More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

while men bloody themselves while stabbing each other to death, Sister Alvear and her ladies have dressed and are gone

Thank you for this post. I have to agree with Sis. Alvear.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If a Christian discovers that there is something they've been doing that was contrary to the will of God, but they did not know it until just now, were they lost and bound for hell all this time?

This isn't the issue I've been discussing. The issue is KNOWN sin. You're trying to expand into a completely different subject.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

This isn't the issue I've been discussing. The issue is KNOWN sin. You're trying to expand into a completely different subject.

The issue is not just KNOWN sin, I made that clear pages way back.

You are intellectually dishonest. There is no point in further discussion, so have at it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue is not just KNOWN sin, I made that clear pages way back.

You are intellectually dishonest. There is no point in further discussion, so have at it.

You wanted to try and change the subject to include things other than known sin. I have been discussing known sin. I'm not dishonest, you are.

I agree there's no point in discussing this with you any further.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue is not just KNOWN sin, I made that clear pages way back.

You are intellectually dishonest. There is no point in further discussion, so have at it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I guess nDavid and Aquila don't preach for sinners to repent of all known sin, but that sinners must also stop doing all the things they don't know are sins, as well? And that unless they are perfect they are lost and bound for hell, which means under their doctrine nobody can ever believe they are in fact saved. Why? Because who can certainly say they know all the will of God and are doing it without missing anything at all, and have no need to continue learning the will of God more perfectly.

Even the Pharisees weren't that extreme.

Do you always twist and distort and be completely dishonest in your posts, or just when it suits you? You have repeatedly posted claims which are completely untrue and not at all what I've said.

I posted basic Bible 101.

Sin is sin.
There are no degrees to sin based on the timeframe of the believer.
People know what sin is/isn't.
No one can have unrepentant sin in their life and be saved.
People are not perfect, but must repent of sin.

And you disagree with this? You claim I have a "problem" because of this? If you can't agree with this, I'm not the one with a problem.

[Aquila]

My issue is with Deuteronomy 22:5 being used to classify anyone woman who wears pants guilty of abomination. An abomination is something especially detestable to God. An abomination isn't a modesty issue. It isn't a Christian discipline issue. It isn't a carnality issue. It is an ABOMINATION. Sins that are listed as abominations can provoke the wrath of God. An abomination is no small issue.

Yet, those who apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to women wearing pants tend to talk about having patience and understanding for women who must "spiritually mature" into wearing skirts and dresses. How can one have patience and allow another to simply "mature" out of an abomination? An abomination is a sin that immediately imperils the soul.

Those who apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to women in pants will then argue that they are not one's judge when pressed. However, if they believe Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to women wearing pants, God has spoken on the issue, has He not? You're not being a "judge" if you declare that a woman's immortal soul is imperiled should she put on pants.

So, after hundreds of posts wherein they adamantly declare that Deuteronomy declares pants on a woman is an abomination... when it comes to applying their position, they water down the severity of an abomination and begin to treat it like a modesty issue.

That seems inconsistent to me.

P.S.
My first Pastor, Rev. Huss Shearer, used to say that if the Lord returned while a woman was wearing pants, she'd miss the Rapture. He'd also say that if a woman died before renouncing pants, she'd bust Hell wide open. He made no accommodation for what he thought was an abomination. This, while I disagree with his position, is at least consistent.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My issue is with Deuteronomy 22:5 being used to classify anyone woman who wears pants guilty of abomination. An abomination is something especially detestable to God. An abomination isn't a modesty issue. It isn't a Christian discipline issue. It isn't a carnality issue. It is an ABOMINATION. Sins that are listed as abominations can provoke the wrath of God. An abomination is no small issue.

Yet, those who apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to women wearing pants tend to talk about having patience and understanding for women who must "spiritually mature" into wearing skirts and dresses. How can one have patience and allow another to simply "mature" out of an abomination? An abomination is a sin that immediately imperils the soul.

So you would have "conservatives" stand at the door with a list of do's and don'ts? How stupid. I don't care what you think about how I try to reach people. You have now tried again to move the subject from one of fact to one of opinion. Even "abominations" are not the "unpardonable sin". I believe the Bible. Paul said:
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Yes, I absolutely believe people need to be "perfected" (KJV) or "built up" (ESV). According to VWS, this means: "In classical Greek of refitting a ship or setting a bone". Apparently, unlike you, I believe people need time to learn and adjust their lives. And you would castigate a person for showing mercy? Incredible! How Pharisaical of you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Those who apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to women in pants will then argue that they are not one's judge when pressed. However, if they believe Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to women wearing pants, God has spoken on the issue, has He not? You're not being a "judge" if you declare that a woman's immortal soul is imperiled should she put on pants.

