More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I agree with Aquila on this issue. If you're making a logical argument about smoking and say that it is harmful to the body therefore it is sinful, then you must examine all other things that harm the body and cause health issues and use that same argument to label those a sin as well.

Yes.... food can be a HUGE addiction.

I've struggled with food addiction for years.

Don't preach against smoking and make food your god.

Sooo... You are okay with "addictions"?

You can justify smoking, women wearing men's apparel and vice versa if you like. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. I will not be brought under the "power" of anything. 1 Co 6:12

RWP
Paul is determined not to be a slave to anything harmless in itself. He will maintain his self-control.

Paul refused to be brought under the "power" of even "lawful" things yet some here would argue that ungodly things are okay because someone somewhere at sometime did it. This justification is based on them being a "good" person.

Yet, the Bible still says:
(Pro 14:12 KJV) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

(Pro 16:25 KJV) There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

There is no such thing as a "good" man:
(Psa 14:1 KJV) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(Psa 14:3 KJV) They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Psa 53:3 KJV) Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Mar 10:18 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


The very best man can do is "filthy" in the eyes of God.
(Isa 64:6 KJV) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Go ahead, ignore the word of God. If it "feels good" do it. Then, justify it by saying you are "following the spirit". No one can make anyone do anything.

I will "follow" (which means to chase it as if in a hunt) holiness without which no man may see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

Most "hunt" for the fringes rather than for holiness. They try to see how far away from holiness they can get rather than trying to chase holiness as of in the hunt for it. All the while justifying their carnality with "feelings" rather than the word of God and the timeless principles God has given us to live by.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... You are okay with "addictions"?

You can justify smoking, women wearing men's apparel and vice versa if you like. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. I will not be brought under the "power" of anything. 1 Co 6:12

RWP
Paul is determined not to be a slave to anything harmless in itself. He will maintain his self-control.

Paul refused to be brought under the "power" of even "lawful" things yet some here would argue that ungodly things are okay because someone somewhere at sometime did it. This justification is based on them being a "good" person.

Yet, the Bible still says:
(Pro 14:12 KJV) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

(Pro 16:25 KJV) There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

There is no such thing as a "good" man:
(Psa 14:1 KJV) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(Psa 14:3 KJV) They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Psa 53:3 KJV) Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Mar 10:18 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


The very best man can do is "filthy" in the eyes of God.
(Isa 64:6 KJV) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Go ahead, ignore the word of God. If it "feels good" do it. Then, justify it by saying you are "following the spirit". No one can make anyone do anything.

I will "follow" (which means to chase it as if in a hunt) holiness without which no man may see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

Most "hunt" for the fringes rather than for holiness. They try to see how far away from holiness they can get rather than trying to chase holiness as of in the hunt for it. All the while justifying their carnality with "feelings" rather than the word of God and the timeless principles God has given us to live by.

Holy cow! Where did I say I was ok with addictions????

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Holy cow! Where did I say I was ok with addictions????

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I agree with Aquila on this issue. If you're making a logical argument about smoking and say that it is harmful to the body therefore it is sinful, then you must examine all other things that harm the body and cause health issues and use that same argument to label those a sin as well.

Yes.... food can be a HUGE addiction.

I've struggled with food addiction for years.

Don't preach against smoking and make food your god.

I asked a question. Hence, the question mark at the end of my sentence. However, you said you agree with Aquila.

Yes, food can be a huge addition. Many people are hundreds of pounds because of it. They usually die fairly young - I think.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Holy cow! Where did I say I was ok with addictions????

He's greatly exaggerating things to beat on his moralistic chest. He's not even trying to have an intellectual conversation on the issues. lol

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

He's greatly exaggerating things to beat on his moralistic chest. He's not even trying to have an intellectual conversation on the issues. lol

It is impossible to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget... Now go beat "your proverbial chest" to someone else who does not care about the Bible.

Let's talk about "exaggeration":

Your "evidence"
You know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy etc.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I knew a fourth generation Apostolic Pentecostal. This young man's great-grandfather was an Apostolic Pentecostal back when the movement was just taking off. He was a farmer. He faithful attended church, read his Bible, raised his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and... smoked a pipe. My friend's grandfather (second generation Apostolic) smoked a pipe also, but taught his children against it because it was proven that smoking tobacco was bad for one's health. My friend's father (third generation Apostolic) never smoked. And of course, my friend doesn't smoke.

