up question would be this: does faithfully and perfectly "walking" equal being conservative? It seems like cons and UCs on this board think so. They like to point out this or that scripture, interpret it as literally as they can, and (in effect) say, "See? I'm following this to the letter, and you libs are not!" They also tend to go farther than the minimum requirements, with the idea of driving as far from the guard rail as they can (as mentioned in this thread a while back). If the Bible says stay a foot away from the edge, they'll say stay 20 feet away.

Thoughts?

Personaly myself "it" is what "it" is. To go to far in either direction is off the narrow road. To say that does not mean being a moderate though as moderates tend to be not strict enough or not liberal enough and just settle for what seems right in when looking at the extremes thus not to be a bad guy on either side to avoid conflict. I believe somethings are liberal as in themselves there is no sin but it is best not to do because it elevates the pride in others and gives the flesh area to work. Thus love is lost when considering thy neighbors etc....

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Point taken!

I guess a follow-up question would be this: does faithfully and perfectly "walking" equal being conservative? It seems like cons and UCs on this board think so. They like to point out this or that scripture, interpret it as literally as they can, and (in effect) say, "See? I'm following this to the letter, and you libs are not!" They also tend to go farther than the minimum requirements, with the idea of driving as far from the guard rail as they can (as mentioned in this thread a while back). If the Bible says stay a foot away from the edge, they'll say stay 20 feet away.

Thoughts?

Also there is nothing wrong with fences as long as you don't make your fence the end all without biblical support. I don't know of any good fences that are not set a dictance from the edge of a cliff so that they are built on solid ground.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Also there is nothing wrong with fences as long as you don't make your fence the end all without biblical support. I don't know of any good fences that are not set a dictance from the edge of a cliff so that they are built on solid ground.

A while back, I posted a somewhat TIC definition of the various lib/con categories:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Thinking of the cliff analogy:

UC: Builds a concrete guard rail twenty feet away. Wonders if it should be thirty.

Con: Builds a steel guard rail ten feet away.

Mod: A sturdy wooden fence will do.

Lib: A few warning signs, here and there.

UL: Just be careful around the cliff, OK?

Timmy: What cliff???

[ILG]

Aquila.

Sounds like we have walked similar paths. Good post.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I used to be ultra conservative. The church we attended didn't believe in going to or watching sporting events, men had to have long sleeves (the wrist), men were expected to wear white shirts to services, men could never wear shorts, absolutely no facial hair, pastor preached against "Clooney cut" haircuts, the spiking of the hair and the use of styling gel. No attending a gym or community center where there was mixed company. Men were generally all expected to wear the same hair cut with variance as to where it was parted. No wedding bands, in fact no jewelry, not even a wrist watch. We used pocket watches or took the bands off our watches and placed them in our pockets. No "high top Reebock" shoes, they were worldly. Tennis shoes were okay and dress shoes were fine, however, no designs in the laces, and dress shoes were generally expected to be one color. No secular music at all. There wasn't any stipulation from the pulpit to listen to only UPCI music but many felt that was only right. Ladies had to have their dresses or skirts down to roughly two inches above their ankle, long sleeves, and necklines had to be within "two fingers" of the the collar bone. Ladies hair was expected to be straight and uncut. No styling. When in church, at church functions, or about daily business hair was expected to be up. Hair was only worn down around the house. (We did teach the magic hair doctrine uncompromisingly and the church still does). No makeup, jewelry, painting the nails, or glossy lip gloss. Women were only allowed to wear "nude" pantyhose. Colors like charcoal , blue, or red were considered provocative. Black ladies who's hair didn't grow naturally straight were expected to have a hat on, our pastor would say, "No fros". We had a group of men who started men's prayer on Saturday - to Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. No DVD players. Home movies were allowed and were to be watched on a "monitor" that couldn't receive a television signal. No movie theaters. Children weren't allowed to have library cards, only parents. Ladies were expected to wear flats, or subtle pumps, no high heels because of the origin of the high heel. A ladies shoe had to encompass her entire foot, no straps. In addition no toes were to be shown. No alcohol, cigarettes, or tobacco products at all. Computers with the internet were allowed in the home IF it was considered part of one's job. (Eventually they let down on this standard.) Those who had the internet weren't allowed to usher or teach Sunday school unless they signed a paper stating that they had signed up for B-Safe Online software. All were expected to set the reporting email address to an email address of their "Care Group Leader".

I took my family a step higher, I began teaching "second covering" in my home Bible studies. I didn't allow my wife to go to church unless she had some "token of authority" in her hair or on her head such as a snood, doily, or barrette with cloth.

Some abusive things later happened at that church that wounded my family deeply. So my wife and I decided to leave. We began attended a more moderate church.

In my personal studies I've come to the conclusion that 99% of our standards are man made and are potentially dangerous to faith. Today my position is radically different.