I am certainly not sitting on Christ's judgement seat. Again, you would castigate someone for not judging people? How Pharisaical of you. BTW Didn't you indict "conservatives" for being legalists?

The Pharisees were quick to point out and condemn others and this is what you demand conservatives do? How Pharisaical of you. You have a really twisted view of conservatives. This may be due to your history. If so, please do not project your history onto every conservative you meet.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, after hundreds of posts wherein they adamantly declare that Deuteronomy declares pants on a woman is an abomination... when it comes to applying their position, they water down the severity of an abomination and begin to treat it like a modesty issue.

Sooo... You believe showing mercy is watering down the gospel? Poor Jesus. Why did He provide mercy to the woman caught in adultery? After all, He watered down the "Word" right?

You castigate us for standing on the Bible then, castigate us for showing mercy - like Jesus. You definitely sound Pharisaical.

(Mat 23:23 ESV) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
(Mat 23:24 ESV) You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Originally Posted by Aquila

That seems inconsistent to me.

Thankfully, You are not going to sit on Christ's judgement seat either. Your opinion, though meaningful to you, is meaningless to me.

Originally Posted by Aquila

P.S.
My first Pastor, Rev. Huss Shearer, used to say that if the Lord returned while a woman was wearing pants, she'd miss the Rapture. He'd also say that if a woman died before renouncing pants, she'd bust Hell wide open. He made no accommodation for what he thought was an abomination. This, while I disagree with his position, is at least consistent.

So all of your criticism is based upon your personal history and you are projecting this history onto me. Then, you praise the man you could not stand to be under. How utterly tragic. A Shakespearean life of tragedy.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So you would have "conservatives" stand at the door with a list of do's and don'ts? How stupid.

No one said that.

I don't care what you think about how I try to reach people. You have now tried again to move the subject from one of fact to one of opinion. Even "abominations" are not the "unpardonable sin". I believe the Bible. Paul said:
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Yes, I absolutely believe people need to be "perfected" (KJV) or "built up" (ESV). According to VWS, this means: "In classical Greek of refitting a ship or setting a bone". Apparently, unlike you, I believe people need time to learn and adjust their lives. And you would castigate a person for showing mercy? Incredible! How Pharisaical of you.

By your own definition, this isn't about modesty. It's not about a carnal habit, attitude, or behavior. It's an ABOMINATION. You can allow people to grow, be perfected, and built up in areas that are related to Christian disciplines such as modesty, prayer, attitude, etc. But not ABOMINATION. What you're saying is that a polyamorous group of gay guys could attend your church and continue to live in orgiastic homosexuality (abomination) while you just puppet around in the pulpit trying to perfect them, build them up, and edify them. No. Not in our fellowship. Such an abomination would meet immediate and open rebuke. There would be a call for repentance. If continued, the elders would approach them with witness and admonish repentance. If resisted, they'd be told they are not welcome to attend any longer. They would be shunned and we'd treat them like any other obstinate sinner.

I am certainly not sitting on Christ's judgement seat. Again, you would castigate someone for not judging people? How Pharisaical of you. BTW Didn't you indict "conservatives" for being legalists?

You believe the Bible is clear on this being an ABOMINATION. But you are saying you don't have the commission from Scripture to address it as such. Wow. I'm glad you're not my pastor.

The Pharisees were quick to point out and condemn others and this is what you demand conservatives do? How Pharisaical of you. You have a really twisted view of conservatives. This may be due to your history. If so, please do not project your history onto every conservative you meet.

The Pharisees added a lot to the law and majored in minors. And yet... they ignored more serious sin in their midst. Sound familiar???

Sooo... You believe showing mercy is watering down the gospel? Poor Jesus. Why did He provide mercy to the woman caught in adultery? After all, He watered down the "Word" right?

Mercy is for the repentant. God didn't deep fry Sodom and Gomorrah for nothing.

You castigate us for standing on the Bible then, castigate us for showing mercy - like Jesus. You definitely sound Pharisaical.

