JP looking our way

[Servetus]

Originally Posted by tv1a

According to scripture, standards become witchcraft when one attempts to impose them on others by threatening their salvation or judging their walk with God. No axe to grind. Scripture. Reread Romans and Galatians. It ties in rather nicely.

Did I not say that already?

Originally Posted by Servetus

The problem isn't the standards, it is putting the wrong emphasis/over emphasis on them.

Originally Posted by Servetus

And while I believe in keeping the standards, I do believe we as a church need to re-evaluate the emphasis we put on them. Indeed there is no such thing as "holiness standards", but only "modesty standards".

Now then, about reading Romans and Galatians, can I find them at my local library?

[tv1a]

You did say that. However my answer was responding to the comment that the witchcraft comments was too much. It's scripture. Nothing out of context. As a person with a journalistic background, I cite sources. 2 solid sources with Romans and Galatians. They make a stronger case for the comparison of legalism and witchcraft than any attempt to provide scripture for the magic hair doctrine.

Originally Posted by Servetus

Did I not say that already?




Now then, about reading Romans and Galatians, can I find them at my local library?

[Servetus]

Originally Posted by tv1a

You did say that. However my answer was responding to the comment that the witchcraft comments was too much. It's scripture. Nothing out of context. As a person with a journalistic background, I cite sources. 2 solid sources with Romans and Galatians. They make a stronger case for the comparison of legalism and witchcraft than any attempt to provide scripture for the magic hair doctrine.

Why do you guys want to paint all cons witht he same bursh. Monterrey says cons are weak because they preach against TV. And you (tv1a) say there is no scripture for the magic hair doctine.

To which I respond, 1)I do have a TV, and Dish network to boot and 2)I agree that there is no scripture for "magic hair." Yet reamin very conservative.

So (respectfully,not the way it sounds)- What is your point?

[tv1a]

I made it clear at least a couple times the difference between conservativism and legalism. Legalism is the attempt to impose personal convictions on others. Legalism is making a personal opinion salvational for others.

I have a television, but I don't have the Dish, cable or antenna. Does that make me a conservative. I'll fight fire and brimstone before I call that a monitor.

Originally Posted by Servetus

Why do you guys want to paint all cons witht he same bursh. Monterrey says cons are weak because they preach against TV. And you (tv1a) say there is no scripture for the magic hair doctine.

To which I respond, 1)I do have a TV, and Dish network to boot and 2)I agree that there is no scripture for "magic hair." Yet reamin very conservative.

So (respectfully,not the way it sounds)- What is your point?

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by Servetus

Why do you guys want to paint all cons witht he same bursh. Monterrey says cons are weak because they preach against TV. And you (tv1a) say there is no scripture for the magic hair doctine.

To which I respond, 1)I do have a TV, and Dish network to boot and 2)I agree that there is no scripture for "magic hair." Yet reamin very conservative.

So (respectfully,not the way it sounds)- What is your point?

Uh Servetus,

I quoted Scriptures to show what Paul thought about those who have stronger standards, HE called them weak. I was just echoing that statement.

I come from an ultracon perspective, and remain that way. Yet I also understand that I don't trust humanity. Humanity is weak. We set up standards as guardrails, not for when we are in control but for when we lose control.


M.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Uh Servetus,

I quoted Scriptures to show what Paul thought about those who have stronger standards, HE called them weak. I was just echoing that statement.

I come from an ultracon perspective, and remain that way. Yet I also understand that I don't trust humanity. Humanity is weak. We set up standards as guardrails, not for when we are in control but for when we lose control.


M.

What's wrong with God's guardrails?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Uh Servetus,

I quoted Scriptures to show what Paul thought about those who have stronger standards, HE called them weak. I was just echoing that statement.

I come from an ultracon perspective, and remain that way. Yet I also understand that I don't trust humanity. Humanity is weak. We set up standards as guardrails, not for when we are in control but for when we lose control.


M.

That's called misinterpretation and mischaracterization.

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

That's called misinterpretation and mischaracterization.

Lets take a look and see what he wrote again. Maybe I am missing it but let's look again. With Scriptures of course.


Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Here we see that the weak one abstains from what he is weak towards... (meat), therefore only eating herbs. The stronger ones eat all things, the weak only herbs. Please explain what I am mischaracterising here and misinterpreting. Seems fairly plain to me.

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Please, my friend, tell me how you would interpret this text!



M.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

I come from an ultracon perspective, and remain that way. Yet I also understand that I don't trust humanity. Humanity is weak. We set up standards as guardrails, not for when we are in control but for when we lose control.


M.

And this is why God gave us the Holy Ghost.

[Monterrey]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

And this is why God gave us the Holy Ghost.

Why would that be, just so we could have a few goose bumps? Or is it that He can write Laws upon our hearts, a standard if you will, of how each of us should live?

Again, standards are not for when we are spiritual, but for when we have not prayed and are getting a little carnal.

I know the members of this forum are not that way but for the rest of us humans, sometimes we get weak and need guidelines and standards.



M.