More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Subjective memory...

Pliny, you wrote, and I quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is good to know that someone's grandfather smoked a pipe; therefore, it is okay to smoke, chew tobacco or other controlled substances because someone somewhere did so in history. Sin must be something that no one has ever done...

Where did I say it was okay to smoke?
Where did I say it was okay to chew tobacco?

I simply listed the facts.

Now... I will say this...

You are imposing a 21st century opinion onto the Scriptures. It wasn't until the mid 1960's that tobacco was proven to be harmful for one's health. In fact, prior to this, tobacco was said to be good for you. Even going back as far as the Native American Indians, it was regarded as a sacred thing that had healing properties.

If you lived in the 1790's, you would have thought smoking and tobacco was perfectly healthy. You'd see it much the way people see coffee today.

If you went all the way back to the Middle East in first century Jerusalem, you'd walk through the market and see dozens of people smoking hookah like pipes and selling bushels of Khat (Gat, in Hebrew). You'd walk by a feasting hall and see the men gathered after their meal and they would be laughing and talking, and chatting it up, sharing the events of the day while they passed khat back and forth to chew on. It was like having an after dinner coffee. If you spied into the women's quarters, you'd see the ladies talking and passing a tea containing myrrh. Myrrh was a main ingredient in a tea that was rather invigorating, producing an amphetamine like effect on the drinker. After this customary time of fun and fellowship after eating, you'd find that they'd crash and nap for about an hour or so, much like the Spanish "siesta". They'd then awaken, have some full strength wine, or diluted wine (because the water wasn't always safe to drink), and part ways. They'd be headed home or out to wrap up some last minute details of living. The alcohol content of the wine actually helped kill the bacteria.

If you ranted about khat being a "sin", they'd probably laugh at you. By their standards, if something made you laugh, was festive, and brought joy and good feeling, it was seen as a blessing. However, to become drunken or rendered incapacitated by anything was frowned upon and seen as a sin of excess.

If you went to North Africa around the year 700, you'd notice Muslims drinking a think black substance. It was the precursor of what we know as coffee. They'd drink it to pep up for morning and evening prayers. It was seen as being distinctly "Muslim" and was condemned as being the "devil's brew" by the Pope. It was prohibited and the shipping and selling of it in Europe could land you in prison with many lashes. It was treated very much the way we treat marijuana today. But soon royalty in Europe began sneaking it. Then even priests and commoners. Soon, royalty pressured the Papacy to lift it's ban on the substance because it was seen as being a very lucrative item for trade and royalty didn't want the stigma prohibition brought with it.

My point is, you act like all of human history is dependent upon and beholden to your limited 21st century opinions and interpretations.

[Aquila]

That being said, what we know today about various substances does help us realize that many of these things are bad for one's health. We do well not to eat and drink to excess, smoke, or chew tobacco, and such like. We don't need to be dangled over Hell to have ample reason to not partake in these things. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 6:12 New King James Version (NKJV)
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Some things might be lawful, but harmful. Some things might be lawful, but addictive. We do well not to partake in them simply out of our desire to be pure, healthy, and in control of our lives, which we offer to Jesus, being living sacrifices.

And many things violate the law of love. Is it loving to smoke and drink yourself into an early grave? Look at your family. Is it loving to continue something that will bring such sickness and disease that your family watches you waste away in agony? Oh, this is a direct sin against love. It isn't loving. In this it is indeed sin. So if you partake in tobacco or any of these things, break free and live your life in loving dedication to both God and those around you. You will be blessed beyond measure. But if you do not turn from these things, you will reap the consequences of this sin. Sickness, suffering, and death.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, you wrote, and I quote:



Where did I say it was okay to smoke?
Where did I say it was okay to chew tobacco?

You said the smokers salvation is not questioned; therefore, it is okay. Who are we to question a faithful man who reads his Bible and raises his children in the fear of the Lord? Of course all of this is subjective. Did you see him read his Bible? Did you see him in church? Don't bother answering. They are rhetorical questions because you are to young to have been a witness to it. More feel good narratives based on nothing but opinion. Neither can you definitively state that no one ever questioned their salvation. That is hyperbole and is a false statement. Perhaps you should go back and read where God said not to bear false testimony concerning people. If you doubt this please PROVE that no one ever questioned their salvation.