Then there is the "special note:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Special note, it was an almost universal practice throughout the Middle East in Christ's day to chew khat after large meals. It was chewed during after dinner fellowship and helped to clean teeth. The only problem is that khat contains a monoamine alkaloid called cathinone, an amphetamine-like stimulant. While it was very common throughout the Middle East for thousands of years... today it is considered a controlled substance.

talk about "exaggeration". this is called hyperbole.



My so-called exaggeration has been the presentation of facts. For example:

Originally Posted by Pliny

The record must be corrected. Historically "pants" were not only known, they were worn by multitudes of men in ancient history.

A quick couple of quotes from the ancient historian Herodotus:
Persians
“Thou art about, oh! king, to make war against men who wear leathern trousers, and have all their other garments of leather; who feed not on what they like, but on what they can get from a soil that is sterile and unkindly; who do not indulge in wine, but drink water; who possess no figs nor anything else that is good to eat.
pp 72-73


Scyths
The Sacae, or Scyths, were clad in trousers, and had on their heads tall stiff caps rising to a point. They bore the bow of their country and the dagger; besides which they carried the battle-axe, or sagaris.
p. 68


Anyone who says differently whether under the guise of "research" or not is wrong and their "research" is terrible.

Concerning "Research"
Commentaries are considered secondary sources because they are full of opinions which are sometimes wrong. Herodotus is considered a primary source.

Godly men are known to have worn pants such as:
The priests
The 3 Hebrew young men

This has been mentioned before.


One question asked is how many godly women wore pants? They certainly existed because men are known to have worn them - godly men. So where are the godly women that wore pants?

The lack of evidence demonstrates the untenable position.

The fact remains:
Deu. 22:5 encompasses the fact that men are to wear the pants in the family - not women.

Apparently quoting an ancient historian and using the Bible is an exaggeration that imposes a 21st century opinion onto the scripture.

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is, you act like all of human history is dependent upon and beholden to your limited 21st century opinions and interpretations.

For this to be true Herodotus would have to be considered a prophet. LOL Talk about exaggeration!

Then there is this:

Originally Posted by Aquila

They'd then awaken, have some full strength wine, or diluted wine (because the water wasn't always safe to drink), and part ways. They'd be headed home or out to wrap up some last minute details of living. The alcohol content of the wine actually helped kill the bacteria.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. In Roman and Grecian society women did not drink wine except on special occasions. I have also heard the argument about the alcohol making the water potable yet I have never seen anyone document it. Instead it appears to be an old-wives tale. Also, "wine" was never drank "full strength". It was always diluted with three parts water (average). Additionally, the wine of the first century is nothing close to the "wine" of today. People in that part of the world use the same water table that was there way back when - people today do not use alcohol to make the water potable today. Why would they have to then?

Much more could be said...

If you want to have an intellectual discussion start by using intelligence. Don't throw out accusations without backing up the assertion.

Start by providing evidence that godly women wore pants.
Please feel free to use the Bible instead of Native American Culture or Islamic culture.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is impossible to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget... Now go beat "your proverbial chest" to someone else who does not care about the Bible.

Let's talk about "exaggeration":

Your "evidence"
You know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy etc.


Then there is the "special note:


talk about "exaggeration". this is called hyperbole.



My so-called exaggeration has been the presentation of facts. For example:


Apparently quoting an ancient historian and using the Bible is an exaggeration that imposes a 21st century opinion onto the scripture.


For this to be true Herodotus would have to be considered a prophet. LOL Talk about exaggeration!

Then there is this:


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. In Roman and Grecian society women did not drink wine except on special occasions. I have also heard the argument about the alcohol making the water potable yet I have never seen anyone document it. Instead it appears to be an old-wives tale. Also, "wine" was never drank "full strength". It was always diluted with three parts water (average). Additionally, the wine of the first century is nothing close to the "wine" of today. People in that part of the world use the same water table that was there way back when - people today do not use alcohol to make the water potable today. Why would they have to then?

Much more could be said...

If you want to have an intellectual discussion start by using intelligence. Don't throw out accusations without backing up the assertion.

Start by providing evidence that godly women wore pants.
Please feel free to use the Bible instead of Native American Culture or Islamic culture.

Tonights winners are Pliny and Esaias