Friends church droppped "standards"

[Jay]

Originally Posted by UltimateUltraConservative

It also may have something to do with location of where you live. Sounds like you live in an area where those activities are available to do within a close proximity. I lived for a while in the south and midwest and those were things I either saw or experienced while there. In California, living in a large city it's not so "within reach." There are a LOT of girls I know who would LOVE to do those activities. A whole lot more than you think.

We saved up to go on trips where we could do some of those things. Branson and Silver Dollar City, Missouri; Colorado Springs, Colorado, among many other place are where we have gone for trips.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by UltimateUltraConservative

Would the Pentecostal woman really consider leaving her child to go off to war in the first place? Or consider going at all, regardless of parental status? Just wondering...

If government decides and passes a law requiring conscription (military draft) to the nation for all people between the ages of 18-35, the women will not have a choice in the matter. There has been talk in the not so distant past of military conscription for females.

[UltimateUltraConservative]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

If government decides and passes a law requiring conscription (military draft) to the nation for all people between the ages of 18-35, the women will not have a choice in the matter. There has been talk in the not so distant past of military conscription for females.

Oh really?! I hadn't heard that. Guess I'd better start praying and fasting or go into hiding until I'm 36 then! lol

[Jay]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

If government decides and passes a law requiring conscription (military draft) to the nation for all people between the ages of 18-35, the women will not have a choice in the matter. There has been talk in the not so distant past of military conscription for females.

There should be a conscientious objector status just as there was in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. If there is, our ladies should be lining up around the block for it. This would solve any objections. If that fails, then we should understand that we are under persecution for our religious convictions, something that has begun to happen anyway.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by UltimateUltraConservative

My view is that if it's the pastor "raking," I'll use my pastor for an example: he would only do "raking" for that if he sincerely felt that pants, whether or not they were practical, is wrong, and he completely adheres to that belief.

He can only speak for himself...he does not have the right to rake anybody else over the coals for his belief. Why should he force his belief on others?

Originally Posted by UltimateUltraConservative

He ultimately has to answer for that...he has a church he is trying his best to present to God without spot or wrinkle.

Hmmmm...

No he doesn't.

Christ presents HIS church to God without spot or wrinkle. We are all required to obey Christ and His commandments. Christ never made one disciple head over another. In fact, He told his disciples that the gentiles love to have kings lord over them. Let it not be so among you. Read Mark 10:35-45 and Matthew 20:20-48.

The pastor does not get a saint into heaven. It is the blood of Christ and His righteousness that redeems a saint. If a pastor wants to please the Lord, then he will pattern himself after Peter, of whom the Lord told to "feed my sheep". Not lord over my sheep.

Originally Posted by UltimateUltraConservative

Women in the old days (what I'm thinking of is Laura Ingalls Wilder-types) used to do all kinds of work in skirts, they were just fuller and longer. The trend we see today has them showing off more of their bodies, whether it's a shorter skirt, tighter skirt, tighter pants, low-rider pants. I personally don't wear pants and have a hard time understanding where pants would be absolutely necessary over a skirt.

If all women worked at home then pants would not be necessary.

Some of us had to work whatever job we could find to feed ourselves and family. I dare say that many women today do not know what it is to physically work hard laboring for money to pay the bills...and I am not just talking about putting a burger and fries in a bag and shove it out the drive-through window.

Laura Ingalls day? We don't live in that day anymore. But women today, (like you earlier talked about culture changes and we must change with it) work in manufacturing jobs, police work, hospitals, mechanical, plumbing etc. Long flowing skirts get caught in machinery and can pull a person into machinery. Who would work the beat in police work in a skirt? People do not care if they beat up a woman in which a handful of skirt to grab to drag her into the grasp of criminals would be quite handy. So yes, there are many reason why working in a skirt is impractical, even though you or many other pentecostal women cannot see it.

But then many of the pastor's wives I've seen in 30 years do not have to put their nose to the grinding rock 40 hours a week and come home to care for their children and house chores. Not saying there are not any who do not work, but just saying none that I've seen in 30 years.

