NEW Standard Debate in the UPC! "Girls Leggings"!!!

[Emma Bontrager]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

ILG,

You can poke fun if you like, but you know very well that these things have risen tremendously in our society in the last few decades.

This is a nice way of ducking what you cannot refute.

They HAVE raised in our society. I think the Romans had these problems too, but that doesn't count because it might make our argument look weak.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I guess the question is, was there a move toward the unisex philosophy, a blurring of genders in role, appearance, distinction, etc. in the days of Jesus like there is now?

Was feminism a force to be reckoned with then as it is now?

Was the God-ordained family structure under attack then as it is now?

The adversary is doing things today in society that the Apostles didn't have to deal with.

The application of Scriptural prinicples in the context of the battle we fight in this generation is a must.

So this tired old deal about robes doesn't cut much ice.

AMEN BROTHER KEEPON PREACHEN

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Emma Bontrager

They HAVE raised in our society. I think the Romans had these problems too, but that doesn't count because it might make our argument look weak.

You see what happened to Rome too.

That doesn't make any argument look weak, the opposite actually.

Look, Sis, you have chosen your path, and that is fine. By your own admission the other day, some of your decision was impacted by what you saw as heavy handed coercion. You said that if the UPC had taught the skirt/dress thing in a less authoritarian manner, you might well be wearing skirts every day.

So how strong does that make your position look? That reacting against something that rubbed you wrong is a proper motive? Give us all a break.

Almost every person I have ever known who walked away from the Apostolic church seems obsessed with convincing themselves and everyone who will listen that they really didn't nake a mistake, that they really are ok, that they really are more spiritual and happy and liberated and whatever else than they were when they were in that awful bondage.

At least for a season, this seems the way it is, until they finally get that little twinge of conscience totally silenced.

So anyway, keep on plugging.

Some of these days, it won't bother you much anymore.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

You see what happened to Rome too.

That doesn't make any argument look weak, the opposite actually.

Look, Sis, you have chosen your path, and that is fine. By your own admission the other day, some of your decision was impacted by what you saw as heavy handed coercion. You said that if the UPC had taught the skirt/dress thing in a less authoritarian manner, you might well be wearing skirts every day.

So how strong does that make your position look? That reacting against something that rubbed you wrong is a proper motive? Give us all a break.

Almost every person I have ever known who walked away from the Apostolic church seems obsessed with convincing themselves and everyone who will listen that they really didn't nake a mistake, that they really are ok, that they really are more spiritual and happy and liberated and whatever else than they were when they were in that awful bondage.

At least for a season, this seems the way it is, until they finally get that little twinge of conscience totally silenced.

So anyway, keep on plugging.

Some of these days, it won't bother you much anymore.

There is nothing new under the sun. That's is what the Bible says, CS.

As for the rest, I don't need to reply. Standards are not salvational and if taking a stand against that is wrong in your mind...it is your opinion ,which you are entitled to.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I guess the question is, was there a move toward the unisex philosophy, a blurring of genders in role, appearance, distinction, etc. in the days of Jesus like there is now?

Was feminism a force to be reckoned with then as it is now?

Was the God-ordained family structure under attack then as it is now?

The adversary is doing things today in society that the Apostles didn't have to deal with.

The application of Scriptural prinicples in the context of the battle we fight in this generation is a must.

So this tired old deal about robes doesn't cut much ice.

Coon, you are very close to hitting the nail directly square. There may have been "gender bending" back then as it is now. The major difference is I believe that it was more a struggle for power and authority. Thus the verses on in Corinthians about hair or more to the point the family structure as you said. If my wife cuts a foot off her hair it will still be 2 feet long. That is longer than most women at most churches in most cities. If she did so that would not bother me, for I have no conviction on womens hair. I am not a women so not my conviction. What I can tell you is that challenge of authority has little to do with hair this age that it most likely did back then. That is from reading an article Dan put on here.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

Coon, you are very close to hitting the nail directly square. There may have been "gender bending" back then as it is now. The major difference is I believe that it was more a struggle for power and authority. Thus the verses on in Corinthians about hair or more to the point the family structure as you said. If my wife cuts a foot off her hair it will still be 2 feet long. That is longer than most women at most churches in most cities. If she did so that would not bother me, for I have no conviction on womens hair. I am not a women so not my conviction. What I can tell you is that challenge of authority has little to do with hair this age that it most likely did back then. That is from reading an article Dan put on here.

I think there is definitely a greater challenge to authority now than then, and that there is a much greater power struggle now than then.

However, I still believe that we need to follow the teachings of the Scripture both inwardly and outwardly. There is a dnager in over-spiritualizing everything and just making it allegorical and symbolic.

On Passover night, it was importnat that the blood actually be on the doorpost.

When Moses was on his way to Egypt, God sought to kill him because he had not literally performed the circumcisions required by the covenant. He was obeying God, heading for Egypt, but God required obedience to the commandment.

Baptism must be administered. The water doesn't literally wash away the sin; the Blood does that. But without our obedience to the literal comand, it doesn't happen.

Thus, I believe in obeying both the letter and the spirit of Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 11.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Emma Bontrager

Feminism did not exist before the 1960's. Women did not think before then.



There was never any divorce or family trouble before the 1960's.



That's right! The scripture that says "There is nothing new under the sun" was added by some sinister plot to make us think otherwise!



I certainly agree. They could both wear robes in Jesus day because women did no thinking and no railing, there was no divorce and no family trouble. You go Coonskinner!

Hey, you just batted 0 for 4. Wrong on all responses. But thanks for playing.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I think there is definitely a greater challenge to authority now than then, and that there is a much greater power struggle now than then.

However, I still believe that we need to follow the teachings of the Scripture both inwardly and outwardly. There is a dnager in over-spiritualizing everything and just making it allegorical and symbolic.

On Passover night, it was importnat that the blood actually be on the doorpost.

When Moses was on his way to Egypt, God sought to kill him because he had not literally performed the circumcisions required by the covenant. He was obeying God, heading for Egypt, but God required obedience to the commandment.

Baptism must be administered. The water doesn't literally wash away the sin; the Blood does that. But without our obedience to the literal comand, it doesn't happen.

Thus, I believe in obeying both the letter and the spirit of Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 11.

I know what you are saying about the blood on the door posts, etc. That would have caused death if they did not do that. But the hair thing I honestly do not see it the same way. Not out of rebelion I see it more as speaking to authority challenges of that day. I agree that it is a bigger atack today, but if you read that article Dan posted on here then you may see why I see it that way. The article explains it better than I can, but it does talk about the other major belief/religion that they were fighting then.

I tell you this that if God convicts me then I will believe it. I have prayed about it. I see it more the womens obedience to her head, the Husband. But I could be wrong...But the big thing it says nothing about being a sin or damnable. IMO

[rrford]

Originally Posted by ILG

There is nothing new under the sun. That's is what the Bible says, CS.

As for the rest, I don't need to reply. Standards are not salvational and if taking a stand against that is wrong in your mind...it is your opinion ,which you are entitled to.

Context is critical when applying these types of scriptures. The way you are attempting to appply it is incorrect, IMO.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by rrford

Context is critical when applying these types of scriptures. The way you are attempting to appply it is incorrect, IMO.

Precisely.