Wading through the wedding rings

[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.

[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!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by 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.

Really? Apparently you missed NLYP's post to Brother Epley. If there is one thing I can say about Brother Epley is that he truly does believe the things he believes. They are convictions for him. He said a true man of God should teach against the wearing of jewelry. I believe he said it because he truly believes it. But NLYP got offended.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Rico

Really? Apparently you missed NLYP's post to Brother Epley. If there is one thing I can say about Brother Epley is that he truly does believe the things he believes. They are convictions for him. He said a true man of God should teach against the wearing of jewelry. I believe he said it because he truly believes it. But NLYP got offended.

That kind of statement should be offensive to anyone who doesn't share SE's views. It's about as arrogant a statement as one can make IMO. In other words, if a person doesn't teach against wearing a wedding ring he is not a true man of God according to SE.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

That kind of statement should be offensive to anyone who doesn't share SE's views. It's about as arrogant a statement as one can make IMO. In other words, if a person doesn't teach against wearing a wedding ring he is not a true man of God according to SE.

Nah. Not really, TB. Not if you have been around long enough to get to know Brother Epley. He's kind of like that really mean dog you were always afraid of when you were a child. He'd bark and growl, making you think he was going to eat you alive, straining against that chain to get to you. That is, until you finally got up enough courage to walk up to him and pet him. That same mean, growling, scary dog turned into as nice a friend as you could find and never did bite. BTW, I am NOT saying Brother Epley is a dog! (Just in case. Ya never know around here!)

[Sherri]

I haven't read through this thread, but I just want to say that I just got my diamond reset and it is a lot of BLING. I love it and am thrilled that my husband wanted me to have it. I can't imagine not wearing a wedding ring!

[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.

[Rico]

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.

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

Ok. That makes a little more sense to me.