And...I've not seen a pastor yet who refused the tithes a female worker pays to him.

Wearing dresses only does not ensure modesty. I can remember not too long ago when my husband and I were sitting in a restaurant. He wanted to get out of there fairly quick because there was a young lady getting her kicks out of opening her legs at the table displaying her genitals to the men. She was not wearing underwear. It's an old trick I've seen throughout my years. Even long skirts are hiked up high enough for this to be done.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by UltimateUltraConservative

Oh really?! I hadn't heard that. Guess I'd better start praying and fasting or go into hiding until I'm 36 then! lol

You haven't been paying attention to the last 2 presidents State of the Union addresses? Bush and Obama both made references to military or civil service for all young men and women.

But...what about those younger than you? Or your daughters?

Consider this one article about it from 2 years ago. The fact that it actually made it into the MSM tells the people that the government has been considering it for years.

Oh and the age limit has been going up each time one of the Congressmen introduce a mandatory service bill. This one from 2010...the age limit went up to 42-years-old.

"The bill provides for a national-service obligation – either military or civilian – for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42."


http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/184325/

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Jay

There should be a conscientious objector status just as there was in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. If there is, our ladies should be lining up around the block for it. This would solve any objections. If that fails, then we should understand that we are under persecution for our religious convictions, something that has begun to happen anyway.

Jay, just so you remember...I consider you to be a very bright young man. You know that. Any disagreement I have with you does not change my opinion.

I am old enough to know that some religious people persecute other people who do not share their 'convictions'. I've seen it too many times. Look at what is in the news today about the Amish man who are on trial for a hate crime of cutting off the beards and hair of women who disagreed with his pov.

Is it only persecution when it happens to religious people? But it becomes 'correction' when religious people do it to people who do not share their pov?

The people who are in power use an old trick. It is called the power of public opinion. They used it to crucify Jesus back in that day and it will be used today when people 'object' to do service to their country in 'time of need'. Persecution will not be a politically correct term in the future.

My very first pastor was a conscientious objector. He had to serve anyway. Although he did not have to pick up a gun and go into combat, he still had to do his tour of duty in Vietnam. The very likely hood of getting wiped out from enemy combat was still there.

Service will not always be combat, but I doubt that sons and daughters will be allowed to stay in their hometown area.

My good friend has a divorced daughter with two little children. She was unable to obtain a decent job to support herself and her children so she went into service for a steady income. They shipped her to Afghanistan. Her parents are keeping her children while she is gone. She may or may not survive.

There are so many situations and variables in life that Pentecostal people do not take in account. It is so totally foreign to them that some women must do what they have to do to take care of their family.

[UltimateUltraConservative]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

He can only speak for himself...he does not have the right to rake anybody else over the coals for his belief. Why should he force his belief on others?

I believe that the pastor sets the standards to a degree. Why be a pastor otherwise? I don't feel he's forcing it on me. I do it because I want to.

Christ presents HIS church to God without spot or wrinkle. We are all required to obey Christ and His commandments. Christ never made one disciple head over another. In fact, He told his disciples that the gentiles love to have kings lord over them. Let it not be so among you. Read Mark 10:35-45 and Matthew 20:20-48.

It also says in those passages "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister" and "whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant." Isn't that what a good pastor does is minister to you, serves you, shows you the way? He's the watchman on the wall...I'll let him lead me. Him telling me to not wear pants, I don't have a problem with that. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything if I don't wear them. I already don't wear them simply because I LOVE my skirts!

The pastor does not get a saint into heaven. It is the blood of Christ and His righteousness that redeems a saint. If a pastor wants to please the Lord, then he will pattern himself after Peter, of whom the Lord told to "feed my sheep". Not lord over my sheep.

You're right...the pastor doesn't get the saints to heaven...but he is to minister to them...they can't hear without a preacher.

If all women worked at home then pants would not be necessary.