I simply listed the facts.

No. You did not list "facts". You gave anecdotal "evidence" to support your opinion. Some of this anecdotal evidence even implied that Jesus and the Disciples partook of controlled substances.

It was almost universal - more hyperbole without documenting your assertion. The only reason to suggest an "almost universal practice" is to imply that this practice was a practice of the early church. Otherwise, all it does is attempt to muddy the waters to justify "missing the mark"

hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act

Perhaps you do not believe this?


Now... I will say this...

You are imposing a 21st century opinion onto the Scriptures. It wasn't until the mid 1960's that tobacco was proven to be harmful for one's health. In fact, prior to this, tobacco was said to be good for you. Even going back as far as the Native American Indians, it was regarded as a sacred thing that had healing properties.

WOW! Now native American Indian culture is used to justify "missing the mark". It is not rocket science. People addicted to nicotine are under its dominion. The Bible says that we should not be brought under the dominion of anything, even if it is "lawful (! Cor. 6:12), But go ahead, ignore the Bible and use Native American Indian culture to justify yourself. Perhaps you could even go back to ancient Greek culture to justify narcotics. I think I will stick with the Bible.

If you lived in the 1790's, you would have thought smoking and tobacco was perfectly healthy. You'd see it much the way people see coffee today.

Now you pretend to tell me what I would think if I fell into a time warp? Good grief.

If you went all the way back to the Middle East in first century Jerusalem, you'd walk through the market and see dozens of people smoking hookah like pipes and selling bushels of Khat (Gat, in Hebrew). You'd walk by a feasting hall and see the men gathered after their meal and they would be laughing and talking, and chatting it up, sharing the events of the day while they passed khat back and forth to chew on. It was like having an after dinner coffee. If you spied into the women's quarters, you'd see the ladies talking and passing a tea containing myrrh. Myrrh was a main ingredient in a tea that was rather invigorating, producing an amphetamine like effect on the drinker. After this customary time of fun and fellowship after eating, you'd find that they'd crash and nap for about an hour or so, much like the Spanish "siesta". They'd then awaken, have some full strength wine, or diluted wine (because the water wasn't always safe to drink), and part ways. They'd be headed home or out to wrap up some last minute details of living. The alcohol content of the wine actually helped kill the bacteria.

Sooo... Jesus smoked hooka pipes? He would pass khat between Himself and His Disciples? I guess Matthew, Mark, Luke and John forgot to mention that in their writings concerning those events. If you are not suggesting this is what Jesus and the Disciples did this whole argument is silly. So say so plainly: did Jesus do what you are suggesting was an "almost universal practice"? More unfounded hyperbole and obfuscations to ignore the truth and justify carnality.

If you ranted about khat being a "sin", they'd probably laugh at you. By their standards, if something made you laugh, was festive, and brought joy and good feeling, it was seen as a blessing. However, to become drunken or rendered incapacitated by anything was frowned upon and seen as a sin of excess.

Okay... so long as a person is a "happy drunk" it is okay. Got it. FTR I don't care what "their standards" were or are. I do care what God's standards are. You can justify yourself using Indian culture or any other culture if you like. I will stick with the Bible and God's standard.

If you went to North Africa around the year 700, you'd notice Muslims drinking a think black substance. It was the precursor of what we know as coffee. They'd drink it to pep up for morning and evening prayers. It was seen as being distinctly "Muslim" and was condemned as being the "devil's brew" by the Pope. It was prohibited and the shipping and selling of it in Europe could land you in prison with many lashes. It was treated very much the way we treat marijuana today. But soon royalty in Europe began sneaking it. Then even priests and commoners. Soon, royalty pressured the Papacy to lift it's ban on the substance because it was seen as being a very lucrative item for trade and royalty didn't want the stigma prohibition brought with it.

Again, more justification using other cultures. You can use Islam to justify yourself. I will stick with Jesus not Allah. Help yourself though. Perhaps you can go and join a Mosque if you like. You can wage a jihad against the infidels that stick with the Bible. I am one of those infidels that will stick with the Bible.

My point is, you act like all of human history is dependent upon and beholden to your limited 21st century opinions and interpretations.

