You Can Fake It All

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Reader

The church at Corinth was ripe with problems. Very carnal. At the beginning of the chapter it speaks of receiving the grace of God in vain. In the beginning of the letter and also after the passages in question were written, Paul speaks of a man he wrote about in his previous letter that was openly living in sin. Obviously the believers acted upon his letter.

It is not about dress codes or anything of that nature.

Paul had a reason for telling the Corinthians to "come out from among them" and be separate. The church at Corinth had some who were joining pagans in worshiping in their temples.

They were also listening to false teachers. Some denied the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15). Paul warned against their influence in the Christian church: "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33). Some were led astray by the Judaizers (see 2 Cor. 3). Unfortunately, the Corinthians were receiving some of these false apostles (2 Cor. 11:4)

Whether or not it is about dress codes or "things of that nature" is up to the interpreter. Guess it depends on what "things of that nature" covers. I think it is obvious though that the main point was not to be associated with such. Whether or not that covers dressing like the world or "things of that nature" might again be up to the interpreter.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by scotty

Whether or not it is about dress codes or "things of that nature" is up to the interpreter. Guess it depends on what "things of that nature" covers. I think it is obvious though that the main point was not to be associated with such. Whether or not that covers dressing like the world or "things of that nature" might again be up to the interpreter. [/COLOR][/B]

If it is up to the interpreter, should it be used as a measure of spirituality?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ILG

If it is up to the interpreter, should it be used as a measure of spirituality?

If you choose to live in a doctrine that interprets it as such, then yes. That's the trick, the choice is yours.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by scotty

If you choose to live in a doctrine that interprets it as such, then yes. That's the trick, the choice is yours.

So, is it right, for example, for people in the Westboro Baptist church to be able to tell the people who leave their church that they are going to hell and cannot see their families because they refuse to hold up "God hates fags" signs?

How about the women who belong to no birth control movements who choose to use birth control because the doctor tells them they cannot have more children and these women are cut off from their loved ones and shunned because they aren't "trusting God"? Is it okay just because they have chosen to interpret the Bible as such?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ILG

So, is it right, for example, for people in the Westboro Baptist church to be able to tell the people who leave their church that they are going to hell and cannot see their families because they refuse to hold up "God hates fags" signs?

How about the women who belong to no birth control movements who choose to use birth control because the doctor tells them they cannot have more children and these women are cut off from their loved ones and shunned because they aren't "trusting God"? Is it okay just because they have chosen to interpret the Bible as such?

As I said, "if you choose to interpret scripture a certain way then you will be held by those standards" . The examples you give show that these people changed their interpretation, by leaving the doctrine. Is it right for the former doctrine to tell them they are going to hell? I don't think so, but there is freedom of speech. Personally if the person has left the doctrine then it is irrelevant what they say just as it is irrelevant to me that Catholics, Islam, and many others believe I am lost.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by scotty

As I said, "if you choose to interpret scripture a certain way then you will be held by those standards" . The examples you give show that these people changed their interpretation, by leaving the doctrine. Is it right for the former doctrine to tell them they are going to hell? I don't think so, but there is freedom of speech. Personally if the person has left the doctrine then it is irrelevant what they say just as it is irrelevant to me that Catholics, Islam, and many others believe I am lost.

When do you think that telling them they are going to hell may cross the line from free speech into verbal and/or emotional abuse?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ILG

When do you think that telling them they are going to hell may cross the line from free speech into verbal and/or emotional abuse?

When you chase after them with it. Hopefully the person has enough sense to stay away from them if they don't want to hear it.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by scotty

Paul had a reason for telling the Corinthians to "come out from among them" and be separate. The church at Corinth had some who were joining pagans in worshiping in their temples.

They were also listening to false teachers. Some denied the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15). Paul warned against their influence in the Christian church: "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33). Some were led astray by the Judaizers (see 2 Cor. 3). Unfortunately, the Corinthians were receiving some of these false apostles (2 Cor. 11:4)

I fully agree. There are many more problems, such as getting drunk during communion and much more.

Whether or not it is about dress codes or "things of that nature" is up to the interpreter. Guess it depends on what "things of that nature" covers. I think it is obvious though that the main point was not to be associated with such. Whether or not that covers dressing like the world or "things of that nature" might again be up to the interpreter.

A list of dress codes was never something specified in the New Testament, which is why I mentioned those. Things of that nature means anything else that isn't specified in scripture. I believe the context in which Paul quoted the Old Testament passages, clearly shows he was not making reference to a dress code. That would be the least of the problems in Corinth with all that transpired there.

Look at the examples you shared as to problems in Corinth. They are quite serious in nature. They are clearly stated by Paul.

For the record, I am not stating dress doesn't matter. I am stating that the passages in question are not about dress codes.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Reader

I fully agree. There are many more problems, such as getting drunk during communion and much more.



A list of dress codes was never something specified in the New Testament, which is why I mentioned those. Things of that nature means anything else that isn't specified in scripture. I believe the context in which Paul quoted the Old Testament passages, clearly shows he was not making reference to a dress code. That would be the least of the problems in Corinth with all that transpired there.

Look at the examples you shared as to problems in Corinth. They are quite serious in nature. They are clearly stated by Paul.

For the record, I am not stating dress doesn't matter. I am stating that the passages in question are not about dress codes.

I agree, yet I'm not sure it didn't include such things as dress under the broad brush umbrella of "associating with them". They were worshiping with unbelievers. What were the practices of those unbelievers in their worship?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by scotty

I agree, yet I'm not sure it didn't include such things as dress under the broad brush umbrella of "associating with them". They were worshiping with unbelievers. What were the practices of those unbelievers in their worship?

How do you determine what is under that umbrella?