I see nothing wrong with short sleeves. I have a pair of shorts I occasionally wear to exercise in at the gym (yes I have a membership - http://www.lafitness.com/Pages/default.aspx). I wear any color of shirt I want at a given moment. I still shave my face but I see nothing wrong with facial hair. I sometimes grow facial hair when we go to the cottage in Canada. My hair is currently layered (I can spike it), styled, and highlighted with blond highlights. My wife and I both wear wedding bands and occasionally we'll wear a necklace or bracelet. I wear a wrist watch now! LOL We both wear any pair of shoes we like, though my wife still stays away from what she feels to be too "trashy". We listen to most forms of music but mainly Christian music. Of my favorite secular styles are Jazz, Blues, Country, and yes... a little Metal on occasion. We own a television now. I enjoy taking my son to Baseball, Basket ball, and Hockey games. I occasionally take my wife out to the movies and we enjoy drive-ins. The wife wears short sleeves. She still wears dresses and skirts but her dresses and skirts are now kept about mid-shin or just below the knee. My wife's hair is now cut and styled, still long and hits her at about mid-back. Occasionally she'll wear a little make-up but I tell her she doesn't need it. She likes acrylic nails. Every now and then her neckline is lower than our first church's standards, but that's rare. Occasionally I like a little wine with dinner or a nice dark ale. I'll also enjoy a cigar every so often if I feel like it. The wife wears whatever color of hose she likes. And we monitor our own home internet usage.

If any of you feel that you're faith is being suffocated by man made rules and standards I strongly recommend this book... when I was about to loose my faith completely, I believe God had me discover this book.

6 Rules Every Man Must Break
by Bill Perkins
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Every-Ma.../dp/1414311400

Product Description
With startling frankness, Bill Perkins offers life-changing wisdom to help men find true freedom in Christ. Perkins shatters six man-made rules that sound good on the outside, but often keep men from reaching their full potential. He shows how breaking these taboos can help you break free to become the man that God created you to be.

* The Rule of Passivity: Never Get In a Fight
* The Rule of Playing it Safe: Never Risk It All
* The Rule of Perseverance: Never Give Up
* The Rule of Independence: Never Ask For Help
* The Rule of Restraint: Never Lose Your Cool
* The Rule of Impressing Others: Never Look Stupid

From the Inside Flap

You can develop a richer, closer walk with God—but according to Bill Perkins it all depends on your willingness to break a few rules.

The six man-made mandates exposed in this book corrode your soul by placing demands on you that are impossible to fulfill. They also keep you from cultivating a vibrant friendship with God based on his grace, not your ability to keep rules perfectly on your own.

You’ll see from Scripture how Christ intends his disciples to live, free from

the unbiblical expectations of the spiritual police
the futility of trying to keep God’s law on your own
the fear of expressing godly anger in a constructive way
the temptation to value the world’s opinion more than God’s

Join Bill as he leads the rebellion against man-made rules and calls men to trust instead in the revolutionary power of God.

[Falla39]

In my almost 70 yrs, I have seen people go from one extreme to another. No balance.
I wonder what Paul had in mind when he said a "double-minded man is unstable in all
his ways".
I do not mean this in an offensive way at all. But I have seen those who went to a
personal extreme such as no hairspray. no deodrant, long sleeves, no wedding rings,
no videos or technology where you could see anything, good or bad, and a lot other
things. I have seen people do this even though the church they attended didn't carry
it that far. But there were those churches who did.

Then I have seen those who went from the extreme right (super-spiritual)
to the left side of the middle of the right side. Not going to a radical position
of drinking, gambling, stealing and carousing, etc. In other words they didn't
go all the way to the extreme left but half-way there. Later on, some of
them made it all the way there too. Sad stories. They began to feel THEIR
liberty. And it wasn't in the Lord either. Time proved that. Once they started
drifting, they fell "asleep" or were lulled to sleep, and found themselves on the
wrong side of the road and had lost complete control. That's what happens when
we take control and take it away from HIM. This is not directed to any one person
or persons.

My father stayed in the Word and sought the Holy Ghost for wisdom and direction in
his life as long as he lived. He sought to be "presentable", not flashy, neither sloppy.
He loved his neighbors, his country, his family and most of all, his GOD. I believe he
sought a balance. a middle of the right road. In other words, a place in the midddle
of the right side of the road. If you went to far on the right, you could be in the ditch.
But if you started drifting too far to the left side (where travelers were coming from
the opposite direction, that would be dangerous also. So just stay in the center of
right side and you were safe (balanced). Daddy wasn't a double-mined man and I am
my father's daughter! Wasn't far from him as long as he lived. I feel he knew there
were a whole bunch following behind him and he couldn't afford to make poor choices.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He SHALL direct thy paths. Prov. 3:5,6

Just In Time
Dottie Rambo

I was going down for the last time
No one heard my cry
My voice was swiftly fading
Drifting with the tide
When a hand from out of nowhere
Gently slipped in mine
And I thank God He found me just in time

I don't remember drifting
'Cause pleasure rode with me
When careless winds start blowing
You drift so easily
And storms make no exception
And friend I've sure had mine
And I thank God He found me just in time

Chorus
Just before the waves of slumber
Had rocked my soul to sleep
Just before the angry billows
Had pulled me out too deep
God knows how long I'd drifted
When I saw the old lifeline
And I thank God He found me
Just in time

Blessings,

Falla39