Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Simple! If it is USED by harlots, then a notion of harlotry can be implemented in the thought of jewelery. But the obvious case is that it is not restricted to harlotry. Rebekkah wore jewelry. Was she a harlot? Why would God use harlotry's emblems for showing love for His bride? Can you answer that?
And He repeatedly affirms the acceptance of jewelry in other places. Your criteria is limited to that which is less than God limits it. In some cases it is wrong, in others it is not wrong. Simple! It may be HOW it is used! Ever think of that?
|
Contrare' Monfrare...The Ol' Rebekah excuse. Mike have you ever realized that in Rebekah's time jewelry was not a problem for his people, but as time progressed God began to show His disapproval w/ it?? "Put O-F-F [not 'ON'] thy ornaments, that I may know what to do w/ you."
Your logical fallacy is called the "Fallacy of Neglected Aspect." That is, you present one-sided arguments, all the while ignoring the other side. To make matters worse, most of the arguments that you foster are extracted from figurative passages, which as we've seen, cuts both ways!. When it comes to the literal condemnation of jewelry, you simply sweep it under the rug. Sorry Charlie...ain't happenin' here!
Be back tommorrow....forced to run for the day! Should have more time tommorrow.
Threaded Mode