Finally we get to your point... I have given testimony from ancient history and the Bible and you have given Indian culture and Islamic culture but somehow you have twisted it to mean that I have a "limited 21st century opinion. LOL! Really? This is tragically sad. It's kind of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Use anything except the Bible to justify yourself...

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... You are okay with "addictions"?

You can justify smoking, women wearing men's apparel and vice versa if you like. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. I will not be brought under the "power" of anything. 1 Co 6:12

RWP
Paul is determined not to be a slave to anything harmless in itself. He will maintain his self-control.

Paul refused to be brought under the "power" of even "lawful" things yet some here would argue that ungodly things are okay because someone somewhere at sometime did it. This justification is based on them being a "good" person.

Yet, the Bible still says:
(Pro 14:12 KJV) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

(Pro 16:25 KJV) There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

There is no such thing as a "good" man:
(Psa 14:1 KJV) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(Psa 14:3 KJV) They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Psa 53:3 KJV) Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Mar 10:18 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


The very best man can do is "filthy" in the eyes of God.
(Isa 64:6 KJV) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Go ahead, ignore the word of God. If it "feels good" do it. Then, justify it by saying you are "following the spirit". No one can make anyone do anything.

I will "follow" (which means to chase it as if in a hunt) holiness without which no man may see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

Most "hunt" for the fringes rather than for holiness. They try to see how far away from holiness they can get rather than trying to chase holiness as of in the hunt for it. All the while justifying their carnality with "feelings" rather than the word of God and the timeless principles God has given us to live by.

Holy cow! Where did I say I was ok with addictions????

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm curious, do you have any Scripture that affirms that Hebrew men wore pants under their cloaks?

I posted them? Didn't you look at my original posting with the scripture references? I guess I should of posted them again, so you can ignore them again?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Holy cow! Where did I say I was ok with addictions????

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I agree with Aquila on this issue. If you're making a logical argument about smoking and say that it is harmful to the body therefore it is sinful, then you must examine all other things that harm the body and cause health issues and use that same argument to label those a sin as well.

Yes.... food can be a HUGE addiction.

I've struggled with food addiction for years.

Don't preach against smoking and make food your god.

I asked a question. Hence, the question mark at the end of my sentence. However, you said you agree with Aquila.

Yes, food can be a huge addition. Many people are hundreds of pounds because of it. They usually die fairly young - I think.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Yes our ladies do wear dresses. However I do not teach Deut 22 means men should wear pants and ladies dresses for neither existed as we know them today. Yes I know there were short britches under the robes of certain men however as a general rule most wore robes in those day or at least that is my opinion.

I used to think Deut 22 meant for women not to wear long pants but after much study I do not think that is what Deut. teaches. HOWEVER there is enough Bible teaching all how to dress without misusing Deut. 22. Some time ago I did a study about some other things in Deut 22 that one of our preachers asked me about and it seems to me that God did not want them mixing with the pagan beliefs around them. Canaanite fertility worshipers.". That is why they were commanded not to plant 2 different kinds of seed together...

These and other prohibitions were designed to forbid the Israelites to engage in fertility cult practices of the Canaanites. The Canaanites believed in sympathetic magic, the idea that symbolic actions can influence the gods and nature…. Mixing animal breeds, seeds, or materials was thought to “marry” them” so as magically to produce “offspring,” that is, agricultural bounty in the future.(Think Christianity)



I have not said much since it was said in so many words I was not helping those who preach standards...not the exact words but I took it to mean that.



Personally after years of study I do not have to take a scripture out of its setting to preach or teach. Everyone that knows me KNOWS how dress and a picture says what our mouths often do not say....just take a look at my ladies and how I live and teach is revealed in them....

Awesome! Please give us all the verses you use now to prove women shouldn't wear pants

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Finally we get to your point... I have given testimony from ancient history and the Bible and you have given Indian culture and Islamic culture but somehow you have twisted it to mean that I have a "limited 21st century opinion. LOL! Really? This is tragically sad. It's kind of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Use anything except the Bible to justify yourself...

Pliny, you wrote:

You said the smokers salvation is not questioned; therefore, it is okay.

No. I said the smoker's salvation "was" not questioned. My entire statement is here:

And their salvation was never questioned.

