Should we teach others to rebel against standards?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

If standards are a boundary a fence, then if you remove someone's fence what are you doing? That's their landmark is it not? Of course everyone knows what the passage meant, but he was only using a illustration of that principal. He talked about a lot more, but we have only dealt with a 15 second remark he made about facial hair. Was the whole sermon about that no. And it's Deuteronomy 27:17 btw. He just made some statements in there about standards and I thought it was fitting for this forum, so I titled it that way. That is the name of the sermon though, "Thy Neighbor's Landmark".

That's a gigantic "If" to start with, don't you think?

Standards are not boundaries or fences the same way actual boundaries and fences are, for physical property on land. They ought not be compared as such.

Secondly, the boundaries and fences that are determined by landmarks such as Deuteronomy 27:17 (thanks for the correction, there!) describes or delineates the ownership of actual property. So, if you're going to argue that Deuteronomy 27:17 can be used as a way to teach standards, and of having no right to speak against or encourage others to reject the standards being taught to them by a pastor or church leadership, you are in essence making a de facto claim that the pastor or church leadership owns the saints as actual property, which is why people on this forum have been crying foul, the whole time, thus proving their point.

This is why trying to use Deuteronomy 27:17 in such a way is such a bad idea. One, it's not what the passage is about. Two, to try and make it be about what you and the preacher in the video are making it about, makes the church look like the property of someone other than Jesus Christ.

As far as some 15 second remark on facial hair, since I have not listened to the video, I don't know anything about it, but why are you giving MichaeltheDisciple grief as if the preacher doesn't talk about facial hair, just because Michael didn't hear it, doesn't it mean it's not there, as this quote of yours proves.

In fact, you might instead want to argue that Michael demonstrated keen discernment in predicting that the preacher has something to say about facial hair without actually having heard the man say anything about it.

Therefore, Mike's comments were spot on, were they not?