Back with some new perspective

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

Actually, after I got past the "I don't want to talk about this" place with my husband, I decided that I needed to go back and look at those little scripture sets (1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-6) in their full context. When I used my handy little Strong's Concordance app to get the original Greek word for woman/women, and it says this: "a woman, specifically, a wife". Then, I looked at the entire chapter and noticed that both of these texts are small parts of a bigger discussion in the context of the marriage relationship. It truly was like a light bulb came on. These verses aren't written for the pastor/bishop/elder to use to create dress codes and call them holiness. These are written to benefit the husband-wife relationship.
I have thus far come to the realization that I cannot judge a lady to be 'holy' by whether or not she is wearing jewelry. That is a preconditioned response that is difficult to reprogram, but I am working on it.

So only married women can be holy and dress modestly?

[Roxanne Murphy]

Luke, it seems you still equate 'holy' with how one looks. That is a big problem because that is not how the Bible defines 'holy'. And modesty is a universal issue, it falls under the biblical heading of temperance.

[Roxanne Murphy]

If a person sincerely believes that he/she must dress a certain way to be pleasing to God, then by all means, he/she should follow that. But to translate that personal conviction into a guideline or 'standard' by which everybody else must live in order to please God is not biblical. In fact, it is adding to God's Word and that IS a sin.

[Dichotomy Girl]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

Greetings to AFF! It has been about 6 years since I last participated in the discussions on this forum (although I peek out here on occasion). Much has changed in my life since I was last here. God has graciously blessed my husband and I with two beautiful kids: Jaxon our 4 year old son and Acacia our 2 year old princess. We are no longer part of the UPC (or any other traditional holiness pentecostal group) and boy was that transition an eye opening experience. I have noticed some interesting discussions our here recently and just want to chime in, shake things up a little maybe. Let the fun begin!

I confess, this thread brought tears to my eyes. When I think of how we used to go head to head all of those years ago (You would have known me then as Michlow). I think if I had been asked to name people who would never go "liberal" you would have been #2, only after Steve Epley.

I am so glad that I happened to be lurking today for the first time in months, because this made my day!

~Mich

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

I have thus far come to the realization that I cannot judge a lady to be 'holy' by whether or not she is wearing jewelry. That is a preconditioned response that is difficult to reprogram, but I am working on it.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

Luke, it seems you still equate 'holy' with how one looks. That is a big problem because that is not how the Bible defines 'holy'. And modesty is a universal issue, it falls under the biblical heading of temperance.

You misunderstood my comment. I do not think that how a person dresses or acts related to holiness rather it directly related to righteousness. My point was simply if that passage is only dealing with married women and therefore only applicable to married women then only they could be holy and only they should dress modestly. Which of course makes no sense therefore it is a false interpretation.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The only change is that NOW, you are looking at the "context" through your husband's ideology. Point in case:

I meant to type "case in point". As usual, my fingers work faster than my brain.

Originally Posted by ILG

Well, that's how it started for her anyway. I noticed that too, but maybe she is getting to the point in the story where she has her own thoughts on it and it will be in the next installment.

Certainly...which is my point. We, generally, get our ideology somewhere. We should identify that and not make it appear as though it is our own.

Which continues to make Sasha's questions relevant.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Luke

You misunderstood my comment. I do not think that how a person dresses or acts related to holiness rather it directly related to righteousness. My point was simply if that passage is only dealing with married women and therefore only applicable to married women then only they could be holy and only they should dress modestly. Which of course makes no sense therefore it is a false interpretation.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Luke

You misunderstood my comment. I do not think that how a person dresses or acts related to holiness rather it directly related to righteousness. My point was simply if that passage is only dealing with married women and therefore only applicable to married women then only they could be holy and only they should dress modestly. Which of course makes no sense therefore it is a false interpretation.

Originally Posted by n david

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Certainly...which is my point. We, generally, get our ideology somewhere. We should identify that and not make it appear as though it is our own.

Well, where did she get her UPC theology? She has said she is identifying that it was not her own but what she was taught and took on as her own. Anyway, it appears her husband first introduced her to this newer thinking and then, after she finally, actually looked at it and considered it, rather than giving conditioned responses, she began to understand it and it became her own. That's how I am reading what she is writing. Of course, there is a logical concern that it really is her own, because she is used to taking on other's beliefs as her own as a way of life, but hopefully that is not the case this time.