And that's the truth. It wasn't. Remember, they thought smoking was actually good for you. In 1960, in a poll organized by the American Cancer Society, only a third of all US doctors agreed that cigarette smoking should be considered ‘a major cause of lung cancer’. The FACT is that prior to all of this, their salvation wasn't questioned. That's really all I said.

Who are we to question a faithful man who reads his Bible and raises his children in the fear of the Lord? Of course all of this is subjective. Did you see him read his Bible? Did you see him in church? Don't bother answering. They are rhetorical questions because you are to young to have been a witness to it. More feel good narratives based on nothing but opinion. Neither can you definitively state that no one ever questioned their salvation. That is hyperbole and is a false statement. Perhaps you should go back and read where God said not to bear false testimony concerning people. If you doubt this please PROVE that no one ever questioned their salvation.

Can you prove they did? You seem to be pretty sure about yourself. We're talking during the 1930's and earlier.

No. You did not list "facts". You gave anecdotal "evidence" to support your opinion. Some of this anecdotal evidence even implied that Jesus and the Disciples partook of controlled substances.

First, these substances weren't controlled back in those days. Second, I never mentioned that Jesus and His disciples partook on kaht. However, I did ask if it would matter if they did. Would it matter if they did? Or, what if they drank coffee?

It was almost universal - more hyperbole without documenting your assertion. The only reason to suggest an "almost universal practice" is to imply that this practice was a practice of the early church. Otherwise, all it does is attempt to muddy the waters to justify "missing the mark"

hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act

Perhaps you do not believe this?

When did I say it was a practice of the early church? My point was that it would have been something they would have no doubt encountered. However, it is notable that none of the historians of the church mention any condemnation of it.

WOW! Now native American Indian culture is used to justify "missing the mark". It is not rocket science. People addicted to nicotine are under its dominion. The Bible says that we should not be brought under the dominion of anything, even if it is "lawful (! Cor. 6:12), But go ahead, ignore the Bible and use Native American Indian culture to justify yourself. Perhaps you could even go back to ancient Greek culture to justify narcotics. I think I will stick with the Bible.

I never justified anything, I was pointing out that attitudes about various substances evolve over time. That's all.

Now you pretend to tell me what I would think if I fell into a time warp? Good grief.

You do know that some of the largest tobacco farmers in those days were actually rather religious Christians, don't you?

Sooo... Jesus smoked hooka pipes? He would pass khat between Himself and His Disciples? I guess Matthew, Mark, Luke and John forgot to mention that in their writings concerning those events. If you are not suggesting this is what Jesus and the Disciples did this whole argument is silly. So say so plainly: did Jesus do what you are suggesting was an "almost universal practice"? More unfounded hyperbole and obfuscations to ignore the truth and justify carnality.

Again, I never mentioned Jesus or the disciples. I was only talking about a common occurrence among the common people. You're exaggerating what I said well out of bounds and misrepresenting what I said. This isn't politics, it's a religious discussion. That means, you're bordering on not only lying, but slander.

Okay... so long as a person is a "happy drunk" it is okay. Got it. FTR I don't care what "their standards" were or are. I do care what God's standards are. You can justify yourself using Indian culture or any other culture if you like. I will stick with the Bible and God's standard.

Even the Bible illustrates my overall point:

Psalm 104:14-15 King James Version (KJV)
14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

We agree that drunkenness is a sin. However, if one isn't "drunk" how can they be a "happy drunk"??? They often avoided drunkenness by diluting the wine and not over imbibing.

Again, more justification using other cultures. You can use Islam to justify yourself. I will stick with Jesus not Allah. Help yourself though. Perhaps you can go and join a Mosque if you like. You can wage a jihad against the infidels that stick with the Bible. I am one of those infidels that will stick with the Bible.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply illustrating how we can't ASSUME that ancient cultures think like we do.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Holy cow! Where did I say I was ok with addictions????

He's greatly exaggerating things to beat on his moralistic chest. He's not even trying to have an intellectual conversation on the issues. lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I posted them? Didn't you look at my original posting with the scripture references? I guess I should of posted them again, so you can ignore them again?

None of those references mentioned "pants". And you argue that the males in Israel wore "pants" under their garments. Do you have Scripture stating so?