|
Tab Menu 1
| Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun! |
 |
|
05-31-2008, 10:00 PM
|
|
Pot Stirrer
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,102
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
Compromiser. Liberal.
Obviously you have "gone charismatic".
|
haha! I believe that everyone is at different levels. To them who know to do right .....
I do know a church in CA. that gives new people 2 week to "clean it up". that means get rid of the TV, shave the mustache, the pants have to go and the pastor wifes instructs the lady how to do the updo. If not, they are goners
|
05-31-2008, 10:09 PM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 86
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShofarMan
Hell is hell brother and not even a UPC membership card is going to be enough to save some.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StMark
Well it looks like I'm the only one holding up the Blood stained banner for the Lord on this here Pants issue!
Not one conservative came to my defense !
.
|
I did
|
05-31-2008, 10:12 PM
|
|
Pot Stirrer
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,102
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShofarMan
I did
|
I'm talking about debating and giving explanations. Epley comes in and just says " it's an abomination" you come along and say " your going to hell" without engaging anyone in debate
|
05-31-2008, 10:14 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16,848
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by StMark
I'm talking about debating and giving explanations. Epley comes in and just says " it's an abomination" you come along and say " your going to hell" without engaging anyone in debate
|
That is because other than pointing to bathroom door signs as doctrine there is no Bible for it
|
05-31-2008, 10:17 PM
|
 |
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,903
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1
That is because other than pointing to bathroom door signs as doctrine there is no Bible for it |
Doth not nature teach you?????????????
When nature calls the sign is on the door to teach you! 
|
05-31-2008, 10:20 PM
|
 |
Jesus is the Christ
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,484
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
Doth not nature teach you?????????????
When nature calls the sign is on the door to teach you! |
Nature -- is a bathroom door? Bro. Epley I want to buy you a bible dictionary.
__________________
If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24
Mone me, amabo te, si erro
No real problem exists over the use of "The Name" in everthing else done in the Church. Why then should there exist great controversy over the use of the "The Name of the Godhead" in water baptism?
Kevin J. Conner The Name of God p. 92
|
05-31-2008, 10:32 PM
|
 |
Forever Loved Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 26,537
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkstokes
Nature -- is a bathroom door? Bro. Epley I want to buy you a bible dictionary.
|
I think he was being facetious.
__________________
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8 KJV
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 KJV
|
05-31-2008, 10:18 PM
|
|
Jesus is the Christ
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,484
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by StMark
I'm talking about debating and giving explanations. Epley comes in and just says " it's an abomination" you come along and say " your going to hell" without engaging anyone in debate
|
That is right Mark! If they had more proof they would use it.
I like a woman in a dress. However, if you research the matter sincerely you will find that it is misapplication. The question must be asked: HOW DID THEY APPLY IT THEN?
The difference in dress consisted on different undergarments, the belts (or material used to tie at the waist), and the hem of the robe.
Pants that women wear are different from men -- frankly most men could not wear by how they are cut.
Now they will respond -- YOUR GOING TO HELL -- Its an abomination!
__________________
If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24
Mone me, amabo te, si erro
No real problem exists over the use of "The Name" in everthing else done in the Church. Why then should there exist great controversy over the use of the "The Name of the Godhead" in water baptism?
Kevin J. Conner The Name of God p. 92
|
05-31-2008, 10:28 PM
|
|
Pot Stirrer
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,102
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkstokes
That is right Mark! If they had more proof they would use it.
I like a woman in a dress. However, if you research the matter sincerely you will find that it is misapplication. The question must be asked: HOW DID THEY APPLY IT THEN?
The difference in dress consisted on different undergarments, the belts (or material used to tie at the waist), and the hem of the robe.
Pants that women wear are different from men -- frankly most men could not wear by how they are cut.
Now they will respond -- YOUR GOING TO HELL -- Its an abomination!
|
BUt you are talking about ancient civilization stokes. You don't think that Duet 22 applies to whatever time frame you are in ? I know that 99% of the women now wear pants but again I ask, isn't this as a result of the breakdown of society ( for the worse, not better!)
|
05-31-2008, 10:33 PM
|
|
Jesus is the Christ
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,484
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by StMark
BUt you are talking about ancient civilization stokes. You don't think that Duet 22 applies to whatever time frame you are in ? I know that 99% of the women now wear pants but again I ask, isn't this as a result of the breakdown of society ( for the worse, not better!)
|
I was taught in heremeneutics that in order to properly apply the Bible one needed to properly interpret it in its original time and setting.
Most scholars believe that this verse was explicitly geared towards women who actively looked to be like a man. What we today would call a Butch. In this case, I do think a woman is displeasing God. She is intentionally trying to confuse the sex barrier. However, 99% of the women are not trying to confuse the sex barrier nor are they wearing men's clothing. It is clothing fashioned for them and their bodies.
__________________
If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24
Mone me, amabo te, si erro
No real problem exists over the use of "The Name" in everthing else done in the Church. Why then should there exist great controversy over the use of the "The Name of the Godhead" in water baptism?
Kevin J. Conner The Name of God p. 92
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 PM.
| |