Some of us had to work whatever job we could find to feed ourselves and family. I dare say that many women today do not know what it is to physically work hard laboring for money to pay the bills...and I am not just talking about putting a burger and fries in a bag and shove it out the drive-through window.

Laura Ingalls day? We don't live in that day anymore. But women today, (like you earlier talked about culture changes and we must change with it) work in manufacturing jobs, police work, hospitals, mechanical, plumbing etc. Long flowing skirts get caught in machinery and can pull a person into machinery. Who would work the beat in police work in a skirt? People do not care if they beat up a woman in which a handful of skirt to grab to drag her into the grasp of criminals would be quite handy. So yes, there are many reason why working in a skirt is impractical, even though you or many other pentecostal women cannot see it.

Plumbing can be done in a skirt. Hospital work can be done in a skirt. Police work you knowingly get into and it's not necessary as you have to go through a lot of training to be a police office. Other police work is available without having to wear pants. The scenario you give, of course a skirt is impractical! I certainly wouldn't do it. And I work in a manufacturing industry and am the only one wearing a skirt. The company makes provisions for me with my beliefs. My skirts are long enough without looking like I'm from the prairie that they cannot see anything when I go up to control rooms, climbing ladders.

And...I've not seen a pastor yet who refused the tithes a female worker pays to him.

Why would he refuse it? If it's honestly, morally and ethically earned...

Wearing dresses only does not ensure modesty. I can remember not too long ago when my husband and I were sitting in a restaurant. He wanted to get out of there fairly quick because there was a young lady getting her kicks out of opening her legs at the table displaying her genitals to the men. She was not wearing underwear. It's an old trick I've seen throughout my years. Even long skirts are hiked up high enough for this to be done.[

You're right...wearing dresses only does not ensure modesty...it really doesn't matter what you wear, there is always opportunity for showing something of yourself if that's what you really want to do...

[UltimateUltraConservative]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

You haven't been paying attention to the last 2 presidents State of the Union addresses? Bush and Obama both made references to military or civil service for all young men and women.

But...what about those younger than you? Or your daughters?

Consider this one article about it from 2 years ago. The fact that it actually made it into the MSM tells the people that the government has been considering it for years.

Oh and the age limit has been going up each time one of the Congressmen introduce a mandatory service bill. This one from 2010...the age limit went up to 42-years-old.

"The bill provides for a national-service obligation – either military or civilian – for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42."


http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/184325/

Nope, haven't paid any attention to the SU addresses.

[UltimateUltraConservative]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Jay, just so you remember...I consider you to be a very bright young man. You know that. Any disagreement I have with you does not change my opinion.

I am old enough to know that some religious people persecute other people who do not share their 'convictions'. I've seen it too many times. Look at what is in the news today about the Amish man who are on trial for a hate crime of cutting off the beards and hair of women who disagreed with his pov.

Is it only persecution when it happens to religious people? But it becomes 'correction' when religious people do it to people who do not share their pov?

The people who are in power use an old trick. It is called the power of public opinion. They used it to crucify Jesus back in that day and it will be used today when people 'object' to do service to their country in 'time of need'. Persecution will not be a politically correct term in the future.

My very first pastor was a conscientious objector. He had to serve anyway. Although he did not have to pick up a gun and go into combat, he still had to do his tour of duty in Vietnam. The very likely hood of getting wiped out from enemy combat was still there.

Service will not always be combat, but I doubt that sons and daughters will be allowed to stay in their hometown area.

My good friend has a divorced daughter with two little children. She was unable to obtain a decent job to support herself and her children so she went into service for a steady income. They shipped her to Afghanistan. Her parents are keeping her children while she is gone. She may or may not survive.

There are so many situations and variables in life that Pentecostal people do not take in account. It is so totally foreign to them that some women must do what they have to do to take care of their family.

I agree with this last statement to a degree. I believe that if sincere prayer and fasting have been done with diligence, that God would meet every need possible. I also believe that there are instances where one just has to, in addition, trust that God is their source and know that He will make sure everything is all right.