No, I'm castigating you for demanding that Scripture describes that something is an abomination... then treating it like it's merely a bad habit.

(Mat 23:23 ESV) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
(Mat 23:24 ESV) You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Yep, you make an abomination out of a mole hill... and then refuse to treat it as such.

Thankfully, You are not going to sit on Christ's judgement seat either. Your opinion, though meaningful to you, is meaningless to me.

Abominations are meaningless to you too.

So all of your criticism is based upon your personal history and you are projecting this history onto me. Then, you praise the man you could not stand to be under. How utterly tragic. A Shakespearean life of tragedy.

You're being soft on an abomination. And in doing so, you're watering down the severity of sin that is an abomination.

Don't demand that something be defined as an abomination in dozens and dozens of posts... and then whine like a baby when pressed to treat it as such.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

By your own definition, this isn't about modesty. It's not about a carnal habit, attitude, or behavior. It's an ABOMINATION. You can allow people to grow, be perfected, and built up in areas that are related to Christian disciplines such as modesty, prayer, attitude, etc. But not ABOMINATION. What you're saying is that a polyamorous group of gay guys could attend your church and continue to live in orgiastic homosexuality (abomination) while you just puppet around in the pulpit trying to perfect them, build them up, and edify them. No. Not in our fellowship. Such an abomination would meet immediate and open rebuke. There would be a call for repentance. If continued, the elders would approach them with witness and admonish repentance. If resisted, they'd be told they are not welcome to attend any longer. They would be shunned and we'd treat them like any other obstinate sinner.

This entire post is stupid. But since your position is indefensible you have nothing left.
This makes it sound like you would hammer anyone that is practicing an abomination. Then, you water down your statement and say "If continued" or "If resisted". Which means that you would try to correct their course before dis-fellow-shipping them.

This makes you a hypocrite because you condemn me for showing mercy yet you do the same thing but because I do it, your holier than thou mindset wants to condemn me. There is only one word that describes this admission - hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You believe the Bible is clear on this being an ABOMINATION. But you are saying you don't have the commission from Scripture to address it as such. Wow. I'm glad you're not my pastor.

I am glad I am not your pastor as well. You are quick to condemn in others what you yourself do.
(Mat 7:1 KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
(Mat 7:2 KJV) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Mat 7:3 KJV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Pharisees added a lot to the law and majored in minors. And yet... they ignored more serious sin in their midst. Sound familiar???

Yes it does sound familiar. It sounds like you. You condemn me for using mercy and faith which is exactly what Christ did (Mat. 23:23). You condemn me for using mercy. Shame on you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Mercy is for the repentant. God didn't deep fry Sodom and Gomorrah for nothing.
No, I'm castigating you for demanding that Scripture describes that something is an abomination... then treating it like it's merely a bad habit.

I guess you never read about the Prodigal Son. You have admitted that you do not even understand teh gospel:
(Rom 5:8 KJV) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This is His mercy.

No wonder you are so messed up. You want to be a "teacher" yet you have no idea what the gospel is. How sad.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yep, you make an abomination out of a mole hill... and then refuse to treat it as such.
Abominations are meaningless to you too.

Another stupid post. Still castigating me for mercy. Thank God this is my "condemnation". As to the idea that "abominations are meaningless to me" right... I have spent several days and a lot of time expressing what the Bible demonstrates because it is "meaningless" to me. How stupid. Your position is so bankrupt of Biblical precedence that you have to attack me for anything you can think of. How tragically sad. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're being soft on an abomination. And in doing so, you're watering down the severity of sin that is an abomination.

Don't demand that something be defined as an abomination in dozens and dozens of posts... and then whine like a baby when pressed to treat it as such.

No. I am not being "soft" anymore than Jesus was soft when He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. If that is my charge then I hope God recognizes the mercy and provides me with the same. Unlike you, I am not perfect. I need God's mercy yesterday, today and tomorrow.

I was abominable to Him at one time in my life. I was proud and sometime lied and my feet were swift towards mischief.
(Pro 6:16 KJV) These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
(Pro 6:17 KJV) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
(Pro 6:18 KJV) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
(Pro 6:19 KJV) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Yet, in spite of my abominable acts, Christ showed me mercy by dying for me.
(Rom 5:8 KJV) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I really hope you are not as cruel as you pretend to be here.